R

Irene Juffermans

MSc. Thesis

International Development Studies 2015-2016

Supervisor: Femke van Noorloos

Second reader: Gery Nijenhuis

i

MSc. Thesis : International Development Studies

9th of September 2016

Faculty of Geosciences

Utrecht University

Irene Juffermans

Student number: 5516463

Contact: i.j.m.juffermans@students.uu.nl/ irenejuffermans@hotmail.com.

Cover picture: Community small water tank, Patillas, Puerto Rico. Photo taken by

the author March 2016.

ii

Acknowledgement

Prior to introducing my thesis to the readers, I would like to gratefully and sincerely thank Dr. Graciela

Ramirez-Toro of the host organisation CECIA, a research-centre of the Interamerican University of

Puerto Rico which already for more than 30 years are motivated and eager to support rural communities

in improving their potable water. I would like to thank her for the support and guidance during my

internship and for the help by introducing me to important key actors important to my research. The

office of CECIA was also a pleasant and ‘cool’ place (referring to the airconditiong) to work and useful

for when I had questions or doubts. Additionally, I want to express my sincere gratitude to other

employees of CECIA and especially to Melitza Crespo-Medina, Horacio Ayala and Harvey Minnigh,

who as well supported me in my internship by providing me with interesting insights, advice and data,

and not to forget fun company in the travel hours to Patillas.

Furthermore, I want to thank ‘Don Conde’ and Doña Conde for their warmth and generosity to

welcome me in their house for two weeks. Without the extensive help of Don Conde, I could not have

conducted the amount interviews I wanted. By driving me to all the different houses and communities,

introducing me to key actors, informing me about important and interesting facts of the communities

and the island, gave me a peek into a warm and nice culture of Puerto Rico.

My thanks also go to my supervisor Femke van Noorloos and her knowledgeable and extensive

guidance and support. Without the long chat-sessions, I would not have gained the necessary skills and

analytical view needed to conduct my research and write my thesis.

Additionally, I would like to thank other important persons:

Elizabeth Ryan of the United Nations Global Compact Cities Program which facilitated my internship

with CECIA, Dr. Lorenzo Muñoz and the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico for their transport to

San Germán and my stay in a hotel for the first night, the Gabriella and Paul Rosenbaum Foundation for

the financial support and of crucial importance, all the people of the communities who helped me to

conduct this research; the respondents. Without their input I couldn’t have done this research.

Finally, and of great importance I want to thank the everlasting support and love of my dear

mother Christine Juffermans, my loving boyfriend Fernando Hoeks and my uncle Ab van der Geest and

my dear friends and parents-in-law. Without their support and confidence, I would not have come so far

after 2 years.

iii

Abstract

It is estimated that half of the world’s population resides in rural areas and are supplied by community

small water systems. These community systems are considered vulnerable by cause of the systems

generally lack adequate water treatment and the communities do not have the appropriate technological

knowhow and infrastructure, which in turn can lead to specific health risks. Additionally, the process of

climate change and its effect on freshwater sources, increases the vulnerability of the community small

water systems and requires adequate and sustainable management of the systems. However, this appears

exceptionally challenging in communities which often manage the systems with untrained operators,

lack the economic resources, are located in remote and isolated areas, and the long bureaucratic

processes in order to obtain financial and political support discourage the effort to apply. Therefore, this

study examines the perceptions and knowledge of community residents on their community small water

systems in four rural communities in Patillas, Puerto Rico with the additional focus to assess the

knowledge and perceptions on climate change in relation to the community small water systems. The

users of the community small water systems in this particular region are considered to be exposed to

low potable water quality as a consequence of ineffective water governance, resulting in little or no

treatment of the sources prior to distribution. Additionally, the Puerto Rican population is prone to

specific climate change hazards, which increases the issue of the community small water systems. The

study demonstrates which factors influence the perceptions on the water systems and applied household

water methods which in turn can help governmental and other external agencies to target interventions

to improve the water quality and quantity in the communities. Additionally, it gives clear new insights

of the current risk perceptions of climate change in relation to community small water systems, which

provides opportunities to develop adequate educational and practical interventions. Furthermore, the

study suggests the communities would benefit from improved internal community factors and additional

external support, in order to sustain the community small water systems in the near and distant future

with all the specific hazards they have to deal with.

iv

Table of Contents

List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................... vii

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................ vii

List of Textboxes ................................................................................................................................. viii

Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................ ix

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Theoretical framework ................................................................................................................. 4

2.1. Ethnoecology .......................................................................................................................... 4

2.2. Perception-Cognition-Behaviour Nexus .............................................................................. 6

2.2.1. Perception....................................................................................................................... 6

2.2.2. Cognition ........................................................................................................................ 7

2.2.3. Behaviour ....................................................................................................................... 7

2.3. Empirical evidence ................................................................................................................ 7

2.4. Water governance ................................................................................................................ 12

2.4.1. Illustrative case studies: Governance of rural community water systems ................. 13

3. Contextual framework ................................................................................................................ 19

3.1. Puerto Rico: History and geography ................................................................................. 19

3.2. Economy of Puerto Rico ..................................................................................................... 20

3.3. Demography of Puerto Rico ............................................................................................... 20

3.4. Study Area: Patillas ............................................................................................................. 21

3.5. Rural community small water systems in Puerto Rico .................................................... 21

3.5.1. Safe Drinking Water Act Regulations and the US EPA .......................................... 23

3.5.2. Characteristics case studies ........................................................................................ 25

3.6. Climate change risks Puerto Rico and Patillas ................................................................. 30

4. Research design ........................................................................................................................... 33

4.1. Research questions and objectives ..................................................................................... 33

4.2. Methodology......................................................................................................................... 34

4.3. Conceptual model ................................................................................................................ 35

v

4.4. Data collection methods ...................................................................................................... 36

4.5. Sample strategy.................................................................................................................... 37

4.6. Data analysis ........................................................................................................................ 39

4.7. Limitations study ................................................................................................................. 40

5. Perceptions and knowledge on community small water systems ............................................ 42

5.1. Socio-demographics................................................................................................................. 42

5.1.1. Age distribution ................................................................................................................ 42

5.1.2. Gender distribution .......................................................................................................... 43

5.1.3. Education .......................................................................................................................... 44

5.1.4. Occupation ........................................................................................................................ 45

5.1.5. Household composition .................................................................................................... 45

5.1.6. Income ............................................................................................................................... 46

6. Community small water systems: history and current situation ............................................ 47

6.1. History of rural community small water systems in Patillas ........................................... 47

6.2. Current Water Governance Structure .............................................................................. 48

6.2.1. Water Governance Structure A1 ............................................................................... 49

6.2.2. Water Governance Structure B1 ............................................................................... 49

6.2.3. Water Governance Structure M1 .............................................................................. 50

6.2.4. Water Governance Structure Q1 ............................................................................... 51

6.3. External Support ................................................................................................................. 53

6.4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 55

7. Perceptions on water governance................................................................................................... 56

7.1. Water use regulation. .............................................................................................................. 56

7.2. Involvement and transparency ............................................................................................... 57

7.3. Monthly water service costs .................................................................................................... 58

7.4. Perceptions of responsibility .................................................................................................. 59

7.5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 60

8. Knowledge and Water Perceptions ................................................................................................ 61

8.1. Knowledge of community small water systems ..................................................................... 61

vi

8.2. Water quality ............................................................................................................................ 62

8.3. Water quantity perception: water availability ...................................................................... 65

8.5. Household water treatment ..................................................................................................... 68

8.6. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 69

9. Climate change and extreme weather events ................................................................................ 71

9.1. Climate change and extreme weather events ....................................................................... 71

9.2. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 75

10. Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 76

Rural water governance structure for the community small water systems ............................. 76

Rural water governance and water perceptions ........................................................................... 79

Rural water governance and climate change (risk)-perceptions ................................................. 82

Relevance of the study ..................................................................................................................... 84

11. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 85

Literature list ....................................................................................................................................... 86

Appendix .............................................................................................................................................. 92

Semi-structured interview guide Spanish Version ....................................................................... 92

Semi-structured interview Translated from Spanish to English................................................. 96

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1 Level of community involvement across typologies of community management (2015) ...... 17

Figure 2 Framework for Sustainable Succes in Community Management (2015) ............................... 18

Figure 3 Puerto Rico (2015) .................................................................................................................. 19

Figure 4 Municipalities of Puerto Rico (2010)...................................................................................... 21

Figure 5 Upper Water Tank A1 (2016) ................................................................................................. 26

Figure 6 Agriculture in community B1 (2016) ...................................................................................... 28

Figure 7 Houses and river in B1 ............................................................................................................ 28

Figure 8 House in M1 (2016) ................................................................................................................ 29

Figure 9 Slow-sand filtration system in M1 (2016) .............................................................................. 29

Figure 10 Water-tank and pipelines of Q1 (2016) ................................................................................. 29

Figure 11 House in Q1 (2016) ............................................................................................................... 30

Figure 13 Selection of houses M1 (2016). ............................................................................................ 38

Figure 12 Selection of houses Q1 (2016) .............................................................................................. 38

Figure 14 Age distribution total respondents (2016) ............................................................................. 42

Figure 15 Marital status total respondents (2016) ................................................................................. 45

Figure 16 Old community water-tank B1, not longer operating (2016) ................................................ 49

Figure 17 Construction to protect new filtration system in M1 (2016) ................................................. 51

Figure 18 Educational intervention by CECIA in M1 (2016) ............................................................... 54

Figure 19 Current water quality perception total respondents (2016) ................................................... 64

Figure 20 Water-cistern in B1 (2016) ................................................................................................... 69

Figure 21 Extent of concern for future climate change effects (2016) .................................................. 73

Figure 22 Extent of concern future effects climate change on potable water (2016) ............................ 74

List of Tables

Table 1 Community Management Types (2015) ................................................................................... 16

Table 2 Main characteristics four communities, Patillas (2016) ........................................................... 25

Table 3 Interventions and suggestions to cope with climate change for CSWS (2016) ........................ 32

Table 4 Total Respondents (2016) ........................................................................................................ 38

Table 5 Gender distribution total respondents (2016) ........................................................................... 43

Table 6 Level of education (2016) ........................................................................................................ 44

Table 7 Occupation total respondents (2016) ....................................................................................... 45

Table 8 Water regulation in communities? (2016) ................................................................................ 56

Table 9 Monthly water service tariff (2016) ......................................................................................... 58

Table 10 Knowledge of water systems and interest in learning (2016) ................................................ 61

Table 11 Argumentation positive perception water quality (2016) ....................................................... 62

viii

Table 12 Argumentation negative perception water quality (2016) ...................................................... 63

Table 13 Suggestions for improvement water quality (2016) ............................................................... 65

Table 14 Total response on water availability (2016) ........................................................................... 65

Table 15 Responses per community on water availability (2016) ........................................................ 66

Table 16 Household water treatment frequency per community (2016) ............................................... 68

Table 17 Descriptions climate change and extreme weather events (2016) .......................................... 71

List of Textboxes

Box 1 Personal Small Water System, B1 (2016) .................................................................................. 27

Box 2 Alternative water source in B1 (2016) ........................................................................................ 68

ix

Abbreviations

CAP Cooperativa de Acueductos de Patillas

CECIA Centro de Educación Conservación e Interpretación Ambiental/

Center for Environmental Education, Conservation and Research.

CSWS Community Small Water Systems

CWC Community Water Committee

DRA Demand-driven Approach

EDP Economic Development Plan

ENSIE Eerste Nederlandse Systematisch Ingerichte Encyclopaedie/ First

Dutch Systematic Equipped Encyclopedia

FEGP Fiscal and Economic Growth Plan for Puerto Rico

GDBPR Government Development Bank Puerto Rico

IAUPR Interamerican University Puerto Rico

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IRB Institutional Review Board

PDIPR Plan Desarollo Integral Puerto Rico/Integral Development Plan Puerto

Rico

PRASA Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority

PRCCC Puerto Rican Climate Change Council

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SIS Small Island States

US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

WHO World Health Organization

1

1. Introduction

Observational findings and climate projections provide extensive evidence that freshwater resources are

vulnerable and that climate change strongly can influence these sources. This in turn can have wide-

ranging consequences for human societies and ecosystems (IPCC, 2008; Budds & Loftus, 2014).

Considering the ending supply of water due to different factors (such as population growth,

infrastructural development, changes in land-use and hydrology, geographical location, financial

resources and climate change) crucial management for the demand of water and contamination is

required (Budds & Loftus, 2014; Herrera-Pantoja & Hiskock, 2015; Wilk and Wittgren, 2009 as cited

in Cross and Latorre, 2015). This is exceptionally ambiguous in rural communities which do not receive

proper treated water from government facilities and which do not have the possibility to use appropriate

knowledge and technologies to manage their community small water supplies (Arce-Nazario, Jain, Lim

& Uriarte, 2014; Carter, Trevor and Tyrell, 2005; Hunter, Minnigh & Ramirez-Toro, 2010).

Additionally, climate change and extreme weather events are globally affecting social, ecological and

economic structures and the relationship between the impacts of climate change on water resources is

considered to be one of the most important challenge facing the planet in the 21st century (Means &

Norton, 2010). This destabilization process of climate change on the ecosystems and human livelihoods,

also magnifies the risk of a decrease in the quality and quantity of both surface and groundwater (Cross

& Latorre, 2015).

Approximately half of the world’s population resides in rural areas, which are mostly served by

‘community small water systems’ (CSWS). These systems are considered to be at increased risks of

exposure to waterborne diseases and contamination due to the lower regulatory standards applied

(Chalmers, Hunter, Minnigh, Ramirez-Toro & Robinson, 2015). The CSWS are particularly

characterized of: (I) often untrained operators; (II) located in remote and isolated areas; (III) harder to

obtain financial and political support; (IV) larger percentage of the population is vulnerable; (V) larger

geographically spread and; (VI) more expensive unit cost of materials and construction (WHO, 2010).

Considering this issue, this study focuses on four CSWS in the rural area of the municipality

Patillas in Puerto Rico. These systems are distributed over the island and are particularly located in rural

mountainous area. The number of CSWS in Puerto Rico is estimated between 250-500 of which 180.000

to 250.000 people consume water of variable quality (Ramirez-Toro, 2014). The general belief in the

USA is that users of the CSWS in Puerto Rico are exposed to low tap water quality as a consequence of

ineffective water governance, resulting in little or no treatment of the sources prior to distribution (Arce-

Nazario et al., 2014). Therefore, these systems are considered a health threat for the Puerto Rico

Department of Health, since nearly all of them do not comply with the federal quality standards (Arce-

Nazario et al., 2014). Furthermore, Puerto Rico is vulnerable to various impacts of climate change and

extreme weather events due to its geographical location and it is estimated that this will increase for the

near and distant future (Puerto Rican Climate Change Council PRCCC, 2013; Soderberg, 2016).

2

Likewise, is estimated that climate changes will affect the CSWS in several ways, considering a decrease

in water quality and water quantity (Goodrich, Murray & Yang, 2016; Patterson, 2016; Ramirez-Toro,

2016; Soderberg, 2016). In order to target interventions to improve the water quality and water quantity

in the rural communities, the understanding of the socio-cultural context is important to achieve. Few

research has been conducted on the different factors that contribute to household water use methods and

even less what the perception and knowledge is of the possible climate change impacts on small

community water systems in rural communities (Arce et al, 2014.; Crona, Gartin, Westerhof & Wutich,

2010; Hu, Mahler & Morton 2011; Sobsey, 2002). A good understanding of the processes that influence

public perceptions can contribute to target interventions to improve among other development issues

and matters. In different studies the direct and mutual relation between perceptions, cognitions and

subsequently behaviours are demonstrated for different topics. Topics related to this research, reveals

that perceptions and knowledge of potable water quality appear to influence the strategies people apply

to their water, or in the case of climate change risk-perceptions, experiences with climate change,

worldviews and knowledge (cultural as well as scientific) appear to influence the actions one takes

(Arce-Nazario et al., 2014; Arvai, Siegrist, Shi, & Visscher, 2016; Bord et al., 1999; Carlton, Haigh,

Knutson, Lemos, Mase, Prokopy & Todey, 2015; França, Doria, 2010; Prouty & Zang, 2016; Optiz-

Stapleton, 2009; Vining, 1989;Weber, 2006, 2010; Weber & Stern, 2011).

Accordingly, the primary aim of this study is to investigate perceptions and knowledge of the

residents of four rural communities in Patillas related to their CSWS. In addition, the perceptions and

knowledge of the possible impacts of climate change and extreme weather events on the CSWS are

investigated and to what extent the household water use methods are influenced by this perception.

Furthermore, this study is part of the longitudinal research of the Center for Environmental Education,

Conservation and Research (CECIA) in Patillas Puerto Rico. This study seeks to complement the

longitudinal study in which CECIA investigates the health benefits from installation of community level

water filtration. In assessing and explaining how the people perceive their CSWS, the interrelated

concepts of perception, cognition, behaviour and the theoretical framework of water governance are

used. Toward accomplishing the objective of this study, the central question to guide this research is:

What is the current perception and knowledge on community small water systems of the residents of

Patillas, Puerto Rico and to what extent are their household water methods influenced by their

perception and knowledge of climate change and extreme weather events?

To achieve the objective and answer the main question, specific aspects have been selected which could

influence the perceptions on the CSWS and climate change: (I) perceptions on the current water quality

and water quantity; (II) applied household water treatment methods; (III) perceptions on the current

water governance structure of the CSWS; (IV) current knowledge and perceptions on climate change

and extreme weather events and the related impacts on the CSWS. Conducive to collect the necessary

3

data, a fieldwork study for 3 months has been conducted. During this time, semi-structured interviews

with community residents and experts are carried out. During the fieldwork, the selection of four

communities are made, based on similar characteristics and as a consequence of being a part of the

longitudinal study of CECIA.

The analysis of the perceptions on the CSWS provides policy makers and other external agencies

with important information to effectively create interventions and strategies to provide additional

support for the communities in order to improve the CSWS. In addition, this document could support

the people in charge of the CSWS with insights of the current perceptions of the residents on their

management skills, which in turn provides opportunities to improve the current situation.

In the second chapter the theoretical framework used to guide and analyse this research is

discussed. Chapter 3 addresses the contextual framework to give insights into the background of the

study area, the CSWS , the characteristics of the four case studies and the climate change risks for Puerto

Rico. In the method sector, chapter 4, derived from an operationalisation of the theoretical framework,

the research questions and objectives, the conceptual model, process of the fieldwork and analysis, and

the limitations of the study are addressed. Thereafter in chapters 5-9 are the findings and the analysis of

the empirical data presented, starting with information on the social demographics of the communities

to subsequently continue with the analysis of the different perceptions of the community residents on

the investigated topics. Chapter 10 presents the discussion on the findings and the analysis previously

presented and are consequently contextualised within the literature and the broader theoretical

framework. It also provides implications for further research and specific suggestions for interventions

and explains the relevance of the study. The last chapter, summarises the discussed findings and provides

the answer to the main question and the conclusion of the study.

4

2. Theoretical framework

This chapter provides an introduction to the important concepts and theories uses to guide this research.

The main theoretical concepts will be addressed and important empirical studies are used to understand

the topics investigated in this research.

2.1. Ethnoecology

To study the knowledge and perceptions of local populations in relation to their natural environment

and natural resources, the theoretical framework of ethnoecology is a guided framework to use in such

studies. Ethnoecology is “the study of systems of perceptions, cognitions and the use of the natural

environment of local people” (Nazarea, 1999 p. 1; Blount & Gragson, 1999 p.vii). Ethnoecology

emphasized from the start the importance of traditional cultural non-Western local knowledge, however

this is changed by including the Western cultures. Cultural knowledge is defined as the set of learned

and shared beliefs and behaviours, and these cultural beliefs are the normative beliefs of a group (Crona,

Gartin, Westerhoff & Wuttich, 2005; Weller, 2007; Batchhelder, Romney & Weller, 1986). Below a

brief outline of the key developments of this framework are clarified.

The term ‘ethnoecology’ is increasingly used as an overall concept for natural history studies and

includes the sub-disciplines as ethnobiology, ethnobotany, enthnoentomology and ethnozoology

(Blount & Gragson, 1999). As used as an overall concept for natural history studies, it derives as well

from an anthropological perspective. The term ethnoecology was introduced in 1954 by the cognitive

anthropologist Harold Conklin in his dissertation on ‘The relation of the Hanunuo Culture to the Plant

World’ when he called his approach “ethnological”. With his extensive ethnological and linguistic study

in South-East Asia, he tried to disassemble the dominant view of cultivation which has been seen merely

as a haphazard, destructive and a primitive way of living. Subsequently, the prefix ‘ethno’ was no longer

used as such by academics, but used as a serious attempt toward the understanding of local

understanding. The Western academics were astonished about the ‘apparently’ abundance of knowledge

of the ‘illiterate’. This sense of astonishment has been pursued among others by Conklin in which he

demonstrated and emphasized the Western scientific ignorance and arrogance, considering that other

people’s way of thinking and doing were inferior to the main Western beliefs. Berlin, Breedlove and

Raven (1974) revealed in their study by comparing Western taxonomies with native systems, that native

systems of environmental classifications virtually matched scientific taxonomies by rank and category.

The two different approaches of ethnoecology of Conklin’s (1954) and Berlin et al. (1974) not only

contributed to the development of ethnoecology as well to an increased awareness that other cultures

conceptualize the world in their own terms, which simultaneously reveals that scientific knowledge as

well could be culturally and locally embedded. In addition, they helped to reduce ethnocentric views of

those in Western cultures. As principally the two approaches of ethnoecology by Conklin (1954) and

5

Berlin et al. (1974) decisively focused on the cognitive aspects in the categorisation of the natural

environment in non-western cultures, this changed according to Blount and Gragson (1999). This shift

was necessary according to Nazarea (1999, p. 7) as she states that it was time to turn the attention to the

interface between ‘cognition’ and ‘action’ and the ‘views’ and strategies which shape and structure these

interconnections. The approach shifted to a more universalistic approach to study how people identify

the environment as a whole and not solely the identification of plants and animals, but also to what

extent humans have access to technologies and important needs to sustain their lives. Simultaneously

ethnoecologists tested this cultural knowledge to the Western scientific knowledge, however, several

scholars criticized the need to also understand the contemporary concerns about the representation of

local knowledge and linked problems of authorship, access and control. Nazarea (1999, p. 4) advocates

“These issues inform, or should inform, national, regional and international negotiations about

biodiversity and the commons and about self-determination and intellectual property rights, as well as

our understanding of humans-in-environment.”

Additionally, other scholars emphasized the need to investigate also issues of the Western society

instead of mostly focusing on the ‘other’ (traditional societies), by reason that also Western societies

exist within a wide range of ecosystems and this as well requires an understanding of the present needs

and dangers (Faris, Gill & Haen, 2000; Nazarea, 1999). These studies include investigating how people

perceive their choices and abilities in controlling their environments, specifically in their ability to

subsist (Alan, 2009).

Ethnoecology provides an effective framework for analysing issues related to environmental

management, agricultural sustainability, biodiversity conservation, intellectual property rights along

with facilitating a basic understanding of humans-in-environment (Alan, 2009; Blaunt & Gragson,

1999;; Faris et al., 2000; Nazarea, 1999). Likewise, an ethnoecological approach is widely used in

understanding public risk-perceptions of global warming and climate change, including how people

recognize, understand and respond to risk (Kempton 1991; Bord, Fisher & O’Connor, 1999;

Leiserowitz, 2005, 2006; Brody, Grover, Vedlitz & Zahran, 2008; Agho, Barr, Raphael, Stevens &

Taylor, 2010).

To link the above with this present research, the prime goal is to gain an understanding on how the

people of four communities in Patillas perceive the relation with their small water systems and the

perceptions of climate change in their environment in relation to their small water systems. Here fore,

the understanding of the cognitions, perceptions and actions (behaviour) applied to control and sustain

their environment is investigated and partly compared with the scientific facts through the semi-

structured interviews and observations in the field. Based on the results of the semi-structured

interviews, the concrete actions and thoughts on the water systems and climate change will be covered

in depth in chapters 5-9.

6

2.2. Perception-Cognition-Behaviour Nexus

Several studies demonstrated the interrelation between perceptions, cognitions and behaviours on

different subjects. Topics related to this research, reveals that perceptions and knowledge of potable

water quality appear to influence the strategies people apply to their water, or in the case of climate

change risk-perceptions, experiences with climate change, worldviews and knowledge appear to

influence the actions one takes (Arce-Nazario et al, 2014; Arvai, Siegrist, Shi, & Visscher, 2016; Bord

et al., 1999; Carlton, Haigh, Knutson, Lemos, Mase, Prokopy & Todey, 2015; França Doria, 2010;

Prouty & Zang, 2016; Optiz-Stapleton, 2009; Vining, 1989;Weber, 2006, 2010; Weber & Stern, 2011).

Due to the complex content of the abstract concepts and its meanings, it is not feasible to extensively

elaborate on the concepts of perception, cognition and behaviour. Therefore, in the next subparagraphs

follows a brief explanation of the three concepts and how they relate to this particular research.

Additionally, several relevant empirical studies on the topics subject to this research will be discussed

to clarify the relations.

2.2.1. Perception

Perception is difficult to define unambiguously, because it involves so many different aspects. The

definition and explanation of perception is retrieved from the First Dutch Systematic Equipped

Encyclopedia (ENSIE) (2010) and contains:

“Perception literally means observation. This process is accompanied by interpretation, selection and

organization of sensory information.”

The additional explanation describes that perception is observation in the broadest sense of the word.

The five human senses: hearing, sight, smell, touch and taste are characteristics in which perception

plays an important role. Perception also includes the way people look at different matters. Social

perception refers to the way people function in social processes or within relationships. Not only what

is tangible is subject to perception, likewise invisible and inexplicable matters are subjects of perception

(ENSIE, 2010). Perception is extensively studied in different academic fields such as experimental

psychology, sensory neuroscience, psychophysics, computer science and philosophy (Wikipedia, 2016).

For this research, the definition of perceptions includes the ‘observation in the broadest sense

of the word’, in other words, the full explanation above is applicable to this research. However, the focus

of the perceptions consists mainly of the ‘subjective perceptions’ influencing their actions and thoughts.

This is turn generates a further complex relation between the perception-cognition-behaviour nexus

since all the concepts can affect each other reciprocally.

Additionally, a more specific definition for the particular risk-perception in relation to climate

change is used, which consist of the definition described by Bord et al. (2009) :

“(…) climate change risk-perception is considered as the perceived likelihood of negative

consequences to oneself and society from one specific environmental phenomenon: global warming.”

7

2.2.2. Cognition

Cognition involves even a broader concept in ENSIE (2015) :

“Cognition is a process which account for mental processes which occur during perception,

processing information, learning, thinking and problem solving. The ‘knowing’.”

Prior to achieve ‘cognition’ comes perception, in other words, cognition partly depends on the

perception and on previous experience or knowledge. The concept of cognition originates from

psychology, philosophy and is also well known in the communication science (ENSIE, 2015). Cognitive

psychology is the part of psychology which studies the different processes of cognition (Wikipedia,

2015). A lot of the cognitive human brain processes remains unclear, although brain scans provides

some important insights, there is still a great deal unknown (ENSIE, 2015). In this research the focus of

cognition is on ‘the knowing’ of things related to learning and processed information.

2.2.3. Behaviour

The last abstract concept contains behaviour. There are several types of behaviour. Observable

behaviour, which consists of all actions that are actually visible, unconscious behaviour, which is

controlled by the reflexes and spontaneous behaviour occurring e.g. in panic situations. In addition, there

are internal behaviours, which are not always obvious. An example of internal behaviour is the process

of thinking. Behaviour is genetically and environmentally (nature vs nurture) influenced, although for

numerous years the discussion continues to what extent the environment and genetics affect behaviour.

In the case of intelligence and to what extent it is a natural ability, behaviourists argue that all behaviour

is taught, which means that in this case only the environment plays a significant role in the development

of intelligence, simultaneously other scholars state that intelligence is developed through learning

processes and upbringing. Human behaviour is studied in behavioural studies such as psychology,

sociology and anthropology. ENSIE (2015) provides a short, but clear definition of the term:

“Behaviour consists of all the conscious or unconscious actions, that may or may not be perceptible.

Both humans and animals display behaviour.”

The concept of behaviour investigated for this research contains of the ‘actions’ people apply in the case

of household water use methods for their potable water.

2.3. Empirical evidence

To refer to the present research, different studies explain the influence and interaction between

perceptions and the cognitive and behavioural processes regarding water quality, water quantity and

climate change risk-perceptions and how this can differ from scientific knowledge.

Factors contributing to the public perception of potable water quality and subsequently to

household water treatment strategies, depends on a complex interaction of diverse factors. In many

situations, the perception of water quality is influenced by the taste, turbidity of tap water, attitudes

8

towards water chemicals, traditional and scientific knowledge, risk-perception, perceptions on the water

supply system and water source, specific water properties, trust in water management, former problems

considering water quality, information provided by the media and interpersonal sources, demographics

such as age, gender, income and the period of residing (Arce-Nazario et al., 2014; Crona et al., 2010;

França-Doria, 2010; Optiz-Stapleton, 2009; Prouty & Zhang, 2015; França-Doria, Pidgeon & Hunter,

2009).

Divergence between scientific evidence and cultural perceptions in relation to water quality,

reflects itself in several studies. In the ethnological study of Crona et al. (2010) the cultural perception

of that living in the desert causes warm tap water and therefore algal growth, thus lowering tap water

quality and causing bad taste, is not correct. Crona et al. (2010) explain that algae are removed in the

treatment process and that warm temperatures do not cause algal growth, however, the algae release a

metabolite product prior to their removal in treatment, which causes a particular intense smell to the

water what the people perceive as algae. In the qualitative study of Optiz-Stapleton (2009) in the rural

area of Patillas, Puerto Rico she demonstrates that the cultural knowledge of water quality is precedence

over the known scientific evidence. The majority of the people informed about the health risks caused

by low water quality, argue among other that they never got sick of it and continue to use the tap water,

mostly without proper treatment. This reflects defence mechanisms people apply in order to cope with

stressful realities. One of these defence mechanisms is denial; one simply ignores or refuses to

acknowledge what one sees, thinks or feels (Vining, 1989). In this case, people ignore the potential

health threat completely or deny its importance. In addition, it also explains how people avoid cognitive

effort and rely on their personal experiences. Vining (1989) states that personal experience is highly

memorable and thus readily available and people tend to rely more on what they know from past

experiences in evaluating facing risks than what they know from scientific or technical facts.

In the case of obtaining information about water (cognitive process), people use a variety of

impersonal and interpersonal sources. Which information source is used, varies geographically and is

influenced by demographics and other factors (França-Doria, 2010). Considering impersonal

information on water quality, it appears the mass media can influence public risk-perceptions on water

quality, since drinking water risks are publicized on television and in mainstream movies (Bjerström,

2002), however, Sjoberg and Wahlberg (2000) claim that the overall influence of the media, in reporting

potential problems which is assumed to increase the risk perception, is generally very limited. Although,

interpersonal information about water quality seems to affect perceptions and behaviour stronger than

information by the mass media (Glynn, Park & Scherer, 2001; França-Doria et al., 2005). Considering

efforts to transfer scientific and technical information about water quality to the lay public in order to

increase public knowledge and water quality awareness, seems to have a more limited impact than

expected. Main reason mentioned is the difficulty in communicating about water issues with the public.

(Clayton, Colbourne, Fife‐Schaw & Owen, 1999; Balbus, et al., 2003; Abubakar, Doria, Hughes,

Hunter, & Syed, 2006). Research in the US on the impact of a report presenting drinking water

9

violations, showed that even though the majority (76%) assess it as a comprehensible report, only 58%

was willing to read it carefully (Johnson, 2003). Likewise, evaluation of a contamination warning leaflet

in the US announced by a water company during a contamination period, revealed that the leaflet was

at most ignored by 64% of the surveyed households and the impact was not more productive than

information provided by interpersonal sources and mass media (Aston, O'Donnell & Platt, 2000).

Furthermore, the effect is weak on risk perceptions of chemical contaminants published in health and

medical magazines both at societal and personal levels, which is also explained by health professionals.

Several health professionals assess that their influence on water quality perceptions is small or even

non-significant (Dunwoody & Griffin, 2000; Glynn et al., 2001; Abubakar et al., 2006). The former is

also influenced by the problem of understanding of numerical, scientific and statistical information

which requires a certain cognitive effort for most people. Several literature demonstrates numerous

examples of misconceptions, errors and biases in accurately understanding probability (Ayers &

Lalumandier, 2000; Optiz-Stapleton, 2009; Vining, 1989; Prouty & Zang, 2016;).

Applied household water treatment methods to cope with a lower perceived water quality,

consist mostly of boiling the water; obtaining household level filtration systems; purchasing bottled

water since people tend to perceive bottled water of higher purity; and obtaining water from different

water sources (e.g. rainwater, other rivers/wells) (Arce-Nazario et al., 2014; Ayers, Lalumandier, 2000;

Hu, Mahler & Wright Morton, 2011; Prouty & Zhang, 2016; Raj, 2005; Optiz-Stapleton, 2009). In the

case of purchasing bottled water due to the perception that it contains higher purity, it appears this

perception does not always align with scientific evidence. In different studies in the USA (Ayers,

Lalumandier, 2000; Raj, 2005; Hu, Mahler & Wright Morton, 2011) it appeared that bottled water not

consistently is safer than potable tap water, due to the time the bottles are saved in different temperatures

which can cause the development of different bacteria’s, and the dispensing of unhealthy plastics in the

water. The research of Prouty and Zhang in Uganda (2016) likewise demonstrates that public

perceptions on water quality differs from scientific evidence. In two rural villages in Uganda, people

perceived the rainwater as a reliable water source, which in fact appeared to be of lower quality than

that of their potable water, which in turn they perceived as less reliable. Furthermore, having a tap filter,

doesn’t mean it filters out all the bacteria’s and pathogens according to Patterson (2016). Therefore,

several scholars stress the need to inform the public adequately about proper household water treatment

methods to improve the water quality (Graymore, Jorgensen & Toll, 2009; Hunter, 2009; Patterson,

2016). Nonetheless, achieving behavioural changes in applying water treatment methods to benefit in

the long term is challenging, since people tend to avoid short term suffering and accept the long-term

risks (Vining, 1989).

In the case of perceived water scarcity, people tend to obtain water cisterns, storage tanks,

bottled water or other alternatives. Nevertheless, different household incomes increase the inequalities

as it is not always possible for lower incomes to purchase expensive tap water filtration systems, storage

tanks or bottled water (Darmame & Potter, 2010). Furthermore, factors that influence household water

10

use in relation with a decrease in water quantity, consist among others of perceptions of interpersonal-

trust (people will not save water if they perceive that others do not save either), institutional distrust,

belief of water scarcity, perceptions of environmental changes (e.g. droughts, decrease in rainfall),

household income, water pricing and water use regulations in times of scarcity, and inadequate

knowledge regarding water save methods (Darmame & Potter, 2010; Graymore et al., 2009; Corral-

Verdugo, Espinoza-Gallego, Frías-Armenta, Orduña-Cabrera & Pérez-Urias, 2002). As an example, the

study of Darmame & Potter (2010) asserts that people of Aman in Jordan, which are on a rationing

regime since 1987 (once a week households are supplied with water), have managed to apply different

household water save methods to deal with the scarcity of the water. Despite the income differences in

the two groups under study, the people have developed appropriate strategies to manage their water use,

such as purchasing water cisterns, storage tanks and storing water in bottles.

Risk perception resulting from climate change is a key factor in motivating individual adaptation

and prevention behaviour, as well as for the support of climate policy measures (Frondel, Simora,

Sommer, 2016). Regarding factors that affect climate change risk-perceptions are not only influenced

by scientific and technical descriptions of danger, cultural knowledge and scientific knowledge, but also

by a variety of psychological and social factors, including personal experience, affect and emotion,

imagery, trust, values, myths of nature and worldviews and perceptions on changes over time (Bord et

al., 1999 ; Etkin & Ho, 2007; Leiserowitz, 2005; Slovic, 2000; Weber, 2006, 2010; Weber & Stern,

2011). Furthermore, Slovic (2000) assesses that climate change risk-perceptions as well depends on the

extent of the hazard and to the extent the hazard is involuntary, catastrophic, fatal, known, controllable

or old. Even though the present public awareness regarding climate change is increased by the mass

media and increased government attention, it still does not seem to converge to a common opinion at

the rate that a rational analysis of accumulating scientific evidence would suggest (Oreskes, 2004;

Weber, 2010).

In several research of Weber among the public in the USA (2006, 2010, 2011) and in Germany

in 2016 by Frondel et al., it appears that increasing personal experience with climate change and the

potential devastating consequences can effectively teach and motivate people to act upon. However, this

is more present when the experiences occur and are recognized as the result of human activity.

Nonetheless, Weber (2010) also explains that greater familiarity with climate change, unless

accompanied by alarmingly large negative consequences, may actually lead to smaller rather than larger

risk perceptions. The study of Carlton et al. (2016) contradicts the former, as it appears that people in

the USA which were exposed to extreme climate events (droughts in this case) appeared not to result in

significant shifts in climate beliefs or actions, at least not immediately. Weber (2010) argues further that

there appears to be a general under-concern and greater volatility for climate change risk-perceptions

over time; distant future climate change expectations appears to be a larger concern for the climate

change scientists than they are for the general public.

11

General scientific knowledge not always appears to be a predictor of climate change risk- perception,

instead worldviews tend to increasingly affect the risk-perception, as stated in the study conducted in

the USA of Braman et al. (2012). These outcomes seem to confirm other research in which scholars

assess that increasing scientific knowledge not necessarily mean people’s risk-perception will increase

or will act as a motivator to environmental sustainable actions. However, in a recent research of 2016,

conducted by Arvai et al., evidence clarifies that scientific knowledge about the ‘causes’ of climate

change and known among the public, increases the concern, yet higher levels of ‘physical’ knowledge

(such as knowledge of Co2 emissions, nuclear plants etc.) of climate change appeared to lower the

concerns. Here fore, Arvai et al. (2016) claim that efforts to improve public knowledge about climate

change are therefore not the lost cause that some researchers claim they may be. Although improving

public knowledge can increase one’s awareness and motivate actions, this is highly dependent on how

the public is being educated, according to Weber (2010). People’s (dis)trust in the institution or medium

to obtain information is an important aspect to take into account in knowledge transfer programs.

Climate change risk-perceptions and concerns seem to differ globally. In cross-country research

on climate change risk-perceptions, 75% of USA citizens and 73% of Russian citizens proved to

perceive climate change as a “very” of “somewhat” serious problem in 2006, but this was lower than

that of other nations, e.g. Mexico with 95%, and China 88%. Nonetheless in the follow-up study, it

found that the American citizens who were “highly concerned” in 2006 with a 47%, decreased to 35%

in 2009 (Weber, 2010).

Concluding, cultural perceptions and knowledge turn out to affect significantly human

behaviour regarding perceptions on water quality, water quantity and climate change risk-perception in

different ways, which also appears not to align consistently with scientific evidence. Several scholars

emphasize the urgent need to teach the general public in order to create more awareness and

consequently adequate actions to improve water management actions and environmental sustainable

behaviour. In this research, the goal is among other to assess the cultural perceptions in this multiple

case study in Patillas, Puerto Rico to subsequently inform CECIA and other relevant institutions.

12

2.4. Water governance

As explained above, among others, the perceptions on the current water management of the CSWS is

investigated for this research. Due to the complex concept of ‘governance’ the need to address this

briefly is important to understand the meaning of the specific concept of ‘water governance’ and how

specific principles are used for this research.

To address the concept of water governance, firstly the concept of governance should be explained.

Governance has been given many definitions over the years. The term was defined as a synonym for

government and the ability to govern society. This interpretation of governance focused on how

effectively the government imposed political decisions. Currently, governance is defined and understood

as an extensive concept that includes a wide range of societal actors (Cleaver & Franks, 2007; Tropp,

2007). Meaning, that current governance relates to:

“(…) the broad social system of governing, which includes, but is not restricted to, the narrower

perspective of government as the main decision-making political entity.” (Rogers & Hall, 2003, p. 7).

According to Tropp (2007) and Rogers and Hall (2003) governance addresses linkages and processes

within and between organisations and social groups which are involved in decision-making, including

across sectors, in between urban and rural areas and from local to international.

To include the notion of governance to water, water governance is defined by the Global Water

Partnership (2002) as follows:

“Water governance refers to the range of political, social, economic and administrative systems that

are in place to develop and manage water resources, and the delivery of water services, at different

levels of society.”

Water governance includes the ability to design public water policies and frameworks which are socially

accepted and intent to mobilise social resources in support of them. The goal of water governance should

consist of sustainable development of water resources, effectively implement the development and the

primary stakeholders must be involved in the decision-making processes. In order to achieve ‘good

water governance’ the need to attend and respect disparate voices in decisions over common waters and

use of financial and human resources is crucial to obtain the equitable, efficient and environmental

sustainable governance structure (Rogers & Hall, 2003). The Dublin conference in 1999 induced

international goals related to water governance. Subsequently, the World Water Forum in The Hague in

2000 stated that the “water crisis is often a crisis of governance” which resulted in the prioritization of

effective water governance (Cleaver & Franks, 2007; Rogers, 2002; Rogers & Hall, 2003; Tropp, 2007).

As there is not one single model to successful water governance, as it depends on the social,

economic and cultural characteristics of a country, basic principles are developed that are considered

crucial to effective water governance as mentioned in Rogers (2002) and Rogers and Hall (2003):

13

Approaches: open and transparent (institutions need to work in an open matter and need to adjust their

language in order to be understandable for the local public population.) Inclusive and communicative

(ensuring wide participation throughout the policy chain.) Coherent and integrative (policies and actions

must be coherent and requires strong leadership.) Equitable and ethical (gender-equity in access to

water-resources and equity for different groups and stakeholders and consumers.)

Performance and operations: accountability (roles in the legislative and executive processes need to be

clear.) Efficiency (not only for economic efficiency as well as for social, political and environmental

efficiency.) Responsive and sustainable (policies must deliver what is needed on the basis of demand,

clear objectives, an evaluation of future impact and, where available, of past experience and should be

incentive-based).

2.4.1. Illustrative case studies: Governance of rural community water systems

In the 1980’s it became clear among water sector professionals that many rural water supply programs

in developing countries (low-income and middle-income) were performing poorly. Different reasons

mentioned consisted of: (I) systems were not being repaired and became unusable; (II) cost recovery

was minimal and revenues were insufficient to pay even the operation and maintenance (O&M); (III)

lacking sense of ownership; (IV) and households were unsatisfied with the projects that donors and

national governments installed (Bakalian et al., 2009). Anthropologist argued the reason was a lack of

community participation, as where engineers blamed for poor construction, economists for bad water

pricing and tariffs, and political scientists blamed it on bad governance and rent-seeking behaviour. As

a response consensus emerged to implement a more ‘demand-driven approach’ (DRA) to pre-project

planning for the rural water supplies. This change also relates to the influence of neoliberalism in water

management, which explains the shift from central-state led governance to decentralisation and

increased involvement and influence of private actors and the increased responsibility put on the

consumers to obtain and organize their water supplies (Nederveen-Pieterse, 2012; Rapley, 2007) This

demand-driven approach for community management entails: (I) involve households in the decision-

making process of technological and institutional governance arrangements; (II) give women a larger

role in decision-making, (III) require the households to pay for all the O&M costs of providing water

and partially for the capital costs (Balkalian et al., 2009; Berg, Gross & Sara, 1996; Katz & Sara, 1997;

David, Mc Lelland & Whittington, 1998). Scholars assumed that communities would not need post-

constructional support if other elements of the demand-driven planning model were present and spare

parts were available for purchase. This in turn would result in sense of responsibility for the management

and maintenance of their water systems. The model received considerable critics on the requirement of

paying the costs. The critics mainly came from NGO’s and other large multilateral donors. They argued

that rural households without improved water sources are the very poorest and efforts to require such

households to pay something for services is immoral; the richer countries have a moral obligation to

transfer financial resources to poor households in order to eliminate global inequities. Likewise, analysts

14

assessed that providing improved water systems will lead to positive health effects and thus a traditional

economic efficiency (Bakalian et al., 2009). Sachs (2005) simultaneously stated that providing water

services off charge, will help communities break out of the ‘poverty-trap’.

In the study of Bakalian et al. (2009) they analysed the performance of community managed

rural water supply systems in three developing countries (Bolivia, Ghana and Peru), which incorporated

one or more components of the demand-driven community management model. The research sample

size contained approximately 10.000 respondents. Bakalian et al. (2009) illustrate findings which

contradict the general perception that most rural water systems fail and that success is dependent on cost

recovery through sizeable, on-going user contributions. The findings suggest that in all the three

countries the systems were working; the village water committees (VWC) were organised and the

members were chosen by democratic elections and included women. Furthermore, communities seemed

to be creative in findings solutions in the search for spare parts, by finding the funds for repairs

somewhere, be it through one-time special assessments of villagers, through grants from outsiders, or in

the form of free parts or repair services. Sometimes, the people in charge turned to ‘middle men’ to help

identify and obtain the resources they needed. Furthermore, the communities also seem to succeed if

supported by post-construction trainings for operations and non-technical support (e.g. support for

administration and management issues). However, some concerns also emerged. Nevertheless, in all the

countries the people used water from the systems, they were also still using water from unprotected

sources. This happened mostly in Ghana. Additionally, a small percentage of VWC’s stopped working

due to conflicts with village or community leaders or simply because there were no reparations to the

systems. Furthermore, in a few communities another village-level institution had assumed the

responsibility for the water systems (e.g. NGO’s). It also appeared the VWC’s did not collect the

revenues in all the communities for the O&M, which led to a poor financial situation for the VWC’s

which in turn complicated moving towards a financially sustainable future. Although the issues in

collecting sufficient charges for the water services, all the communities managed to keep the water

systems functioning. Arguments mentioned for the poor financial situation in VWC’s, consisted of

distrust in the VWC’s; no access to a bank-account to store the revenues; no revenues needed (collected

in case of emergencies) and depending on the financial support of the different NGO’s and other

institutions. Altogether, Bakalian et al. (2009, p. 716) state that: “(…) the demand-driven, community

management planning model has come a long way towards finding the key to success in the rural water

sector. The next frontier seems to be the design of a policy framework that will enable communities to

handle the twin challenges of system rehabilitation and expansion.”

Despite the contradictive results found in the former research of Bakalian et al. (2009) regarding

the demand-driven community management model in comparison to the general opinion, more recent

literature suggests that the sustainability and scalability of the model reached its limits considering the

approach depends too much on informality and voluntarism (Chan et al., 2015; Franceys, Hutchings,

James, Mekala & Smits, 2016). As cited in Franceys et al. (2016): “It is now accepted that communities

15

cannot independently operate and maintain drinking water supply systems, even with relatively low

complexity installations.”

Although taking the critics in mind, many cases have been reported as success over the past 30

years (Bakalian et al, 2009; Chan et al., 2015). In the study of Chan et al. (2015) where they reviewed

and analysed the development pattern of 174 successful demand-driven community management case

studies over the last 30 years, they determined key factors which are needed to sustain at scale.

Furthermore, they propose a broad framework for success in community management which identifies

the converging of three interrelated components.

Chan et al. conclude that for a community to sustain at scale, the communities need a certain

‘plus’, which includes long-term external support, with the majority of high performing cases involving

financial support, technical advice and managerial advice. The external support should consist of

governmental entities and other supporting agencies. Besides external support, internal community

characteristics were also found to be influential in terms of success, including collective initiative,

institutional transparency and strong leadership. Finally, Chan et al. (2015) assessed a direct relationship

between success and the established socio-economic wealth in a society, which in history appeared to

took place in the high-income countries. In high-income countries it is assumed that economic growth

led to the expansion of water services. To bring it into focus for this research, Chan et al. (2015)

discovered that this relationship was found in Latin America and the Caribbean. To analyse different

forms of community management, Chan et al. (2015) and Franceys et al. (2016) classified three

typologies of community management derived from different frameworks of Adnan et al. (1992)

Arnstein (1969), Pretty (1994) and Wilcox (1994) (as cited in Chan et al. 2015 and Franceys et al., 2016)

which include: direct provision community involvement; community management plus; and the

professional community based management. In table 1 below, the different typologies are set out:

16

Table 1 Community Management Types (2015)

Community Management Type Description Characteristics

Direct Provision with

Community Involvement.

The community receives direct support on

finance, materials and technical issues from an

external agency and under that agency’s control

the community is partially involved in O&M.

The external agency is usually the local

government, a centralised public body or, on

occasion, an NGO.

Limited socio-economic capacity at the

community level.

Relative high-level technologies and

high cost of management system.

Provision of capacity development

activities.

Expectation for water committee to

perform day-to-day duties.

Low scale of community participation

due to limited decision-making power.

Significant requirement for external

subsidy.

Community Management Plus A community institution is responsible for O&M

and service provision. This community

institution remains voluntary and may not be

legally recognised as the service provider but

fulfils the role.

Capability of management aspects of

system within capacity of community

based organisation (CBO).

Model of CBO is typically an elected

water committee carrying out all day-to-

day tasks of O&M and administration of

system.

Sub-contract of some CBO tasks to an

individual or local company.

Professional Community-Based

Management

The water system is operated by an authorised

business-like organisation with a community

institution either taking responsibility for service

provision in a professional way or outsourcing

this to other entities.

More professional, competent and

effective management of rural water

services.

Agreed standards, with greater

transparency and accountability.

Good business practices adopted in

O&M and management.

Employment of trained staff.

Source: Chan et al., 2015.

The categorisation provides an analytical tool to assess the degree of participation in development

projects (Chan et al., 2015; Franceys et al., 2016). Within this research the categorisations will be used

to analyse the community management styles in Patillas Puerto Rico, in order to analyse more in-depth.

The intensity of community involvement is illustrated in figure 1. It demonstrates that the degree of

participation follows a normal distribution curve across income groups.

17

Figure 1 Level of community involvement across typologies of community management (2015)

Source: Chan et al. (2015)

Firstly, figure 1 suggest that communities with higher average incomes are more likely to financially

contribute through water-user tariffs to enable the professionalization of the service with paid-for staff

leading to the professional community based management structure. Secondly, in communities with low

average incomes and delicate subsistence it appears there is little additional capacity to contribute to the

water service, leading to a situation where the direct provision with community involvement starts in

which the community residents are involved in decision making processes, without taking responsibility

for the O&M. Thirdly, communities in the middle section are more likely to engage in the community

management plus structure in which residents voluntarily support in the O&M and the administration of

the systems as well as sharing a modest water-users tariff. Within the case studies of Chan et al. (2015)

it demonstrates that the majority of the communities apply the community management plus structure.

The reason for not to succeed to the professional community based management structure could be as a

consequence of the requirement of strong leadership and institutional transparency. This also appears

similar in the study of Francheys et al. (2016) in which they studied the success of case studies with

community management in India since the time of implementation. Chan et al. (2015) also argue that

the highest success factor between the relationship of the length of system-operation and the type of

community management is determined for the professional community based management structure.

As addressed above, several scholars provide interesting insights in the failures and success of

the well-known community management model for community rural water services, nevertheless, they

emphasize the importance of an adequate broad framework to analyse the success of the management

model. For this particular research the level of water governance success will be qualitatively measured

using the proposed framework of Chan et al. (2015) as a reference point. The framework reflects the

converging of the three interrelated components: internal plus, external plus and underlying socio-

economic wealth.

18

Figure 2 Framework for Sustainable Succes in Community Management (2015)

Source: Chan et al. (2015)

The model suspects the community is required to have a minimum of economic, technical

and managerial input. According to Chan et al. (2015) this is a triple development as increased national

wealth results in increased public spending on water supply, while household wealth leads to improved

payments of water-user tariffs, and overall wealth is an aftereffect from and a driver of institutional and

economic capital throughout the population. Chan et al. (2015) assess that if the conditions exists,

community management becomes more professional and is assumed to provide lasting services.

To conclude, water governance for rural community water systems is largely investigated,

criticized and improved in the last 30 years as it increased access to improved water with a further 25%

of the global population gaining access between 1995 and 2010 (WHO & UNICEF, 2012). Nonetheless,

improvement in the current water governance structures is needed in many rural community water

systems, of which this research intent to contribute.

Narrowing the focus of the previous paragraphs to the context of this research, ethnoecology

focuses on the “cultural perceptions, cognitions and behaviour of local people and the use of their

environment” (Blount & Gragson, 1999; Nazarea, 1999). Scholars argue that cultural perceptions,

knowledge and behaviour is an important nexus to study in order to target successful interventions for

potable water management and climate change adaptation policies and measures. Additionally, the water

governance concept is an important theoretical framework to use as it provides important insights in the

water governance structures and its strengths and failures. It is the focus of this paper to assess all this

in the multiple case study in Patillas, Puerto Rico.

19

3. Contextual framework

3.1. Puerto Rico: History and geography

Puerto Rico is a Caribbean island and an unincorporated territory (Commonwealth) of the United States

of America. Since 1917 Puerto Ricans were granted the US citizen ship, however Puerto Ricans do not

have a vote in the United States Congress. Nevertheless, the island operates under a local constitution

which allows its citizens to elect a governor (Worldfactbook, 2015). The United States and Puerto Rico

share a common defence, market, and currency. Puerto Rico virtually shares the same control over its

internal affairs just as the 50 US states. However, it differs from the states in its relationship with the

federal government (Government Development Bank, GDB, 2015). Plebiscites in Puerto Rico in the

past did not lead to altering the existing political status with the US, however, since 2012, the results of

a vote left the possibility open to become a full American State hood (Worldfactbook, 2015).

The island is located between the Caribbean Sea and the North Atlantic Ocean, and east of the

Dominican Republic. Puerto Rico is an archipelago which includes the main island and other smaller

islands. Puerto has a coastline of 501 km and has a total size of 13,791 km².

The climate is a tropical mild marine climate and it has little seasonal temperature variation.

Puerto consists mostly of mountains with coastal plain in the north; precipitous mountains to the sea on

west coast and sandy beaches along most coastal areas. The land use consists for 63,2 % of forests and

22% of agricultural land (Worldfactbook, 2015).

Figure 3 Puerto Rico (2015)

Source: Worldfactbook, 2015

20

3.2. Economy of Puerto Rico

The Puerto Rican economy flourished during the decades of 1950-1980 due to the industrial

development boom, where the economy grew at an average rate of 8% annually. Unfortunately, during

the decades of 1980-2000 the economic growth decreased between 3% and 4% resulting in diminished

wages and a higher unemployment rate (Plan Desarollo Integral Puerto Rico (PDIPR), 2009). In the

following decades the levels of growth have halted and since the expiration of Section 9361 in 2006, and

the onset of the global economic crisis in 2007, led to the continuous economic decline and a rising debt.

The contemporary GNP growth has been negative nearly every year since 2007 (Fiscal and Economic

Growth Plan for Puerto Rico (FEGP), 2015; Economic Development Plan (EDP), 2015; PDIPR, 2009).

The reduced economic activity has led to a negative market effect on the citizens of Puerto Rico and led

to stagnating incomes and increased outmigration to the US mainland. Additionally, the remaining

population of Puerto Rico becomes increasingly elder and outside the labour force, which increases the

unstable economic situation. This leads to higher government expenditures in the health sector due to

demographic ageing. (EDP, 2015; FEGP, 2015).

Despite the historical attempts to strengthen the economic activity and reduce the island’s debt, the

total debt has grown by approximately 64% since 2006. The public debt increased to nearly 94% of

GDP in 2014, the equivalent of $15600, - per person. The contemporary governor of Puerto Rico

announced in June 2015 that the island is not able to pay back a minimum of $73 billion of debt and that

it attempts to achieve a deal with its creditors (EDP, 2015; FEGP, 2015; World Fact Book, 2015).

According the FEGP (2015), Puerto Rico focused too much on the national debt, and lacked in

government investments for the social development, which marginalized the situation of a great majority

of the citizens of Puerto Rico.

3.3. Demography of Puerto Rico

The ethnicity of Puerto Rico consists of 75,8% whites, black African-American 12,4%, other 8,5%

(American Indian, Alaskan Native, Hawaiian, Pacific Islanders) and mixed 3,3%. The official languages

in Puerto Rico are Spanish and English, however the primary language is Spanish and only a minority

of the people – less than 10% - speaks English. The island’s population accounts approximately 3,7

million, from which 93,6% resides in the urban area in the north-eastern side of the island. There exists

a population growth of -0,6% annually and the largest age group is between 25-54 year. The main cause

relates to the problematic economic situation, which causes high unemployment rates and decreased

wages. The main religion is Catholic with 85% and Protestant and other 15% (US Census Bureau, 2010,

Worldfactbook, 2015).

1 Section 936: Insofar as is relevant to Puerto Rico, Section 936 of the US Internal Revenue Code exempted from

US taxation certain income derived by US companies from the active conduct of a trade or business in Puerto Rico

and certain Puerto Rico sourced investment income.

21

3.4. Study Area: Patillas

Figure 4 Municipalities of Puerto Rico (2010)

Source: US Census, 2010.

The four communities investigated for this research are located in the south-east region of Patillas,

Puerto Rico, highlighted in pink in figure 4. Patillas is a municipality of Puerto Rico with 16 different

wards or ‘barrios’ defining geographically the communities and includes the urban town area, named

after the municipality, Patillas. The municipality consist of rural mountainous areas as well as coastal

areas. The communities included in the study are located in rural mountainous areas. The total

population is estimated on 19277 residents. The median age of the population is 40,5 years old. The

estimated median household income is $14343, - which is lower than the island median household

income of $19686, - (US Census Bureau, 2010). Of the population of Patillas, 56, 5% are below the

poverty level (US Census Bureau, 2010) which accounts for $19971, - for a family of 4 as estimated in

2005 by Hunter et al., (2010). With an unemployment rate of 11% in Patillas (US Census Bureau, 2010)

people are mainly employed in the (I) educational services, health care and social assistance; (II) public

administration; (III) retail trade and (IV) manufacture. A smaller portion is employed in other sectors.

The household size consists mainly of 2-persons and the level of education comprises mostly of high

school (29,9%) for people of 25 years and older.

3.5. Rural community small water systems in Puerto Rico

In Puerto Rico the drinking water industry is managed and operate by two broad categories of

institutions: government-managed Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) systems,

which serves approximately 97% of the island (Government Development Bank Puerto Rico (GDBPR),

2015), and private and community non-PRASA systems, which provide water to approximately 250-

22

500 communities (Arce-Nazario et al., 2014; Ramirez-Toro, 2014). The non-PRASA (referred to as the

CSWS) are mainly found in mountainous regions which are difficult and costly to be connected to

PRASA treatment facilities by reason of their geographically location. The CSWS, are not unique in

Patillas, Puerto Rico, but it is estimated that half the world’s population residing in rural areas are served

by CSWS (WHO, 2010). In Puerto Rico the CSWS are distributed over the island and the number of

CSWS is estimated between 250-500 of which 180000 to 250000 people consume water of variable

quality (Ramirez-Toro, 2014).

The CSWS are generally defined by their challenges in the administration and management. The

World Health Organization (WHO) (2010) defines these challenges on a global scale as: (I) often

untrained operators; (II) located in remote and isolated areas; (III) harder to obtain financial and political

support; (IV) larger percentage of the population is vulnerable; (V) larger geographically spread and;

(VI) more expensive unit cost of materials and construction. The CSWS provide water to rural villages,

towns, individual households, vacation homes and trailer parks. Additionally, water systems supplying

to transient populations and in peri-urban areas could also be considered as CSWS since they are

generally managed in the same way and distant from the local governmental services. Several scholars

argue that the largest risk for CSWS is the potential to an outbreak of an infectious disease such as acute

diarrheal illness. It is stated that globally more than 2.2 million people die of the aforementioned reason,

of which children under the age of five are the major affected group. A large percentage of 88% of cases

of diarrhoea are linked to unsafe water, inadequate water, inadequate sanitation and hygiene (Cameron,

Hunter, Jagals & Pond, 2009; WHO, 2010).

In the case of CSWS in Puerto Rico, several similar issues emerge. The vulnerability of the CSWS

reflects itself in the study of Chalmers et al. (2015) in the investigated communities in Patillas, in which

they demonstrate for the first time the occurrence of the chlorine-resistant waterborne pathogen

‘Cryptosporidium’ in CSWS in Puerto Rico. This waterborne pathogen is a well-known documented

cause of waterborne gastroenteritis and outbreaks (Baldursson & Karanis, 2011). Although Puerto Rico

is a high income country and economically and politically linked to the USA, Arce-Nazario et al. (2014)

argue that the general belief in the USA is that users of CSWS in Puerto Rico are exposed to low tap

water quality as a consequence of ineffective water governance of the CSWS resulting in little or no

treatment of the sources prior to distribution. The CSWS are considered a health threat for the Puerto

Rico Department of Health, since nearly all of them do not comply with the federal quality standards

(Arce-Nazario et al., 2014). According several scholars, the lack of proper water governance also reflects

itself in insufficient or non-existent monitoring for the water quality (Arce-Nazario et al., 2014;

Ramirez-Toro, 2014). The CSWS are ‘in violation’ of one or more aspects of the federal quality

standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). These violations differ from structural issues to

failure, to appropriately disinfect the water. A difference mentioned with the governmental PRASA

systems, is that these governmental water systems filter and chlorinate water at treatment facilities

23

before water distribution and they provide water quality assessments which is one of the requirements

of the US SDWA standards (Arce-Nazario et al., 2014).

3.5.1. Safe Drinking Water Act Regulations and the US EPA

Considering the SDWA comprises of a complex set of regulations, this paragraph addresses a summary

of the relevant information to this research. The SDWA is a federal law that protects ‘public drinking

water supplies’ throughout the USA. Under the SDWA, the United States Environmental Protection

Agency (US EPA) is required to set standards for drinking water quality and with its partners it

implements various technical and financial programs to ensure drinking water safety (US EPA, 2003).

The US EPA delegates primary enforcement responsibility (also called primacy) for public water

systems to states and Indian Tribes if they meet certain requirements (US EPA, 2015). The Department

of Health is the representative for Puerto Rico which has the primacy to enforce the responsibility for

the public drinking water supplies (Ramirez-Toro, 2016). Public drinking water supplies are defined by

the US EPA (2003) as:

“ (…) any system serving 15 or more connections or an average of 25 or more people per day for

at least 60 days per year.”

The US EPA (2003) has defined three types of public water systems, of which the CSWS is one

particular type and defined as:

“(…) that supplies water to the same residential population year-round.

Examples include cities, towns, rural water systems, manufactured home communities,

and home owner associations”.

Additionally, US EPA categorizes systems to the amount of consumers they serve. The communities

investigated for this research fall into the category of ‘very small water systems’ which serves between

25-500 people. Every public water system defined as such is required to comply with the federal SDWA

standards (US EPA, 2003). The US EPA proclaimed 14 major rules in accordance with the SDWA.

These rules have resulted in the regulation of 90 contaminants. Each regulation addresses one of two

major categories of risk: microbial contaminants, or chemical/radiological contaminants. Most

regulations set a maximum contaminant level or treatment technique for a contaminant or a group of

contaminants (US EPA, 2003). The regulations (also in the case of new regulations) needs to be

implemented within a certain time. In case that there is no compliance, the sanctions consist of fines (up

to $125000, - or up to $25000, - per day per violation), three years of detention and civil sanctions on

intentional violations (Ramirez-Toro, Spanish presentation SDWA, 2014).

24

The US EPA emphasize the ‘multi barrier approach’, which is an approach that sets up a series of

technical and managerial barriers that protects from source to tap against waterborne disease outbreaks

and secures a safe drinking water system. The multi barrier approach focuses on four ‘barriers’ to

improve the CSWS: select the best water source (surface water/groundwater); proper treatment methods

(installed by a licensed operator to improve water quality); storage and distribution (constructing,

operating, and maintaining well-engineered storage facilities and distribution systems); and monitoring

and public information (provide consumers with information on water quality and health effects). Even

though the regulations of the SDWA apply to CSWS, certain rules only apply to certain kinds of systems

and is dependent on the size, public system category, water source and treatment steps. In the case of a

CSWS, US EPA (2003) explains that in general the communities need to: (I)monitor for a contaminant

and report this to the State; (II) make compliance decisions based on the monitoring results and the

outcome of any State review; (III) take action to reduce any health risks that have been identified; and

(IV) provide public information about the water quality and its health effects. In order to comply with

all these challenges, the US EPA provides different programs to support the communities who lack

technical, financial and managerial resources. The so called ‘Capacity Development Programs’ provides

assistance to the communities in developing the financial capabilities, institutional knowledge and

structures to accurately and consistently apply the multi barriers of protection. Communities can apply

for financial support in different forms of loans and (State) grants and for technical support through

different state agencies (US EPA, 2003).

25

3.5.2. Characteristics case studies

The four chosen communities for this study share some similar characteristics. In table 2 the main

characteristics are illustrated. The information is firstly gathered through the available documents and

articles from CECIA and secondly through personal observation, interviews with people in charge of

the CSWS and expert-interviews. To explain more clearly, the water in the CSWS is only for domestic

purpose. The community residents are in most cases family relatives and the majority has lived there

since childhood. In the table below the community water committee (CWC) can be defined as a

heterogenic group of people elected by the community which operate and organize the administration

of the CSWS, including collecting the fee for the water service and organizing community reunions for

decision making purposes and information transfer considering the CSWS (Balkalian et al., 2009; Chan

et al., 2015). In all the communities there are several large luxurious houses varied with soberer fragile

homes. Except for one picture in this document, all others are taken by the author.

Table 2 Main characteristics four communities, Patillas (2016)

Community A1* B1 M1 Q1

Total houses 65 45 193 219

Population # 131 88 329 247

Water-Source All Surface Water (river)

Water-

treatment

Chlorine and two

filters.

None, no near future

progress.

Chlorine and two

filters.

Chlorine, no filtration, however

in progress.

Geography Rural mountain Rural mountain Rural mountain Rural mountain and partly flat

area

Main

livelihood

activity

Labour force and Retirement

Water

governance

structure

No CWC present

(Three men in

charge)

No CWC present (1

core group which

solves issues)

CWC present CWC present

SDWA

Compliance?

Only with the water

treatment standards.

No and not in progress. Only with the water

treatment standards.

No, but in progress.

Source: Documents CECIA, 2013-2014.

* A1 has two water systems.

26

Community A1

Community A1 is located in the east of the municipality of Patillas and is the second smallest

community. Most of the houses are located next to a main road and some houses are in branches of this

road and are more difficult to reach. The community has two water systems, one which is located in the

lower part (supplying about 40 houses) and one in the upper part (supplying about 20 houses). In the

past there was one water system to provide water for the whole community, however the source was not

enough and the community decided to split the water provision and add another source. There are three

men who take most responsibility for the two water systems. Two men live close to the upper water

system and the other lives close to the lower water system (Ramirez-Toro, 2016). Recently, in

collaboration with the community an intervention installed new filtration systems which provides

healthy potable water and complies with the SDWA water treatment rule (Patterson, 2016).

Figure 5 Upper Water Tank A1 (2016)

27

Community B1

Community B1 is located in the

north-east side of the

municipality of Patillas and is the

smallest community. The houses

in B1 are distributed in high

mountainous area and several

houses are difficult to reach by

car or by foot. Unfortunately, it

was not possible to visit the water

system due to its high location.

Community B1 decided to use the

old water source after the

Cooperativa de Acueductos de

Patillas (CAP) dissolved and

since then, approximately for 2

years, they are using directly

from a river without any water

treatment. Patterson (2016)

explained this community is

highly vulnerable for health risks,

since there is no water treatment

system. In this area there is more

agricultural activity, such as

cultivating cassava, pana

(breadfruit) and plátano

(plantains). In this community in the upperpart, the people are not connected to the community water

system and have personal water systems for single families, or several small families share a water

system (see box 1).

Personal Small Water System B1

One male respondent owns a small water system solely for his

family which consist of 6 people. The water source is a superficial

water source from a river. He inserted a large tube directly in the

river to subsequently connect narrower pipes to the large tube.

These water pipes reach directly to his house. Additionally, he

uses an old water tank to store water. This tank was used for the

whole community which contains 55000 gallons of water. His

water system has no water treatment facilities, however, he adds

an unknown amount of chlorine to the water tank and to his tap

water. He does not know the necessary amount of chlorine the

water needs to disinfect. To keep the water tank clean, every six

months he drains the tank and cleans it with chlorine. He uses a

hatch to close the water tank, in order to prevent animals or direct

sunlight entering the tank. He believes his water is purer than that

of the community, due to the different water source. Furthermore,

he argues he always has access to water, as a result of the large

water tank. During times of droughts, his family has not been

affected in the water quantity. The costs regarding the water,

consist exclusively of costs for the chlorine. He prefers to have his

own system, as it is more reliable than the former community

water system. He even so assessed that his water source will be

less affected by climate changes, even so because less people are

making use of it, so he argues the amount of water will run out

more slowly.

Box 1 Personal Small Water System, B1 (2016)

28

Figure 6 Agriculture in community B1 (2016)

Figure 7 Houses and river in B1

Community M1

Commuity M1 is located in the northern part of the municipality. Community M1 is the second largest

community and the houses are as well located in mountainous area, interspersed with a small flat area

in which a little store is located, a local bar and a school. Recently, CECIA and US EPA installed the

new filter, which can provide the community with healthy potable water, complying with the SDWA

water treatment rule if the community learn to operate properly (Ramirez-Toro, 2016). In addition, they

constructed the roof and other parts for the protection of the filtration system which also is a requirement

of the SDWA standards.

29

Figure 8 House in M1 (2016)

Figure 9 Slow-sand filtration system in M1 (2016)

Community Q1

Community Q1 is the largest community of this research and consist of a large flat part and a large

mountainous part. The water tank is well protected by a fence. The current CSWS is supplied by a

superficial water source, however, the SDWA requires that all the community water systems change to

a subterranean water source, according the president of the current CWC. The community also do have

a ground water source; however, it is not operating. If the ground water source would be operating, it

would not be sufficient to provide the whole community with water (Ramirez-Toro, 2016).

Figure 10 Water-tank and pipelines of Q1 (2016)

30

Figure 11 House in Q1 (2016)

3.6. Climate change risks Puerto Rico and Patillas

Due to the vulnerable geographical location of Puerto Rico and characterized as a small island state

(SIS), makes Puerto Rico vulnerable to different risks which accounts for the surrounding of large

expansions of the ocean; limited natural resources; proneness to natural disasters and extreme events;

relative isolation; large populations and densities in the urban area; and limited financial- and human

resources. The potential impacts of climate change on ocean islands are reason for increasing concern

considering the danger of sea level rise and the increased extreme weather events in frequency and

intensity (Anderson, Balk and McGranahan, 2007; Briguglio, Hay, Nurse, Ragoonaden, Sem, Suarez &

Wong, 2001; PRCCC, 2013).

The Puerto Rican population is exposed to specific hazards such as coastal and riverine flooding,

tsunamis, hurricanes, landslides, earthquakes and droughts (PRCCC,2013). The climate change hazards

and other multiple factors create different vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities documented in the PRCCC

(2013) are: continuing housing development in high hazards areas, poor maintenance of existing

shoreline, poor maintenance and dredging of rivers, canals and reservoirs, lack of soil management

practices, the elimination of dunes, reefs, mangroves, and other naturally protective features that reduce

the negative impacts of risk events. In contemporary Puerto Rico these issues continue, however, some

corrective measures have been implemented since the 1970s, such as water quality and flood control

initiatives, restoration of habitat and other projects (PRCCC, 2013).

In the case of Patillas, several scholars assess different climate change vulnerabilities which in

addition affect this rural municipality and the CSWS (Goodrich, Murray & Yang, 2016; Patterson, 2016;

Ramirez-Toro, 2016; Soderberg, 2016).

Firstly, Soderberg (former US EPA director Caribbean Division, 2016), states that increased

times of droughts will result in a decrease of water quantity. The estimate is that the water quantity will

decrease with 20% in the future. This will affect primarily the superficial water sources and subsequently

31

the underground sources since the ground water depends on surface levels, which will affect the

community residents directly. This is of crucial importance by cause of the direct supply from the water

sources which in the investigated communities comprises of superficial water sources. Additionally, as

a consequence of drought, people can lose fertile land which in the case of agriculture, could affect their

economic status (Ramirez-Toro, 2016).

Secondly, flooding and more intense rainfall will lead to more sediment in the water which in

turn will lead to a decrease in water quality. More sediment in the water, affects the disinfection process

in the water systems. Increased turbidity equals more chlorine demand and less effective disinfection.

Furthermore, increased sediment in the water as a consequence of flooding and heavy rainfall can impact

treatment such as the filtration system and contaminate the water system (Soderberg, 2016). Ramirez-

Toro (2016) mentions as well that flooding and erosion can lead to loss of houses and displacement.

Thirdly, the Lake of Patillas and the alkalisation of the water. Soderberg (2016) and the mayor

of Patillas (2016) explained the risk of collapsing of the lake of Patillas. The lake is an old reservoir

located on a seismic plate and cannot hold as much water than before due to retention and deterioration

of the walls. This already led to a decrease in water quantity for the town of Patillas, however, Soderberg

(2016) argues that this could affect the rural area of Patillas, when they are asked to supply water from

their water sources to other parts of Patillas. The alkalisation of the water as a consequence of rising sea

levels, will affect the investigated communities. Seawater will penetrate the fertile land and

consequently affect the agriculture and the fresh water sources.

Fourthly, the Saharan dust. The Saharan dust - a climatological event that transport dust from Africa to

the Carribean- already poses different impacts for Puerto Rico, both positive and negative. It is estimated

the Saharan dust will aggravate the problems related to respiratory illness (Soderberg, 2016).

Fifth and finally, the impacts of climate change and the estimated increasing extreme weather

events will increasingly affect the rural CSWS in the infrastructure (Goodrich et al., 2016). Additional

impacts on the infrastructure of the CSWS consist among others of pipe breaks, infrastructural failures

and damage, power outage, loss of water pressure and leaks and loss of access to the water supplies.

Subsequently, these hazards will have a financial effect since the communities are supposed to solve the

emerging issues (Goodrich et al., 2016).

32

Different interventions are proposed in the conducted expert-interviews and in an attended symposium

in February 2016 in San Germán Puerto Rico to act upon the climate change impacts. The interventions

are illustrated in the table 3. Soderberg (2016) emphasize the need for immediate action, by reason of

the critical situation.

Table 3 Interventions and suggestions to cope with climate change for CSWS (2016)

Intervention/suggestion By reason of? By Whom?

Obtain other alternative water-

sources

To obtain water in case of

water scarcity and increase the

possibility of water access.

The community with help from

local/external experts and the

Government.

Measures to conserve the water To cope with the estimated

decrease in water quantity.

The community with help from

experts and Government.

Install adequate filtration To cope with the contamination

of the water due to climate

change and extreme weather

events.

Community/water engineers/

experts

Install (a) water-cistern(s) In case of water scarcity and/or

in times of natural hazards.

Community/ Government.

Ask for financial and technical

support from the government

and the US EPA.

In times of natural hazards

when there is no water access

and in order to properly install

the adequate infrastructural

changes to the system.

Community (with support of

external agencies)

Educational intervention and/or

knowledge transfer to the

community population.

To increase the awareness and

subsequently act as an action

component to act upon the

risks.

CECIA/US EPA/Government

Install waste-water system To re-use the water to increase

the possibility to water access.

Community with help of

External agencies/ Government

Bring water to the communities

in case of natural hazards

Due to the isolated location, the

local government should

supply water to its residents.

Government

Source: Semi-structured expert-interviews and symposium February 2016.

33

4. Research design

This section outlines the research questions and chosen methodology to investigate the perceptions and

knowledge on CSWS and climate change risk in relation to the CSWS. First, the research questions are

presented, followed by the overall research approach, and third by a visualisation of the investigated key

concepts in a conceptual model. Fourth, the data collection methods used for this research are explained,

to follow with the sample strategies chosen for this research. The sixth subchapter addresses the data

analysis and finally the seventh chapter describes the limitations of the study.

4.1. Research questions and objectives

The objective of this study is to investigate perceptions and knowledge on CSWS and climate change

risk in relation to the CSWS, in an attempt to describe and understand the specific views and behaviour

of the actors involved. In addition, this research seeks to complement the longitudinal study of CECIA

in which the health benefits from installation of community level water filtration is investigated.

In order to accomplish the aforementioned objective, a main research question and sub questions

emerged from the theoretical framework. The central question to guide this research comprises of:

What is the current perception and knowledge on community small water system of the residents of

Patillas, Puerto Rico and to what extent are their household water methods influenced by their

perception and knowledge of climate change and extreme weather events?

Sub questions:

1. What is the perception of the residents on the quality and quantity of the water in their community

small water system?

2. What are the household water methods the residents apply and why?

3. What is the general knowledge of the residents on their community small water systems?

4. How do the residents assess the water governance of their community small water system?

5. What is the current and future perception and knowledge of the residents on climate change and

extreme weather events?

6. What is the current and future perception of the residents on the possible risks climate change and

extreme weather events can have on their community small water systems?

The main question and sub questions includes ‘extreme weather events’ in order to assess to what extent

the residents assert changes in weather events. However, in the literature extreme weather events are

considered to be influenced and related with climate change, thus in case of this research the general

phenomenon of climate change is used as the definition which as well includes extreme weather events

(PRCCC, 2013;US EPA, 2016; IPCC, 2013).

34

4.2. Methodology

This research is an explorative multiple case study. A multiple case study is considered to investigate a

number of instances of phenomena in order to explore in-depth differences and contextual influences of

this phenomena (Hay, 2010). Considering this research is explorative in nature as it investigated human

perceptions and experiences in order to understand, describe and explore social-phenomena, the

qualitative research method is the appropriate main method for this research (Hay, 2010; Scheyvens,

2014). Additionally, to use a complementary method to enrich the understanding of the qualitative data

and adding rigor, quantitative questions are also used. In order to complement the qualitative method,

social demographic data and risk-perceptions on climate change and extreme weather events are

obtained to make a comparative analysis and to gain insights on the local socio demographics of the

households.

35

4.3. Conceptual model

- Cultural/Scientific knowledge

- Psychological factors (affect,

emotion, imagery, personal

experience)

- Social factors (institutional trust,

worldviews, values)

- Near or distant climate changes

- Extent and impact of the hazard

(direct vs near or distant future)

- Gender

Household Water Behaviour:

Household Water Treatment Methods/Household Water Use

Perceptions on Community Small

Water Systems

- Organoleptic perceptions

- Attitudes towards chemicals

- Specific water properties

- Perceived Environmental

Changes/Impacts (e.g. droughts,

increased heat) which affect

water quantity

- Type of water governance structure of

CSWS

Water Quality Perception Water Quantity Perception

Water Governance Perception

- Cultural/Scientific

knowledge

- Risk perceptions

- Water supply source

- Institutional Trust (water

supply system)

- Interpersonal trust

- Water use regulations

- Water pricing regulations

-Knowledge on water save

methods

- Provided information

(mass media/interpersonal)

- Former problems with

quality and quantity

- Demographics:

> Age

> Gender

> Income

> Time of residing

Climate Change Risk Perception

36

The conceptual model above is based on the theoretical framework and outlines factors influencing the

perceptions on the CSWS, climate change and extreme weather events. The perceptions on the CSWS

are divided in the investigated perceptions on water quality, water quantity and water governance as

they influence perceptions on CSWS. Furthermore, this conceptual framework guides the analysis of

the manner in which perceptions on water quality, water quantity and water governance in relation to

the CSWS and climate change risk perceptions interacts with household water behaviour and serves as

the basis for answering the six sub-questions of this study.

The green section in the middle illustrates similar factors influencing perceptions on water quality,

water quantity and water governance in relation to the CSWS and household water behaviour. According

the literature specific factors influencing water quality -, water quantity – and water governance

perceptions are displayed in the sections labelled as such. Since the literature argues that perceptions on

water quality, water quantity and climate change risk not consistently influence household water

behaviour, the possible relationships are displayed (Arce-Nazario-Nazario et al, 2014; Arvai, et al.,

2016; Bord, et al., 2009; Carlton et al.,2016; França-Doria, 2010; Prouty & Zang, 2016; Optiz-Stapleton,

2009; Vining, 1989; Weber, 2006, 2010, 2011; Weber & Stern, 2011).

4.4. Data collection methods

Fieldwork for this study was carried out between the 3th of February 2016, thru the 2nd of May 2016.

The research required various types of logistical support, including travel and research support which

were duly provided by the host organisation. Additionally, the host organisation facilitated contacts with

important key persons and subsequently I arranged accommodation for two weeks in the town of Patillas

and transport assistance to the communities with one of this key persons. After literature research on the

topics related to CSWS and climate change risks and in line with the chosen method, data was collected

using two types of methods:

Semi-structured interviews

Exploratory semi-structured expert interviews

Due to limitations in transport and the time consuming application for the IRB, the first 14 actual semi-

structured interviews were conducted between the 20th of February and the 11th of March, by finally

conducting the rest of the 44 interviews with the community residents in two weeks from the 4th of April

until the 18th of April. The primary goal was to conduct a minimum of 52 interviews (10%), in order to

publish an article which is one of the contract agreements with CECIA. However, in the end 62

interviews were conducted. The semi-structured interviews were conducted with 54 community

residents and eight semi-structured expert interviews, including four former members of the CAP, the

director of CECIA, an environmental engineer of the US EPA working in the research area, the mayor

of Patillas and an expert on climate change and CSWS. In addition, various informal conversations with

37

CECIA employers and the key person where I stayed for two weeks, enriched the understanding on the

research topics. Of the 62 semi-structured interviews, 36 were recorded after giving consent and 27 non-

recorded. The semi-structured interviews are conducted in Spanish without additional translation

support and lasted approximately between 30 minutes up to one hour. The interviews were always

conducted with a clear plan in mind, and were guided by myself with the use of extensive probing. After

conducting the first interviews, the interviews were adjusted in order to cover all the research topics in

a logical order. Only adult members (from the age of 21 years) were selected to the interviews. This

choice was a consequence of the required consent of the parents, which was not feasible to achieve in

the limited time frame of the research. There was no distinction between gender. The first contact with

specific key persons of the communities was organized with an employee of CECIA. Due to earlier

experiences of CECIA in conducting research with the communities, individuals were less likely to

participate if the approximate time for the interview was given. However, individuals appeared more

willingly if they were told the approximate number of questions included in the interviews. Accordingly,

the time was not mentioned, solely the number of questions. Photography and filming are also some of

the research tools used during this research and different site visits and walks through the communities

were done. There was no compensation offered for participation in the interviews, however, the

communities will be provided a summary of the results of the research and specific recommendations.

Furthermore, secondary resources were reviewed to complement my fieldwork, such as state

documents, academic articles on the CSWS and climate change risks. In addition, the host organisation

was able to supply various academic articles, thesis’s and journals in order to fill the gaps in my own

collected data, to support my findings and discussion, and to draw more holistic conclusions.

4.5. Sample strategy

Random sampling, snowball sampling and convenience sampling were used to select the respondents.

As explained in the objective of this research, which is also to contribute to the longitudinal study of

CECIA, the choice to select specific communities was determined partly because of this reason. Four of

the investigated communities were selected. The choice for the four communities was based on the

similar water supply source which consist of surface water and the population size (please refer to

chapter 3.5.2. for the full characteristics). To select the communities on the similar characteristic of the

surface water source, is due to the argued concern in various literature to the vulnerability of climate

change and extreme weather events (Baures, Clement, Delpla, Jung & Thomas, 2009). Further, due to

the limited timeframe of the research, addressing more and larger communities would not be feasible

and would lower the quality of the research. In table 4 the final amount of respondents is displayed.

38

Table 4 Total Respondents (2016)

Respondents Total Respondents

Experts 8

Community A1 6

Community B1 6

Community M1 21

Community Q1 21

Total Respondents 62

Random sampling was initially used in order to unbiased select the respondents and to obtain a

geographically distributed number of respondents. In former research of CECIA in the communities, it

appeared that most family relatives live close to each other and were found to give similar answers. To

overcome this, random sampling was considered to be the most adequate method. Firstly, the

respondents were selected through an existing data base of CECIA and randomly chosen with an Excel

command. Secondly the codes of the houses were manually selected in the existing paper maps for two

communities formerly made with GIS by CECIA employees and subsequently a picture was made of

the selection.

Figure 13 Selection of houses M1 (2016).

Thirdly, to reach the houses, the list with descriptions of the location of the houses was used for all the

communities. During the fieldwork it became clear that the paper maps and the descriptions of the

houses were not sufficient to locate the specific respondents. Therefore, the sampling procedure changed

from random sampling to a ‘non-perfect random sampling’, meaning I intended to continue with a

method similar to random sampling. This non-perfect random sampling was conducted by using the

printed map pictures and selecting the houses geographically distributed over the communities each

night before conducting the interviews. This was possible for the communities M1 and Q1. For the

communities A1 and B1 the new selection of respondents was made based on the physical observation

of the communities during the visits. Nevertheless, during the visits it appeared not all the selected

respondents were at home, which resulted in convenience sampling. Convenience sampling occurs when

people are chosen because they are convenient available (Scheyvens, 2014). Convenience sampling was

chosen not only because the selected respondents were unavailable, but also as a consequence of the

Source: CECIA GIS maps, 2016 Source: CECIA GIS maps, 2016

Figure 12 Selection of houses Q1 (2016)

39

limited time of the research. However, during convenience sampling, the attempt was always to select

the respondents geographically distributed over the communities.

Snowball sampling is a useful technique for selecting respondents with particular characteristics

(Scheyvens, 2014). In this case, snowball sampling was used to conduct interviews with the specific

experts and keypersons in the communities. By using this technique, appointments made for interviews

with former members of the CAP and the mayor were made more easily with the support of the

keyperson where I stayed for two weeks. Likewise with the contact of the director of CECIA, interviews

with the environmental engineer of the US EPA and the former director of the US EPA of the Caribean

Division were realised.

4.6. Data analysis

A lot of the data provided by the respondents was read and analysed during the course of fieldwork.

Later in Holland, the rest was transcribed and analysed. Aforementioned, the greatest part of the

interviews (36) was recorded and later transcribed with the support of the software of Listen N Write

Free and incorporated in a Microsoft Word document. Subsequently, the transcriptions and the non-

recorded interviews are incorporated in a Microsoft Excel document to provide the host organisation

with a proper document to use in further research. The Excel document is organized by each question

and on the specific community. This document is also extensively used to analyse the data. During and

after transcribing the recorded interviews and incorporating the non-recorded interviews, the analytical

software program QSR Nvivo 11 was used to code the interviews in order to analyse the interviews in-

depth. Firstly, the input was initially coded, to secondly apply focused coding in order to explore and

decide which codes best capture the various topics to finally categorize the topics. These categories and

focused coding helped to assess relationships between the input (Charmaz & Thornberg, 2014). During

coding, memos were used to describe ideas, thoughts and relationships about the codes. After the coding

was completed, results were analysed to identify factual information which was crosschecked with the

secondary sources and with the director of CECIA. This crosschecking on specific input on the CSWS

with the director of CECIA appeared to be essential for acquiring the precise information, which in a

few cases resulted to be inaccurate.

Furthermore, the socio demographic data, specific scale questions and various closed-questions

were organized and incorporated in the statistical software of SPSS 23 to conduct basic comparative

analysis and assess the climate change risk perceptions and the level of satisfaction on water quality and

quantity. In addition, noting and counting down manually the frequency of specific events and thoughts,

ideas and opinions of the respondents were used to analyse the total input. Please refer to appendix

number 2 for an overview of the semi-structured interview translated from Spanish to English.

40

4.7. Limitations study

This section serves to outline certain key limitations encountered during the research process which

could have biased the data collection and therefore the findings and analysis.

First, I was aware of a potential conflict of interest in my research study. In this case it relates

to the fact that the host organization is an organization which have had and still conducts research

in the investigated communities. In addition, the host organisation also contributed in different ways

to the CSWS in Patillas and people at the study site either know them or know of them. On the other

hand, Utrecht University is the research partner of the host organization as well as my research

advisor. As such, I was placed in the middle. This dual position sometimes gave rise to some distrust

of the community residents when I was introducing myself or got introduced by the keyperson. It

appeared that some respondents were reluctant in the beginning of cooperating when they thought

it was another longitudinal research. However, when I explained my main objective as a Master

student coming from Holland and additional the objective for CECIA, they were most willing to

cooperate.

Second, the period of time limited the research in different ways; (I) the application for the

Institutional Review Board in the beginning of the internship required a lot of time and was limiting the

possibility to conduct interviews, since I needed the IRB approval on the interview guide; (II) the

distance between the host organisation and the study area comprised of 2,5 hours by car. As it was

impossible to rent a car for the full period, I was dependent on my host organisation when driving to the

area. This limited my time extensively on which I decided together with a keyperson to organize that I

could stay in the town of Patillas for two weeks and with help of this particular keyperson (Señor Conde)

I conducted a large number of interviews. (III) Furthermore, conducting qualitative research in such a

relatively short time, has limited the sample-size. A second suggestion for further research is to include

a larger sample in order to expense the input which can add the possibility to generalize the results to a

larger extent.

Third, language and translation can influence the possibility of data errors. Although I managed the

specific Puerto Rican Spanish quite quickly, sometimes this have led to some confusion of

misunderstanding during the interviews, however, I solved this by recording most of my interviews in

order to understand my respondents and in the case of non-recorded interviews, I double-checked the

answers with the respondents or the host organisation.

Fourth, the selection of the communities based on their surface water source, limits the

generalisation to a broader spectrum. In future research, communities with different water sources can

be included to compare the differences.

Fifth, the socio-demographics of the investigated communities could have biased the findings, due

to the age and gender distribution and the estimated income level. Since the majority of the residents

has the age of 45 and older, former research showed that having an older age and the time of residing in

41

the area can influence the perceptions on water quality and climate change risk perceptions (Arvai et al.,

2016; Crona et al.; 2005; Optiz-Stapleton, 2009). This could imply that the overall positive satisfaction

of the water quality is among other a consequence of this particular aspect. Additionally, the respondents

consist mostly of women, from which is argued they tend to be more concerned than men about the

impacts of low water quality and climate change (Arvai et al., 2016; Crona et al., 2005; França-Doria,

2010). Due to the restriction of including questions considering the income level and basing the income

on former literature and the general census, this could have biased the interpretation of the findings

considering the communities as low-income, which can clearly differ among the households. In personal

observations a large part of the respondents resided in large modern houses, with most of them having

children living on the mainland of the USA. This could imply that a portion of the respondents receive

remittances, which could add to an improved economic situation.

Sixth and final, the chosen sampling strategies could have biased the subjectivity of the researcher,

as the situation required to adjust this, from random-sampling to non-perfect random sampling and

convenience sampling. Nonetheless, I chose to select the houses on the maps the night before visiting

the communities to sustain a certain objectivity. In occasions the people were not at home, I also tried

to manage an equal distribution of the visited houses by checking the map and locating other houses in

order to provide a differentiated input. Twice, I conducted interviews with people introduced by the

keyperson, however, I realised this could bias my research and decided to kindly refuse the additional

help with the proper explanation.

42

5. Perceptions and knowledge on community small water systems

The next five chapters, presents the findings and analysis of the empirical data. The data reflects the

current perceptions and knowledge on CSWS and climate change. The empirical data is based on the

semi-structured interviews with the residents and different experts and presents the findings based on

the objectives and research questions of this research, with the intention to answer the research

questions. The findings are divided in to different chapters. Firstly, the socio-demographic data will be

presented in chapter 5 to provide an overview of the communities, followed by the history and current

situation of the CSWS and the provided external support in chapter 6. In logical order, the perceptions

on the current water governance structure of the CSWS are explained in chapter 7. Subsequently, chapter

8 presents the findings on the general knowledge of the CSWS and perceptions on potable water in order

to better understand which perceptions influence the water quality, - quantity and the household water

use methods. Finally, chapter 9 reveals which factors influencing the climate change risk perceptions

and to what extent these perceptions influence the household water use methods.

5.1. Socio-demographics

The total amount of the respondents in the research consisted of 62 respondents, which include 54

interviews with community residents and eight expert-interviews. The findings represent the interviews

with the 54 respondents and if relevant, the input of the expert interviews are included.

5.1.1. Age distribution

Figure 14 Age distribution total respondents (2016)

Source: Semi-structured interviews, 2016.

In figure 14 the age category of 56-66 years is the largest category (44,4%), followed by the age category

of 45-55 years. The age distribution in the investigated communities, seems not to represent the general

9,3

25,9

44,4

16,7

3,7

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

34-44 years 45-55 years 56-66 years 67-77 years 78-88 years

Age Distribution Repondents

Percentage

43

age distribution of Patillas2, in which the largest group consist of 45-55 years (14,3%), followed by the

group of 55-64 (13,2%) which is the largest age category in this research, however it demonstrates the

ageing of the island.3 This means that the general age of the residents in the investigated communities

consist primarily of an older age than the general age in the municipality of Patillas.

5.1.2. Gender distribution

The gender distribution of the research respondents is displayed in the next table 5 per community and

illustrates there is a slight overrepresentation of female respondents. In comparison with the general

gender distribution of Patillas4 which accounts 50,7% for females, it appears that the dominant group

of females in this research is a representation of the general distribution.

Table 5 Gender distribution total respondents (2016)

Gender Distribution Respondents

Absolute Total Percentage Total

Community Male Female Male Female

A1 3 3 6 50,0% 50,0% 100%

B1 2 4 6 33,3% 66,7% 100%

M1 8 13 21 38,1% 61,9% 100%

Q1 7 14 21 33,3% 66,7% 100%

Total 20 34 N=54 37,0 63,0 100% Source: Semi-structured interviews, 2016.

2 Factfinder, US Census, American Community Survey 5-years 2010-2014 estimates, Demographics and Housing

Estimates. 3 Factsheet Government Development Bank Puerto Rico, 2016. 4 Factsheet, US Census, American Community Survey 5-years 2010-2014 estimates, Demographics and Housing

Estimates.

44

5.1.3. Education

Puerto Rico follows the school system of the United States of America. The system comprises of the

levels primary, secondary and tertiary. These levels are divided in the different levels outlined in table

6 below. The primary level consists of elementary school and intermediate and contains in total 6 years

of school attainment. Secondary level consists of high school and contains in total 12 years of school

attainment. Finally, the tertiary level consists of technical formation, bachelor and higher.

In table 6 it appears that the majority of the respondents (69%) have not more achieved than a high

school degree and a smaller portion (31%) achieved a higher education degree. This relates partly with

the general attainment of education in Patillas, in which the majority of the population achieved a high

school degree (29, 9%). However, in the general education attainment census of Patillas 5, the second

highest level of graduation seems to consist of the 9th grade or less (22,5%) which is the primary level.

The total bachelor degree consists only of a 11,3% in the general attainment in comparison to a total of

20,4% within the respondents. This means that the general level of education among the respondents is

slightly higher than the general attainment level of education in Patillas. The reason for this difference

could relate to the relatively small sample size. This suggests that with a larger sample size the level of

education probably would be lower.

Table 6 Level of education (2016)

Source: Semi-structured interviews, 2016.

5 Factfinder, US Census Educational Attainment, 2014.

Education Absolute Percentage

No education

Elementary school or less

Intermediate

High School

Technical Formation

Bachelor

Master

PhD

Total

2 3,7%

10 18,5%

8 14,8%

17 31,5%

3 5,6%

11 20,4%

2 3,7%

1 1,9%

N=54 100,0

45

5.1.4. Occupation

Table 7 Occupation total respondents (2016)

Source: Semi-structured interviews, 2016.

The majority of the respondents is retired (31,5%) and the second category comprises of housewife

(29,6%). This relates with the age distribution, in which the majority of the people is between 56-66

years old. This could as well reflect the lower number of people with regular paid employment (13,0%)

and the number of people incapable to work (14,8%).

5.1.5. Household composition

Figure 15 Marital status total respondents (2016)

Source: Semi-structured interviews, 2016.

In figure 15 the category ‘married with children’ (59,3%) is the largest category followed by ‘divorced

with children’. In the additional question on the number of people in the households, it appears a

household comprises mostly of 2 people, followed by 3 or a single person household. Females seem to

live alone more frequently than males. In a cross-table analysis including the marital status, gender and

the number of people in the households, it demonstrates that a large majority (81,3%) within the category

‘married with children’, comprises of two people in the households. This means that the households in

the investigated communities, comprises mostly of heterosexual households without having children

0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0

single, no children

single with children

married, no children

married, with children

divorced, no children

divorced, with children

widow, with children

Cohabiting

single, no

children

single with

children

married,

no children

married,

with

children

divorced,

no children

divorced,

with

children

widow,

with

children

Cohabiting

Percentage 3,7 11,1 1,9 59,3 1,9 13,0 3,7 5,6

Marital Status

Occupation Absolute Percentage

Not working

Housewife

Paid employment

Independent worker

Student

Retired

Incapable to work

Total

4 7,4 %

16 29,6 %

7 13,0 %

1 1,9 %

1 1,9 %

17 31,5 %

8 14,8 %

N=54 100 %

46

living at home. During the interviews it became clear that, even though most of the households have

children, most of these children are migrated to the US mainland, due to the current economic crisis as

explained in chapter 3.

5.1.6. Income

Collecting income data is important in order to understand the financial situation of the investigated

communities, however, the IRB did not give permission to ask income-related questions. For that reason,

the estimated income of the residents is based on the census of Patillas6, in which the estimated annual

median household income accounts for $14343, -. This appears to be lower than the national median

household income7 of Puerto Rico, which consist of an estimated of $19686, - . However, the census

not includes remittances, which can largely influence the income level in households.

Concluding the socio-demographics of the respondents, it seems the participants comprises of an aging

group; not participating in the paid labour force due to retirement or fulfilling the role of housewives;

slight overrepresentation of women; the majority achieved a high school degree and the households

contains generally of a married couple with children living abroad. Conducive to understand the current

situation of the CSWS, it is important to know how the process has evolved. The next chapter provides

this specific information.

6 United States Census Bureau: American Community Survey, 5- year estimates 2010-2014 Puerto Rico, Patillas. 7 United States Census Bureau: American Community Survey, 5 year Estimates 2010-2014 Puerto Rico.

47

6. Community small water systems: history and current situation

In order to understand the current water governance structure of the CSWS, it is important to address

the process over time. In the subsections below the history and current situation of the water governance

structure of the four CSWS is explained, followed by an explanation of the provided external support.

6.1. History of rural community small water systems in Patillas

The four CSWS in Patillas emerged in the years 1960-1970 as the governmental PRASA was not

physically capable to install water and sewage services to all citizens (Campos et al., 2005). The CSWS

are constructed by the community residents and mostly paid by themselves, with some financial support

in the form of donations from the Puerto Rico Rural Development Agency and municipal governments

(Ramirez-Toro, 2016). In that time different agencies such as the Community Education and Rural

Development supported the communities in different aspects such as technical and construction advice

(Ramirez-Toro, 2016). In the beginning of the CSWS there was no organized water governance structure

and the group that was responsible for the systems comprised mostly of neighbours. Once the CSWS

were considered as a public water system, thus required to comply with the federal law regulations, they

started to govern the water in a more organized manner and started to form the community water

committees.

In 2002, ten small communities decided to unite their efforts and resources to provide safe

drinking water to their communities and to comply with the SDWA by forming a cooperative, the

Cooperativa de Acueductos de Patillas (CAP), which was officially in existence since 2003. The CAP

was a non-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, meaning

the CAP had to pay yearly fees to sustain this incorporated status and this status gave them the

opportunity to apply for funding’s and support of the SDWA. Each community selected a representative

for the board of the CAP and these ‘presidents’ formed the Board of Directors of the CAP. The CAP

collected the user fees and operated and managed the CSWS and each community member on itself kept

its governance on the funds for the communities (Campos et al., 2005; Conde, 2016; Santiago 2016).

Despite the extensive hard work of the CAP, the CAP dissolved in 2014. In the interviews with the

former members of the CAP (Conde, Flores, Rodriguez, Santiago and Fraticelli, 2016) it became clear

that the CAP dissolved after 12 years as a consequence of financial reasons. The underlying reason

argued according the members, was the result of a distrust within the communities towards the CAP.

According Santiago (2016) and Conde (2016), the people did not understand the meaning of a

cooperative and perceived it as an entity which collected money for the water and they failed to see the

extensive work of the CAP. They did not understand that the advantage of a cooperative could result in

improved water quality and availability. This negative perception led to little cooperation and

involvement in the CAP. Additionally, a great part of the community did not want to cooperate with

other communities, because they argued some communities had to pay more than others, which they

assessed as unfair. Santiago (2016) explained that larger communities paid more, as a consequence they

48

had more economical resources than a smaller community, in order to support each other. Finally, it

appeared impossible to sustain the CAP with the few revenues they received to pay the yearly fees which

accounted approximately of $3000, -. (Conde, 2016; Ramirez-Toro, 2016). During the time of the CAP,

several conflicts emerged in the communities which were a part of the CAP. One community (Q1) was

put out of the CAP as a consequence of distrust of one of the board members towards the CAP. The

CAP members voted and unanimously put the community Q1 out. This in turn led to a discontent in

community Q1 towards this particular president and finally, including the support of the mayor of

Patillas, the former president was voted out from his position and duty (Ramirez-Toro, 2016).

Since the CAP dissolved 2 years ago, the four communities are considered to sustain themselves

again, without external financial or management support. Despite the efforts of the CAP, all the

communities still do not comply with all the SDWA standards (Ramirez-Toro, 2016). Nevertheless,

since the CAP dissolved the communities still work together and support each other on certain issues.

Since they are a public water system under the law, they are all required to comply with the regulations

and to provide evidence of compliance to the State (Ramirez-Toro, 2016; Santiago, 2016).

Considering the non-compliance of the investigated communities, Ramirez-Toro (2016) argues the

communities need more capacity of its members to understand the value of cooperation within the

communities to address the compliance issues. Former members of the CAP as well claimed the low

community cooperation is a large barrier to finally comply with the SDWA (Conde, Flores, Fraticelli,

Rodriguez, 2016). Ramirez-Toro (2016) states that only a few people understand the relationship

between activities regulated by the US EPA, the water quality and their health. As long the communities

do not understand the importance of compliance and the current risks of their water quality to their

health, it will remain a challenge (Ramirez-Toro, 2016). The communities are informed about the health

risks which became clear in the former mentioned research of Chalmers et al. (2015). Nevertheless,

Ramirez-Toro (2016) argues that knowing the scientific facts appears not to lead directly to increased

cooperation with the CSWS to improve the situation.

6.2. Current Water Governance Structure

The governance structures differ among the communities, though they share similarities in some

regulations. These rules are separate from the SWDA regulations and are developed within the

communities itself. The similar rules in three (A1, M1 & Q1) out of the four communities, consist of:

(I)water is only for domestic use; (I) obligation to pay the fixed monthly water service tariff; (III) no

swimming pools allowed and if people do have a swimming pool extra costs are associated with the

amount of the volume of the swimming pool; (IV) in times of drought people should use water sparingly.

The difference in the current water governance structure is described in the next subparagraphs per

community and the information is obtained through the interviews with the present people in charge,

the residents and experts.

49

6.2.1. Water Governance Structure A1

The director of CECIA (Mrs. Ramirez-Toro) and two of the three men in charge (two brothers, Mr.

Colon) of the CSWS explained the current situation. In community A1 there is a group of three leaders

who take responsibility for managing the water systems and some ladies collect the monthly water tariff,

however, it is not organized as a CWC. Nevertheless, these leader’s intent to improve the water quality

and to comply with the SDWA regulation. The three men try to organize meetings once in a while for

the community. In these meetings people are informed about the CSWS and decisions are being made,

however, only if enough people attend. In practice this means that generally the three men take decisions,

due to little attendance of the people in the meetings. Additionally, they intend to gather new people to

work with the CSWS as a consequence of the ageing of two of the three men, however, this is difficult

since they perceive the people are not interested. The two men conducted both the study for operator

and are working with the system since 12 years. The two men spoke with a discontent about the

community considering the little willingness to help with the CSWS in case of problems. The men also

argue that the water consumption is out of proportion, which results the chlorine runs out faster. For

this reason, a regulation is created. However, they assess the people do not value the rules, due to the

ongoing excessive amount of water use and because a lot of people do not pay the monthly tariff. The

regulation exists, nevertheless, there is no strict control on the rules and if people do not pay the monthly

costs, up to now, there are no sanctions. One of the men emphasized the need for a new CWC with a

president, in order to oblige the people more and make them more aware of their water use. Furthermore,

he expressed the need to educate the community about the risks of climate change on their water systems.

6.2.2. Water Governance Structure B1

Unfortunately, it was not possible to conduct an

interview with one of the persons in charge of

the small water systems in B1. Since the CAP

dissolved, the community have not organized a

new CWC. Nevertheless, there is a core group

which solves issues regarding the CSWS.

Furthermore, when the system needs new

material or other necessary operations, people

of the community use the Sunday church mass

to reach the community and intend to make

decisions. There is a monthly tariff for the

O&M, however, this does not include costs to

improve the water quality by taking water

samples or installing water treatment

installations. Two respondents claimed most people do not pay these costs. The goals for the CSWS are

Figure 16 Old community water-tank B1, not longer

operating (2016)

50

unknown for this community, however it appears the current goal comprises mostly of securing the

provision of water to its residents instead of complying with the SDWA or opting for other future goals.

According Ramirez-Toro (2016), the former goal applies to all the communities, in which the goal to

comply with the SDWA regulations is secondary and only is taken in consideration in times of

encountering problems with federal agencies. Ramirez-Toro (2016) as well claims the communities do

not perceive the value of the law in serving safe water.

6.2.3. Water Governance Structure M1

The information is obtained through the interview with the current financial manager of the organized

CWC of the community, Mrs. Santiago. She was a former CAP member and represented her community

in that time. Santiago explained the water governance structure is reorganized two years ago by four

people, consisting of one financial manager, a secretary and two other people responsible working at the

CSWS. Those operating the CSWS, are responsible for chlorination, cleaning and sample taking to

measure the amount of chlorine in the water. The CWC members are chosen by the community residents

in a plenary reunion and consist of an equal number of females and males, and different ages. This

selection is decided on purpose. The work is voluntarily. At the present, there is no president of the

CWC, although this will be organized in the future. The present goals the community intends to pursue

for the CSWS are:

Improve the small water system and the pipelines.

Step by step constructing the fence and turn the new filter into operation, in order to comply

with the SDWA.

Install water-meters in all the houses, in order to measure the water use and subsequently

convert the monthly tariff to their consumption.

Inform the people consistently about the progress of the water system, through reunions and

house visits when needed.

Re-write the regulation.

Santiago argues that the residents appear more content with the current state of water governance, then

in the past with the CAP. Santiago claims that the community cooperation increased after dissolving the

CAP.

“I don’t know exactly why it is functioning better now, but the people are more willing when the

community started again as an individual association. They seem to trust us more.”

51

Figure 17 Construction to protect new filtration system in M1 (2016)

Source 1 Taken by H. Minnigh, 2016.

She also believes this reflects itself in the payments of the monthly costs for the CSWS. In the case of

the decision making process, the CWC organizes reunions to inform the residents about the progress

and necessary operations. The people get invited to these meeting through informative postal leaflets

and during collecting of the water service tariff. Santiago argues that it is important for the CWC to

inform the community properly and transparent. The attendance at the meetings varies. Santiago argues

that the cooperation in the community exists, nevertheless, it appears that most of the time the same

people assist. Regarding the monthly costs, Santiago states that the majority pays the monthly costs. As

it is her job to collect the monthly quota of $8,-, she spoke of three people who do not pay. However,

one of them pays by assisting in case of problems. Up to now, they do not cut off the water if people do

not pay, however, they intend to come to payment agreements. Santiago mentioned she does not want

to cut of water, because:

“People will have their reasons and it’s better to get to an agreement, whether than to cut off the water.”

Although the majority of the residents pay the monthly costs, Santiago explained the monthly cost of

$8, - is not sufficient to reach the requirements of the SDWA. Santiago states that most probably an

increase of the monthly cost is necessary in the future.

6.2.4. Water Governance Structure Q1

The current president of the CWC (Mrs. Oliver) the director of CECIA (Mrs. Ramirez-Toro) and the

mayor (Mr. Soto Figueroa) provided most of the following information. Community Q1 have suffered

tremendously of poor water governance in the past, which has led to little access to water and a high

debt for several community residents (Ramirez-Toro, 2016; Soto Figueroa, 2016). However, with the

new recent CWC the water access has improved. In community Q1 there has been a change in

management since 17th of October 2015 and the transition lasted around 2 months. The new CWC is

52

chosen in a plenary reunion by the community residents and came into effect since January 2016 with a

licensed operator. The CWC consist of 11 members, one paid operator and the rest of the members work

voluntarily. Since this time, the water quality is daily measured with samples by the operator. Mrs.

Oliver explained that her role as a president includes: organizing reunions, working with external

organisations, monitoring the operators and managing the administration. In the two months of transition

the new CWC focused on important adjustments for the water tank and the whole system, in order to

provide water to the community 24/7. According the president, the CSWS is now complying with the

SDWA standards, however, this is not correct according to Ramirez-Toro (2016). They are complying

with a part of the SDWA standards, in this case having a licensed operator and taking specific samples.

According the president, since January 2016 the residents in the community have noticed an

improvement in the water availability and the water quality. Since the improvements, residents are more

willing to pay the monthly costs and are making payment arrangements to pay their debts. The goals the

new committee pursue are:

Assure water availability 24/7.

Install water-meters in all the houses, in order to monitor the water use.

Be prepared in case of natural disasters, such as hurricanes, floods or earthquakes with the

installation of a back-up system with several water cisterns with potable water for the

community and especially for the people most in need (elderly and vulnerable people).

Decide which new filtration system and water system the community will use to get in

compliance with the SDWA regulation for the part of filtration and at the same time take the

financial costs in consideration for the community.

Re-write the regulation.

Although the residents are making payment arrangements, the president holds concerns for the future

considering the required change from a superficial water source to a groundwater source.

“The only thing is that we are still superficial and our concern about that for us to go total subterranean

is the cost of the electricity will go skyrocket, we have to do rate adjustments (…). But if we would go

totally subterranean, then what will happen in a time of a disaster when the electricity shuts down?

Than the pump of the subterranean system will not work and then we will have no water. In the past we

were 3 months without electricity due to a hurricane, 3 months!”

The president prefers to use the superficial water source and at the same time the subterranean water

source in case of a natural disaster, allowing to have water consistently. The president emphasizes the

vulnerable majority of the residents of the community, which consist mostly of elderly people. Besides

the requirement of the SDWA to change from a superficial water source to a subterranean water source,

the SDWA requires as well a new filtration system for the current superficial water system. According

the president, a new filtration system is expensive and the most economic option is to install a sand

53

filter, although a sand filter takes a considerable time to filter the water, which can cause problems in

the water availability when people are using generous amounts. In the case of decision making, the new

CWC takes the important decisions. The CWC finds it important to inform the people about the progress

and to include them in case of problem solving. The president emphasized the importance of

transparency and information towards the people, nevertheless, they were not able up to organize a new

meeting since they are operating. The current regulation is not applicable, considering they are adjusting

the present version.

6.3. External Support

The communities under study have received different external support in the last 25 years, comprising

mostly of technical support in case of system problems, technical training and capacity development

support, generally provided by different governmental and non-governmental entities, such as CECIA,

Rural Community Assistance Program (RCAP) and the Corporation for Rural Development of Puerto

Rico (CDR) (Campos et al., 2005; Ramirez-Toro, 2016). The institutions have worked to implement the

Capacity Development Strategy to support the communities in providing its consumers with healthy

potable water and to comply with the SDWA. It became clear that the barriers to compliance did not

consist solely of a lack of financial resources and technical knowledge, as well as the structure of the

community influenced the decision to address the compliance issues (Campos et al., 2005). Furthermore,

Ramirez-Toro (2014) assert that the provided technical education was too technical and too difficult and

not aligned with the local level of education in the communities. CECIA decided to provide the

communities with technical trainings more aligned with the educational capacities of the communities,

and the educational interventions appeared to be rewarding. In Hunter et al. (2010) in which they studied

the impact on diarrhoeal illness after providing a community educational intervention in order to

improve disinfection, it appeared that the diarrhoeal illness rate in the follow-up study were lower in the

communities which had have the educational intervention in comparison to communities which not have

had the educational intervention. Besides the decrease in illness rates, the study also contributed to an

improvement in the labour aspect, since the community residents were all unemployed at the start of the

educational intervention and afterwards all employed in the water and/or wastewater systems (Hunter et

al., 2010).

54

Figure 18 Educational intervention by CECIA in M1 (2016)

Although the communities receive and accept free of charge support from CECIA, in general it appears

the communities are reluctant to accept the proposed support if it consists the typical top-down approach,

thus not including the community residents in decision-making processes (Patterson, 2016; Ramirez-

Toro, 2016). Patterson and Ramirez-Toro (2016) emphasize the need for long-term support and

transparency in the process and to include the goals of the communities in order to achieve cooperation

in the communities. The communities want to participate in decision making processes and expressed

their need for long-term support for technical trainings to sustain their water systems (Patterson, 2016).

However, Ramirez-Toro (2016) also expressed her concern for the unreliable payments of many

community residents for the CSWS which increases the vulnerable situation of the CSWS in the near

and distant future. Furthermore, the bureaucratic procedures for financial or technical support programs

provided by the US EPA and the Puerto Rican government, makes the communities not to apply. Besides

the bureaucratic procedure, the communities do not want any loans, since they believe their economic

resources are not sufficient to sustain the systems properly, a loan will only complicate the matter

(Ramirez-Toro, 2016). Even though, the US EPA is a regulator, two US EPA employers provide

practical hands-on support for community A1. With external funding, CECIA and the US EPA installed

the water treatment system in A1 and demonstrated and taught the people in charge of the systems how

to operate the system (Patterson, 2016). As for community M1, CECIA installed innovative sand filter

systems and currently provides the communities with a basic training on how to operate and clean the

CSWS (Ramirez-Toro, 2016). The overall goal of CECIA is first to help the communities to understand

the linkages between the SDWA and their health and reduce the risks of consuming unhealthy potable

water and second support and teach them to install proper technologies to finally get in compliance with

the SDWA (Ramirez-Toro, 2016).

In the interview with the current mayor of Patillas, señor Soto Figueroa (March, 2016), he explained

the local municipality is organizing new technical educational interventions for the communities in order

to provide licensed operators. These education programs consist of an academic level, however, the

mayor asserts that the people in the communities have the proper educational level and that the

55

motivation of the people to learn is of greater importance. Furthermore, the mayor is working on the

high debt in community Q1 with an attempt to obtain a debt settlement. The mayor expressed as well

his concern of the unreliable payments of the community residents. According to the mayor this is one

of the major problems in order to sustain the CSWS for the near and distant future.

6.4. Conclusion

Considering differences between the water governance structure in the four communities, it appears two

communities formed a community water committee, and the other communities do not, however they

do have a core group of people working at the CSWS. In terms of future goals, it appears three out of

the four are working towards several ambitious goals, including compliance with the SDWA and taking

measures to pursue a more professional water governance structure. Transparency towards the residents

is emphasized in three out of the four communities. The cooperation within the communities differs, as

in community M1 and Q1 the cooperation improved since they formed a new CWC, however, the

cooperation in A1 is little which also is expressed as a large concern for the near and distant future. The

lack of cooperation reflects itself in little payments in A1 and little support during problems with the

CSWS. Community B1 seems to hold the most vulnerable position, since there is no water treatment at

all and the community does not seem to pursue compliance with the SDWA or improving the current

water quality. The communities benefit different types of external support and it has proven to positively

affect the communities. Different experts emphasize the need for long-term transparent external support

and if providing, including the goals of the communities is an important precondition.

The above provides an extensive overview of the history and current situation of the CSWS. To follow

in logical order, the next chapter focuses on the findings based on the perceptions of the residents on the

current water governance structure.

56

7. Perceptions on water governance

It is important to understand how the people perceive the current water governance structure to identify

to what extent this corresponds or differs from the statements and perception of the people in charge of

the CWC’s. To investigate the perceptions on the current water governance structure questions were

based on different aspects including the regulation, sense of involvement and transparency, the monthly

costs for the water service and the sense of responsibility of the CSWS. The findings are based on the

interviews with the residents.

7.1. Water use regulation.

To investigate to what extent, the residents are aware of the existence of the mentioned regulations in

the previous chapter, the next table demonstrate the answers on the question “Are there rules or

regulations in this community regarding the use of water?”.

Table 8 Water regulation in communities? (2016)

Question: Do there exist rules or a regulation in the community regarding water use?

Community Total

A1 B1 Q1 M1

Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute %

No 1 16,7% 6 100,0

%

2 9,5% 4 19,0

%

13 24,1%

Yes 5 83,3% 0 0,0% 18 85,7

%

11 52,4

%

34 63,0%

Don't

know

0 0,0% 0 0,0% 1 4,8% 6 28,6

%

7 13,0%

Total 6 100,0

%

6 100,0

%

21 100,0

%

21 100,0

%

N=54 100,0

%

Source: Semi-structured interviews, 2016.

In the table above, it appears that there is no regulation in community B1. This is no surprise as it has

no longer an organized CWC. Furthermore, in community M1, it becomes clear that more people

(28,6%) do not know of the existence of a regulation compared to the other communities. The difference

between community M1 and other two communities becomes even more evident in the answer with

“no”. Here it also shows that in community M1, 4 people (19,0%) argue that there are no regulations in

comparison to A1 and Q1. The reason for this unfamiliarity with the regulations in M1 could be a result

of the larger size of the community and because of fewer people working in the committee in comparison

to Q1. It even so appears that the people in community Q1 are most aware of the presence of a

regulation, which could be a consequence of the recently new formed CWC.

According some respondents of A1, the regulations prescribe that it is not allowed to use the water other

than for domestic use and that one is obligated to pay the monthly costs. Other respondents do not really

know what is included in the regulations.

57

All the respondents of community B1 explained that there is no longer an existence of a regulation or a

CWC, as a consequence of long-term conflicts in the past with the CAP:

“(…) the cooperative came and installed the deep-well tank and the other thing, from the river, so that

in times of heavy rain, we could always count on the alternative, the deep-well source with the pump.

However, this led to a lot of problems, because the deep-well tank did not function good and a lot of

times the water was really dirty, like brown, and a lot of times there were problems with the pipelines,

that they were damaged and all. So the cooperative, yes they ruined the aqueduct and they left us without

water! (…) so we complained a lot and also because we had to pay a lot of money, but the cooperative

did not do anything and they left us with a big debt of $10000, -! We are now still fighting with a lawyer

for this money! So since then we decided to use the other river again, like we always used to do, and

since then, we don’t have any problem with dirty water.” (Female respondent, B1)

Four out of the six respondents in B1 are more content with the current situation than the former one.

These four respondents also assess it as an advantage to monitor and organize the issues regarding the

CSWS themselves, as one community, and not within a cooperative. The other two respondents assess

it as an important absence and argue that it is a necessity to have a proper CSWS with adequate treatment

which is monitored by a cooperative or such kind. Since there is no regulation, two respondents believe

that it would be better if the community itself set up a regulation document. Nevertheless, this preference

and their incorrect perceptions on their water quality makes it difficult to improve the current situation

and increases their vulnerable situation. The lack of informing the people about the health risks regarding

their water, can cause serious health issues. It is not known for the other communities how they assess

the current water governance structure in comparison to the former, since this is not specifically asked

as so, however, the current people in charge elaborated on this as addressed in chapter 6.2..

In community M1, a small portion of the respondents think that the water is only for domestic use; that

people shouldn’t use much; and that the rules only apply during times of drought.

In community Q1 most of the respondents are aware of the re-writing of the present regulation.

According the respondents from Q1, the present regulation consists among others rules which: oblige to

use a small water sprinkler; boil the water for five minutes and it forbids to wash animals.

The greatest part of the total respondents finds the rules necessary and “good” because several argue

that it is necessary to make the people more aware of their water use and because they assess it as

important to have rules to manage the water use.

7.2. Involvement and transparency

Considering the feeling of involvement in the communities by the CWC or people in charge, the majority

in all the communities responded positive. The majority in all the communities feels well included in

the work of the people in charge with the system. At the same time, the major part perceive that they are

58

sufficiently informed about the progress of the CSWS and they all consider it highly important to be

informed consistently about the progress and the operations.

“They always inform us if they need to close the water tank and they organize reunions and they send

informal letters, yes I feel well included and I find that also important, because the water system belongs

to the community.” (Female respondent, M1)

“They sometimes organize meetings and the board is chosen by us, the whole community. It is important

to know how everything is going with our water, because I have the right to know it and I also have the

responsibility towards my children to protect them.” (Female respondent, Q1).

A small portion (±18,5%) of the total communities argues that they are not well informed about the

progress of the water system. The reason for this perception could be, that particularly those persons

appear not to attend the meetings, which obviously results in being less informed about the water

systems. Reason for not attending consist of: no interest in general to attend the meetings, the meetings

are too crowded and because they are not able to go.

Community residents of Q1 appear to be most positive. The major part of the community members

attends the organized meetings in the communities to stay well informed. The reason for this positive

perception, could be a result of the improved water quality and the recent new formed CWC.

7.3. Monthly water service costs

The question on the monthly costs was asked in order to assess to what extent the people know the

current amount of the water service tariff and what they think of the coverage of these costs. This

included the question : “Do you assess the water service tariff sufficient for the water quality, water

quantity and the O&M?”

Table 9 Monthly water service tariff (2016)

Community Monthly fixed water

service tariff

Paid? Total respondents

Yes

(Absolute)

No

(Absolute)

A1 $7,- 6 6

B1 $5,- * 2 4 6

M1 $8,- 17** 17

Q1 $12,- 21 21

Total 46 4 N=50 Source: Semi-structured interviews, 2016.

*Note: only for the O&M.

**Note: question not asked in first 4 interviews.

The table 9 above presents the monthly fixed water service tariff for the CSWS in the different

communities. The amount corresponds with the information given by the current people in charge. The

majority of the respondents (±68,5%) in the four communities, argue that the monthly costs corresponds

with the quality and the quantity of the water they obtain. Likewise, the majority of the total respondents

59

(±61,1%) states that the costs are as well sufficient to cover the O&M. However, a smaller portion

(14,8%) argued the costs are not sufficient to cover the O&M. The people who argued that the monthly

cost do not cover the O&M, appeared to be in most cases the people who are working or worked for a

numerous time with the CSWS. The findings also demonstrate, all the respondents know there is a fixed

monthly tariff and state they all pay it. This outcome does not correspond with the concerns expressed

by the current people in charge for community A1 and by the mayor and Ramirez-Toro considering

community Q1 and the communities in general. However, this answer could be a result of socially

desirable answer or because the specific respondents currently all paying.

“Oh no, the costs are definitely not enough for the water maintenance, because imagine if you would

go every day up to that mountain and work with the system, a regular operator would charge a huge

amount. Me and my brother calculated the estimated costs to go up every day, and pfff the costs do not

equal our work, however, we are doing it voluntarily (…).” (Colon, A1)

Additionally, in interviews with the former members of the CAP, they argued that the monthly costs in

general are nowhere near a sufficient amount for the O&M of the CSWS. Within all four communities,

the majority finds the price of water relatively cheap, even more so when compared to the governmental

PRASA-system, from which they believe the costs are much higher.

“Hahah, what we pay for our water is like a gift. Do you know how much they pay in town? And still

people are complaining here or do not want to pay, hahaha. I am really happy with the price and I hope

it will stay this way.” (Male respondent, Q1)

7.4. Perceptions of responsibility

Answers to the question of who they assess responsible to obtain healthy potable water, the opinions on

the responsibility slightly differ between the experts, the former CAP members, current people in charge

and the community residents. Patterson and Ramirez-Toro (interviews, April 2016) in their roles as

experts of the US EPA and CECIA argue that different parties are responsible for the communities to

obtain healthy potable water, consisting of (I) the government, (II) the community, (III) CECIA, and

(IV) US EPA. Ramirez-Toro explains that the community is partly responsible, as a consequence the

water system belongs to the community. However, on the other hand, the government should also

support the communities since they pay for the water, which provides them with a certain protection of

the State (Ramirez-Toro). Additionally, Ramirez-Toro, argues that the state as well has a moral

responsibility, due to the fact that the communities lack economical resources and knowledge to obtain

healthy potable water. In the interviews with the former CAP members difference appeared. Two of the

four asserts that the community and the government holds the responsibility as for the others they hold

only the community responsible for providing healthy potable water. Arguments mentioned in the case

of the government consist of a moral responsibility towards its population and in the case of the

community due to the fact that it is a community property.

60

In the case of the communities, two groups are held most responsible to obtain healthy potable water,

comprising of (I) the community (the operators and all the residents) and (II) the operators/the people

in charge. A difference is clear between the communities. In community Q1 most people tend to find

the operators and the new CWC most responsible to assure healthy potable water, as in the other three

communities, they find the community as a whole responsible. The arguments for the communities,

comprises of (I) “it is our community system, so we are all responsible” and in case of the

operators/people working at the systems (II) “They know how it works, so they are responsible.” The

difference in reasoning could relate to the new recent change in Q1, where a licensed operator is

working. As for the other communities the people work on a voluntary basis. The president of Q1, Mrs.

Oliver, also stated that the CWC is the accountable group to assure the community obtains healthy

potable water, as for community M1, Mrs. Santiago finds the community as a whole is responsible. The

reason the residents do not claim responsibility towards the government, can be a consequence of little

to non-governmental intervening in all these years and because there is argued the communities are

reluctant to accept external support if provided in the top-down approach. This change in perception

could also relate to the self-sustainable goals of the communities, in which external governmental

support is not mentioned as a factor in achieving these goals.

7.5. Conclusion

The overall current perception on the water governance structure is positive in all the four communities.

Most people feel well included in the different processes regarding their water systems and find it

important to be included and informed. In three of the four communities (A1, M1, Q1) regulations are

applied to the water use, however, this is not known by each community member. The responsibility for

obtaining healthy potable water is mainly put on the community by the residents and in the case of the

experts and former CAP members on the community and the government. To continue examining other

important factors influencing the perceptions on CSWS, the next chapter focusses on the water

perceptions, household water use methods and knowledge of the CSWS.

61

8. Knowledge and Water Perceptions

This chapter intents to answer the sub questions regarding the knowledge of the residents of their CSWS

and perceptions on the water quality, the water availability and the applied household water use and

treatment strategies. Identifying what the residents know and want to know about their water system can

be helpful for external agencies in developing knowledge transfer programs and for the CWC in order

to inform their residents on important aspects of the systems.

8.1. Knowledge of community small water systems

The general knowledge of the people regarding their water system is investigated by asking what they

know of the system and if they are interested in knowing more of the CSWS. In the next table the

different answers per community are displayed.

Table 10 Knowledge of water systems and interest in learning (2016)

Community

Knowledge

Interested in learning/knowing

more about the water system?

A1 Small-water system contains two filters.

Chlorine treatment.

Cleaning of the system by people in charge.

50% is interested in knowing more about

the system.

B1* No filter, no chlorination.

Water is supplied directly from a river up high in the

mountains with one big pipe and subsequently distributed in

the community, without any treatment. (all)

NA

M1 Located in the mountains.

Chlorination and installed filtration.

Sand filter.

Water-samples taken.

Cleaning of the system by people in charge.

42,8% interested in knowing more about

the system.

Q1 Chlorination and filtration and a deep-well pump.

That the system is monitored and water-samples taken.

Different filters.

New committee since some months.

Water-source is subterranean.

66,6% interested in knowing more about

the system.

Source: Semi-structured interviews, 2016.

* One respondent owns his own small water system, refer to box 1.

It appears that in all the communities, the respondents have a basic understanding of the functioning of

the system, compared to the provided information in the contextual framework. Nevertheless, besides

the basic understanding, other expressed ‘facts’ are not always correct. In community Q1 several people

think that the subterranean water source is operating, however, this is not the case. The same applies to

community M1, in which several people think the new filtration system is operating, which also is

incorrect. This outcome does not relate with the response on the attendance in the organized meetings,

as the majority states they attend the meetings. This could mean the people are not honest in their

answers regarding their attendance, or the information in the meetings is possibly not well understood

or told. Among the respondents there are several people which conducted the basic course in which they

learn how to treat the water with chlorine and how to take samples to test the amount of chlorine in the

62

water. Few others conducted the more extensive course, to become an operator which include more

detailed knowledge. The latter are the ones still working at the system or have done this for years.

There appears to be an average interest in wanting to know more of the CSWS. However, the

question was no longer applicable to community B1 since there is no water treatment installation. The

respondents of community Q1 appear to be most interested to learn or know more about their CSWS,

followed by community A1. In community M1 people tend to be least interest. This interest demonstrate

the people are willing to learn and shows a certain cooperation. However, in some cases the question

could also be influenced by socially desirable answers. There appears to be a difference in interest among

gender, since women seems to be more interested (62,1%) compared to men (38,9%) to learning or

knowing more about the CSWS. In some cases, this is influenced due to some men argued they already

know enough. Finally, in some cases, the respondents replied that they did not know anything about

their small water system, however, this is a small number of people (4).

8.2. Water quality

The first question regarding water quality: “What do you think of the current potable water quality and

why?” was generally answered with “good”, “much better now than in the past” or “excellent” by 40

(74,0 %) of the total respondents (N=54). The remaining respondents (18,5%), assessed the potable

water quality as “regular”. The reasoning behind the positive water quality perception consist of the

next argumentation and are the most mentioned reasons in all the communities:

Table 11 Argumentation positive perception water quality (2016)

Argumentation

1 Water is transparent at the tap.

2 Taste is good.

3 Never got sick of it/has always been good.

4 Commitment of people working at the system.

5 As a result of sample-taking.

6 Water is treated with chlorine and filtration.

7 “We comply with the US EPA standards now.” (President Q1

committee).

8 The water system improved Source: Semi-structured interviews.

63

Besides the positive opinions on the water quality, a total of 11 respondents (±20,3%) assessed the water

quality as “regular” or as “bad”. The negative perceptions on the water quality are stated with the

following arguments:

Table 12 Argumentation negative perception water quality (2016)

Argumentation

1 It contains bacteria’s.

2 Taste differs sometimes.

3 The water can get contaminated by animals.

4 There is no treatment at all.

5 According study results, the water treatment is not sufficient enough to counter all the bacteria’s.

6 Sometimes it is turbid at the tap.

7 The chlorine causes rash on the skin.

8 The water causes rash on the skin.

9 It causes gastro-intestinal problems. Source: Semi-structured interviews, 2016.

Considering the rash, four respondents state water as the cause. One respondent (Female respondent,

M1) showed she puts a sock around the showerhead to prevent that the water not directly comes in

contact with her skin, without any ‘filtration’. She thinks this helps improving her skin condition.

Another respondent explained that everybody in the household suffers when taking a shower as a result

of the rash and the whole family intended to cope with this, however, the problem still exists and one

family member moved out of the house as a consequence of the rash (Female respondent, Q1).

64

In figure 19 the answers on the scale-question for water quality perception are shown for the four

communities and not specified for the different communities, as appeared the differences are small. The

majority is “satisfied” with 48,1% , followed by “very satisfied” (27,8%). Based on the current

satisfaction level, it seems there is a difference between gender. In the category “satisfied” men score

higher (65%) than women (39,4%), likewise for “very satisfied”, (30%) compared to women (27,3%).

Furthermore, comparing with the level of education, it appears there are no large differences in the

satisfaction level. The level of elementary shows that 6 of the 10 are “satisfied” to “very satisfied” with

the water quality. The level of bachelor shows that 10 of 11 are “satisfied” to “very satisfied” and for

the level of high school illustrates that 11 of the 17 are “satisfied” to “very satisfied”.

Figure 19 Current water quality perception total respondents (2016)

Source: Semi-structured interviews, 2016.

In other questions regarding the water quality, it appeared that in all the communities the water gets

contaminated by heavy rainfall with sediment. During heavy rainfall the water tank must be closed, as

a consequence of more sediment which enters the potable water reservoir. This occurs weekly, since it

rains frequently. This means that in all the communities this water is unusable and that there is no water

available for several hours up to one or more days. Nevertheless, the majority of the respondents assess

their water as “good” in the first question about the water quality. This implies that the majority of the

people answer the first question regarding the water quality in a positive way, without possibly

considering other aspects that do affect the water quality which are questioned in additional questions.

In additional questions on ‘factors’ affecting the water quality, all the respondents answered “rainfall”,

since this occurs weekly and is the main perceived factor for water contamination. Additional factors

most mentioned affecting the water quality consist of: (I) times of drought, (II) contamination by

bacteria’s, toxics or turbidity; (III) animals contaminating the water or carcases of animals in the water;

(IV) and malfunctioning and mismanagement of the CSWS.

Although 11 people (±30,5%) of the 36 find that there is no need to improve the water quality, on the

grounds that the current water quality is already of good quality, a number of 25 (±47%) respondents

1,9

5,6

14,8

48,1

27,8

0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0

very unsatisfied

unsatisfied

neutral

satisfied

very satisfied

Water quality perception

Percent

65

think that the water quality can be improved with several different interventions. This demonstrates that

certain people are aware of non-compliance with the SDWA and do think their water can be improved,

which is argued otherwise in the interview with Ramirez-Toro.

Table 13 Suggestions for improvement water quality (2016)

Suggestions for improvement

Better cooperation in the communities (all communities)

Installation of a good or better filtration system which counters all the harmful bacteria (only in

A1,M1 and Q1)

Consequent monitoring and treatment of the CSWS (M1 & Q1)

To have a CSWS which complies with all the regulations of the SDWA (only in A1, M1 and Q1)

Buy a tap filter (B1 & Q1). Source: Semi-structured interviews, 2016.

Referring to former chapters, several respondents expressed also the need for better cooperation in the

communities. Some argued that few people in the communities are willing to help whenever problems

occur. They assess that better cooperation within the communities will increase the water quality.

Other respondents stressed the need for a better and proper water system in order to improve the water

quality. Additionally, most of the respondents consider that consequent monitoring and treatment of the

CSWS is crucial to improve and sustain the water quality.

“Since there is still no adequate water treatment for our water, I do not trust the water quality, so if we

would have a system with all the necessary requirements, then I will trust it.” (Female respondent, Q1)

The options to buy a tap filter is most mentioned in the communities B1 and Q1, which is possibly

because the majority of the respondents in these communities own a tap filter, nevertheless, obtaining a

tap filter is expensive as explained by all the respondents. The respondents which have a tap filter believe

that their tap water is of excellent water quality.

8.3. Water quantity perception: water availability

Table 14 Total response on water availability (2016)

Source: Semi-structured interviews.

Considering the water quantity, 74% of the total respondents explained the water availability is limited

in several occasions. As mentioned before, the respondents explained this occurs weekly during heavy

rainfall. All the respondents argued that heavy rainfall is the main reason for the limited water access,

Question: Do you have a constant water availability?

Answer: Absolute Percentage

No 40 75,4

Yes 13 24,6

Total N=53 100,0

66

as a consequence the water tank needs to get closed. Additional reasons mentioned affecting the water

availability are: (I) when the operators need to close to water tank during the cleaning process; (II) and

during extensive droughts when the people in charge close the water tank to rationing the water. This

happens in 3 out of the 4 communities (A1, M1 and Q1). A final reason mentioned limiting the current

water availability is (III) clogged or damaged pipelines.

On the probe question “what do you find of this limited water access?” the people tend to answer the

same. They know that the water tank needs to be closed during heavy rainfall and the cleaning process

and the majority seems to accept it.

“Always when it rains or when they are cleaning the water tank they close it, so then we are out of water

for some hours, but I understand that this is necessary (…) (Male respondent, M1).

“Normally we always have water, but when it rains heavily than there is no water, but the people who

are in charge always try to solve it quickly (…)” (Male respondent, Q1).

In community B1 the total respondents (6) explained that their water availability is only affected by

clogging pipes during heavy rainfall, however, never by the effects of drought. During the tremendous

drought period in 2015 in Puerto Rico (6 months without precipitation), this community states that they

were not affected by it and that there was no obstruction in their water availability or need to rationing

the water.

“When it rains the pipes get clogged and then we do not have water, but during the drought of last year

we were the only community around here that was not affected by it, besides the clogging of the pipes,

we always have had water.” (Male respondent, B1)

“(…) and yes when it rains and the pipes are clogged, they go up and fix it, but I have to say that despite

the drought of last year, we always have had water. Of what I have heard, there were a lot of

communities that had to rationing their water, we did not.” (Female respondent, B1.)

Table 15 Responses per community on water availability (2016)

Community:

Do you have a constant water availability? Total

A1 B1 Q1 M1

Abs.* % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. %

An

swer

No 3 50,0% 3 50,0% 19 90,5% 15 75,0% 40 75,5%

Yes 3 50,0% 3 50,0% 2 9,5% 5 25,0% 13 24,5%

Total 6 100,0% 6 100,0% 21 100,0% 20 100,0% N=53 100,0%

Source: Semi-structured interviews, 2016.

*Abs.=absolute

In the table above, the perception of the people differs. It appears that the largest percentage of people

(90,5%) in community Q1 argue that they don’t have a constant water availability, followed by

67

community M1 (75%), with heavy rainfall assessed as the main reason. This confirms the extensive

problems of community Q1 with which they have dealt for years which is addressed in the contextual

framework. Nevertheless, the majority of Q1 states that the current water availability improved a lot,

since there the new water committee.

The people use different methods to deal with this unstable water availability. The majority of

the respondents have a water cistern, which provides them consistently with water. Another method

used, is to obtain water from family members or friends who live nearby in another community or store

tap water in bottles in the refrigerator. And finally, buy bottled water in case of emergency.

Besides the water availability, according to 69,8% of the respondents there is no change in the

quantity of the water considering the water pressure. They assess the water pressure as good. In the

community Q1, the largest number of people said they never have problems with the water pressure.

This could be explained, because the largest part of the community is located in a flat area, which makes

it easier for the water to reach the houses than houses in upper areas. Also, recently the CWC bought

new water pressure machines, which helps to obtain water for the higher located houses. In community

M1, 7 people (±18,9%) appeared to be discontent with the water pressure and this could relate to the

higher located houses. One of the respondents mentioned:

“We almost always have low water pressure, we are already used to it, but sometimes it is so bad, that

we use the water cistern, otherwise it takes ages to get some water. I think the main reason is the height

and, because more people came to live here.” (Female respondent, M1)

On the check question of “so what do you think can affect the quality and quantity of the water?”

respondents assert that (I) heavy rainfall is the main cause for affecting the water quality and quantity,

followed by: (II) droughts; (III) extreme weather events (such as storms, floods, hurricanes, landslides

and earthquakes); (IV) a poorly functioning water system; (V) drying up of the rivers; (VI) a misuse of

water; (VII) and the construction of more houses.

68

8.5. Household water treatment

In this subparagraph attention will be given to the specific household water treatment methods the

residents apply and the underlying reasons for the treatment methods. To investigate the factors that

influence specific household water strategies in the communities is of importance to inform external

parties to improve drinking water quality and quantity at the tap. The next table shows the frequency of

the people applying household water treatment methods before water consumption.

Table 16 Household water treatment frequency per community (2016)

Answer:

Do you treat your water before personal consumption? Total

Community

A1 B1 Q1 M1

Abs.* % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. %

No 5 83,3% 4 66,7% 17 81,0% 14 66,7% 40 74,1%

Yes 1 16,7% 2 33,3% 2 9,5% 7 33,3% 12 22,2%

Sometimes 0 0,0% 0 0,0% 2 9,5% 0 0,0% 2 3,7%

Total 6 100,0% 6 100,0% 21 100,0% 21 100,0% 54 100,0%

Source: Semi-structured interviews, 2016.

*Abs.=absolute

In table 16 it appears that in community A1 most people (83,3%) do not treat their water before personal

consumption, followed by community Q1 (81,0%). In community M1 and community B1, 33,3% stated

to treat their water before consumption. Boiling is the main method, followed by adding chlorine to the

water cistern, and the use of a tap filter. The

argumentations to water treatment are generally the

same for the four communities, and consist of: (I) a

habit to boil the water; (II) scared for bacteria’s and

(III) turbidity of the water.

Among a portion of the people who do not boil their

water, argue that (I) it is not necessary considering

their fact that the water already is of good quality;

(II) for the reason they have a tap filter which makes

it unnecessary to boil the water (which also is a

treatment method); (III) dislike the taste of boiled

water and (IV) they buy bottled water.

What is interesting is that of the 40 people

(±74,1%) who said that they do not treat their water,

24 people (±44,4%) do not use their tap water at all

for personal consumption, solely bottled water. The

reason they solely use bottled water is among

similar reasons mentioned above and additional

Alternative water-source in community

B1.

One female respondent of community B1,

obtains her potable water every other day in

gallons mostly from her mother’s house. She

does not trust the water from the community

water system, as a result of turbid water at

the tap in several occasions and due to

negative sample outcomes. She has more

confidence in the water which comes from

the “manantial” (water spring), then the

water from the community water system.

Nevertheless, this water is as well untreated,

however, she argues it is good water,

because this water is transparent and none of

her family members got sick of it.

Box 2 Alternative water source in B1 (2016)

69

reasons are: (I) they don’t like the taste of chlorine in the tap water; (II) they use bottled water out of a

habit (as a result of limited water access); and (III) because of the belief bottled water is purer. This

means that the total of 40 people stating they do not treat their water gives a false picture, since the

reasons for purchasing bottled water in this case, can be considered as a substitute for water treatment.

Twenty people (±37%) use both bottled water and tap water. In most of the cases, the latter only

uses bottled water in times when there is no water available or when the water is turbid. A small number

of people never consume bottled water. On the question “Where do you use your tap water for?” the

majority of the respondents replied they use the tap water for chores in the house, such as washing

clothes, cleaning and cooking, the toilet and in the bathroom.

Linking this with the positive water quality perception, the treatment methods demonstrate that

this clearly can influence the water quality perceptions. Since a large number do not consume the potable

water or treat it in a certain way which improves the quality, their water is most likely of better quality

which in turn results in a positive water perception. These findings imply that the need to have water

quality which complies with certain standards is not the main priority of the residents, since they already

using particular strategies to cope with the low quality water, they most likely do not perceive the need

to act upon the health risks.

Additionally, the majority of the respondents argue it is important to use water sparingly, due to

the issues with limited water access and to take other residents in consideration. Some respondents as

well argued that the effects of climate change (such as drought) are a reason to use water sparingly,

however, the main reason mentioned is the unstable water availability of the CSWS.

8.6. Conclusion

To conclude, it appears that the majority of the respondents assess the current water quality as good, by

the main reasons of (I) a proper functioning water system, (II) a good taste and appearance from water

at the tap, (III) trust in the outcomes of the studies on the water quality, (IV) adequate cooperation at the

CSWS and lastly (V) because they never got sick of it. Nevertheless, a small portion of the respondents

Figure 20 Water-cistern in B1 (2016)

70

are not content with the water quality. Furthermore, different interventions to improve the water quality

are given and the main argument is better cooperation in the communities.

Considering the water quantity in terms of the availability, it appears that in all the four

communities the water availability is frequently affected by heavy rainfall as a consequence of clogged

pipelines and contamination of the water in the water tank or/and by the effect of an extreme weather

event such as drought. The people are used to apply different water save methods to cope with this

unstable water availability, nevertheless, not all the people have access to a water cistern or the economic

resources to constantly buy bottled water.

Besides, household water save methods, people apply household water treatment methods to

improve the water quality. Considering purchasing bottled water as a water treatment method, the

majority of the people treats their water.

The next and final chapter, addresses the perceptions on climate change and extreme weather

events and to what extent the residents perceive the possible risks climate changes can have on their

small water systems. This is relevant, due to the existing risks for the small water systems as a

consequence of climate changes and extreme weather events.

71

9. Climate change and extreme weather events

In this chapter the main findings of the knowledge and perceptions on climate change and extreme

weather events are outlined and the possible perceived risk to the CSWS in relation to climate change.

Additionally, the findings on the household water use in relation to climate change risk perceptions are

discussed. To investigate the perceptions, the questions were based on the current and future situation.

Questions in the interview were divided on the two themes, with the reason to investigate to what extent

the respondents are aware of the differences.

9.1. Climate change and extreme weather events

All the respondents (N=54) have heard about climate change. Although, only 66,6% of the total

respondents heard about extreme weather events. The knowledge is mostly gathered through the news

on television, internet, radio and the newspapers. After analysing the transcriptions, the most frequent

descriptions of climate change and extreme weather events mentioned by the respondents are:

Table 17 Descriptions climate change and extreme weather events (2016)

Climate change Extreme weather events

Ice glaciers melting Ice glaciers melting

Affecting the vegetation Thunderstorms

Temperatures changing Earthquakes

Contamination Droughts

Sea-level rising Hurricanes

Heat is more intense

El Niño/La Niña

Decreasing of the water Source: Semi-structured interviews, 2016.

Of the total respondents, 74% appears to be interested in learning more about climate change and

extreme weather events and how it can affect their lives. Several respondents answered that they assess

it as important to learn how they can prepare themselves for the effects of climate change. Analysing

the answers, the people seem to have some basic understandings of the phenomenon climate change,

however, they do not know sufficiently how it can affect their daily lives.

On the question to what extent the respondents notice something of climate change in their area,

the responses appear to be similar. In all the communities, currently most noticed is an increase in

temperature and a decrease in the vegetation. The decrease in vegetation tend to be mostly in the citrus

fruits in the home gardens of the respondents. Since approximately 3 years the respondents are noticing

the changes. Considering the future, the major part of the respondents believe the vegetation will

decrease more and several respondents expressed concerns for the agriculture which in turn can affect

their food security:

“If more and more fruits and vegetables are disappearing, how can the peasants cultivate what is needed

for the people? It is concerning, because already the food prices are increasing. We always have had

72

several fruit trees here, but they all dried up, so now I have to buy oranges, and other fruits.” (Female

respondent, B1).

“I am noticing a change in my yield, but already for a long time, nevertheless, it is getting worse. I am

not really worried as I do think now, I should be. (…) yes it is affecting me economically, because my

yield is less.” (Male respondent, Peasant, B1)

The believed effects of climate change on the vegetation in the communities, are concerning. Even

though the direct cause may not – or may be climate change, this observation is present. The decreasing

of important vegetation, is also a decrease in the development of several residents of the communities,

as their income is depending on the agriculture. Although there was only one peasant among the

respondents, the explanations of the other respondents and the effects on their vegetation in the gardens,

reveals the steady decrease.

Furthermore, the majority as well believes that climate change will aggravate the heat, which in

turn will aggravate the health problems. In addition, the majority also believes periods of droughts, less

water availability and air-pollution will increase as a consequence of climate change. Besides the

respondents are noticing several climate changes, 33 people (61%) assert the climate changes do not

affect them directly. However, 21 respondents (39%) argue that climate change is affecting them

directly. The effects are mostly noticed in increasing allergies such as asthma or other related respiratory

problems. One female respondent of the M1 community explained she moved out from her former

residence in Carolina, which is a coastal city close to the capital, as a result of the heat. Her respiratory

problems were so severe that she decided to move to the country side of Patillas. Nonetheless, the major

part doesn’t notice anything of what they consider extreme weather events and the most part has no idea

how the extreme weather events could affect them in the future.

73

Figure 21 Extent of concern for future climate change effects (2016)

Source: Semi-structured interviews, 2016.

Note: based on 49 respondents.

In the figure 21 above the concerns of 49 of the total (N=54) respondents are shown considering the

future effects of climate change. In between 34,7% and 42,9% of 49 respondents are “worried” to “very

worried” for the future effects. The main concerns expressed, consist of: (I) less water availability; (II)

extra worried for the future generations; (III) worried for the agricultural sector and (IV) worried for

health effects. A cross-tabulation as well demonstrate there is a possible difference in concern between

gender. Of the 18 male respondents, 9 argued to be “worried” to “very worried” and 8 of the males

chose “neutral” compared to 29 of the 30 female respondents assessed to be “worried” to “very

worried”. This suggests that the male respondents appear less concerned for the future effects of climate

change than the female respondents. Furthermore, comparing the level of education with climate change

risk perceptions, it seems the level of education does not influence the level of risk perception.

On the question: “Do you think climate change and extreme weather events can have an effect on your

potable water?” the biggest share of the respondents (94,3%) believes that climate change and extreme

weather events can have an effect on their potable water. The findings did not show a difference between

opinions in gender. The respondents think that climate change and extreme weather events will affect

primarily the water quantity, followed by the effects on the water quality. According the respondents,

extensive times of drought and the increasing heat will lead to less water availability. Despite the

investigated communities were not affected during the last time of drought in 2015 in Puerto Rico, the

majority argues that this will become an issue in the near future.

34,7

42,9

18,4

2,0

2,0

0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0

very worried

worried

neutral

not worried

definitely not worried

Worried future effects climate change

Percentage

74

The following question regarding the extent of concern of the effects of climate change in relation to

their potable water, people expressed a higher level of concern:

Figure 22 Extent of concern future effects climate change on potable water (2016)

Source: Semi-structured interviews, 2016.

Note: based on 52 respondents.

Figure 22 illustrates the level of concern for their potable water. The question was formulated as follows:

“How worried are you for the effects of climate change and extreme weather events for your potable

water?” In comparison with figure 21, the people appear to be more concerned about the effects of

climate change on their water supply than of the future effects in general. However, this outcome could

be influenced by specifically asked for the effects on their potable water. The greatest concern for their

water by the effects of climate change comprises of the effects of the drought in combination with the

increasing heat. The leading opinion is that these two climatic effects will diminish the water supply in

such a manner, that finally the water will run out. The second most mentioned effect of climate change

for their potable water contains of the concern for increased water contamination. Several respondents

believe that by increasing heat, the development of bacteria’s will occur more frequently with the result

of extra contaminated water. Including gender, it appears that the male respondents expressed a higher

level of concern for the future effects on potable water than for the general future effects of climate

change. Of the 19 male respondents, 15 are “worried” to “very worried”. The concern of the female

respondents for their potable water does not show an increased concern compared to the concerns for

general future effects of climate change. However, for both questions, they expressed a high concern for

climate change effects.

Relating to household water use, the respondents were asked to what extent their awareness and

experiences with climate change affects the way they use their water. The large majority (±74%)

explained they always try to use their water in a sparingly way as a result of the unstable water

availability, however, they argued climate change is not the reason for them to use water like this. A

42,3

46,2

3,8

5,8

1,9

0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 35,0 40,0 45,0 50,0

very worried

worried

neutral

not worried

definitely not worried

Worried future effects of climate change on potable water

Percentage

75

small portion (26%) of the respondents do claim they use their water in a sparingly way with climate

change stated to be the main reason. Nevertheless, this is a small portion, which suggests that the climate

change risk perception of the respondents currently not affects the household water use methods.

9.2. Conclusion

It appears that the people are largely concerned about the future effects of climate change and extreme

weather events, and how this possibly can affect their potable water. It also appears the majority is

interested to know or learn more about it. Nevertheless, in earlier results about the ‘current’ perception

on the water quality the majority assessed it as “good”. This implies, that the larger part of the

respondents do not perceive a current risk for the quality of their water supply, however, they likely do

for the future. This is different in the case of the water quantity as the majority of the respondents clearly

explained that they currently do not have a constant water availability. This is most probably the reason

why the respondents are extra worried for the effects of climate change on their water quantity compared

to the water quality.

76

10. Discussion

This section links the findings and analysis to the broader concepts and theories discussed in chapter 2

and 3. It intends to provide insights for a better understanding of perceptions and knowledge related to

rural small water systems and climate change in rural communities, which in turn could lead to effective

interventions and solutions to support these communities with the existent vulnerabilities. The first part

presents the discussion on the findings including implications and suggestions for future research and

interventions. The second part discusses the relevance of the study and includes specific future research

questions.

Rural water governance structure for the community small water systems

By analysing the water governance structure of the four communities, interesting findings emerged. The

water governance structure of the four communities appears to reflect certain components of the

dominant management model for rural water systems for over the last 30 years (Bakalian et al., 2009;

Chan et al, 2015; Francheys et al., 2016; Moriarty et al., 2003). Effective water governance requires

certain conditions and key factors and depends on the social, economic and cultural characteristics of a

country (Chan et al., 2015; Moriarty et al., 2003; Rogers, 2002; Roger & Hall, 2003). In the investigated

communities, findings on the current water governance structure defines present success factors and

simultaneously important challenges and failures.

The water systems are constructed by the community residents around the 1960’s and 1970’s.

An organized water governance structure emerged within the years once they were considered as a

public water system under the law. Since the CAP was formed in 2002 the CSWS were managed by the

CAP. The goal of the CAP was to improve the CSWS, complying with the SDWA and to form a unite

water management institution (Campos et al., 2005; Conde, 2016; Santiago 2016). Nevertheless, in 2014

the CAP dissolved. The main reason for the ending of the CAP was a consequence of distrust of the

community residents towards the CAP, which consequently led to little cooperation in operational- and

financial support. This finally led to the end of the CAP since they were not able to pay the yearly fee

to sustain their incorporated status of a cooperative (Conde, Flores, Rodriguez, Santiago & Fraticelli,

2016; Ramirez-Toro, 2016). This lack of ‘transparency’ perceived by the community residents is argued

by several scholars to relate with poor water governance (Bakalian et al., 2009; Chan et al., 2015;

Francheys et al., 2016; Moriarty et l., 2013). Chan et al. (2015) asserts that transparency proves to be an

important key factor to achieve and sustain success in water governance. However, since the CAP

dissolved, three out of the four original water systems are still working and have different types of water

treatment.

Since the ending of the CAP, the four communities are considered to sustain themselves again,

without external financial or management support. Linking the chosen governance structure with the

theory, it appears two communities have incorporated one or more components of the demand-driven

approach (DRA) for community water management after the CAP dissolved. This reflects itself in the

77

establishment of elected CWC’s; included with female members; requiring the households to pay for all

the O&M of the water system; and democratic decision making processes regarding the O&M of the

water system (Bakalian et al., 2006; Chan et al., 2015; Moriarty et al., 2013). To refer to the typology

of water governance structures developed by Chan et al. (2015), the chosen present structure appears to

fall in the category of the community management plus (CM+) structure. This CM+ structure, is

characterised by the responsibility of the community for the O&M and service provision; people work

on a voluntary basis; and occasionally sub-contract an individual or local company. The two

communities hold ambitious goals for the future which relates to the professional community based

management (PCBM) structure, which entails a more professionalized management structure. One

important requirement to achieve the PCBM is obtaining enough and reliable economic resources at the

community level in order to enable investment in professional practices (Chan et al., 2015). However,

despite the payments in the two communities improved greatly since the large majority pays the monthly

fixed tariff, the present tariff is not sufficient to sustain the CSWS for the future. To comply with the

SDWA in the future and replace infrastructure when it reaches the end or if necessary, the present tariff

is not sufficient and the communities residents will be required to spend a larger part of their economic

revenues to the O&M of the water systems. Although the internal characteristics in the two communities

are mostly present and argued to be important factors for proper sustainable water governance,

(institutional transparency; collective initiative; strong leadership) the current CWC’s are still ‘young’

and the future will tell if they are able to sustain the necessary internal factors to achieve and sustain

success (Bakalian et al., 2006; Chan et al, 2015; Moriarty et al., 2013).

Two other communities seem not to have incorporated the DRA or formed a CWC after the

CAP dissolved and explains other challenges. In one of the communities three men are taking full

responsibility for the O&M of the water system as a consequence of low collective participation. A

regulation exists which describes the obligatory monthly fixed water tariff and rules regarding household

water use. This community appears to reflect partly low collective initiative, as argued by Chan et al.

(2015) which if present, consist of a (I) communal ethos of self-help and responsibility, (II) equitable

participation in decision-making from across the community by including women and disadvantaged

groups, (III) and a notion of shared ownership of the water system. Though, the majority of the

respondents in this community are satisfied with the current governance structure, stating the people

who are in charge act responsible. The three men try to organize informative meetings for the community

residents and to achieve consensus on decisions, though not many people attend these meetings, which

in most cases leads to decisions being made by the three men. Although the goal of the three men is to

finally comply with all the rules of the SDWA, the monthly fixed tariff is not paid by a lot of users,

which makes it hard to comply and sustain the CSWS for the near and distant future. In addition, this

lack of the internal factors reflects itself in the expressed concern of the three men for the future, since

it appears no one in the community wants to take up the role of operator for the CSWS. Two of the three

men explained they already have difficulties to go up to the CSWS which is related to their elderly age.

78

The other community decided to stop using the CSWS which was installed and managed by the CAP,

due to numerous issues with the water system (little access to water and bad perceived water quality).

When the CAP dissolved, they decided to use the old water source and since then, approximately for 2

years, they are using directly from a river without any water treatment. The community has a core group

to solve issues with the water system, however it is unknown for the majority of the respondents in the

study who are working with the CSWS. Likewise, it is unknown what the future goal is for the CSWS

by this core group. However, it appears the short term provision and access of water is more important

than to comply with the SDWA and to provide healthy potable water in the long-term. This perception

could be a consequence that people have a general under-concern and greater volatility for risk

perceptions over time and prefer to avoid short term suffering and accepting the long-term risks as

argued by Vining (1989) and Weber (2010). Furthermore, there exist a fixed monthly tariff, though only

for the necessary maintenance in case of issues, mostly in times of limited water access. Nonetheless,

the majority of the respondents do not pay the monthly maintenance tariff which could as well be

considered too low collective initiative (Bakalian et al., 2009; Chan et al., 2015; Franceys et al., 2016).

Lack of the necessary internal factors, makes it difficult to improve the current and future situation of

the CSWS. Nonetheless, the majority of the people in the community prefer the current water

governance structure, as they appear to distrust external support because of the bad experiences with the

CAP. Furthermore, the people assess that the water is of better quality.

Besides differences in the current water governance structure of the four communities, considering the

internal factors, it is clear all the communities would benefit by additional external financial, technical

and non-technical support. In order to comply with all the rules of the SDWA (thus providing healthy

potable water) and to sustain and improve the CSWS, the current collected tariff and technical expertise

is not sufficient. However, this differs in the communities. In two communities they have licensed

operators, which is a requirement of the SDWA, although in two other communities they do not. The

technical trainings currently provided by CECIA are adequate trainings which are developed to suit the

capabilities of the communities (Hunter et al., 2010), although recommended to provide follow-up

trainings to stay up to date. Additional non-technical support (administrative and management aspects)

could increase the financial sustainability of the CSWS, proven in several studies (Balkalian et al.,

2009). If the CWC’s or other people in charge have adequate knowledge of how to invest and manage

their expenditures, future infrastructural adjustments and/or improvements are likely easier achieved.

The communities are currently supported by CECIA and the US EPA, however, the communities could

appeal to other governmental and non-governmental agencies for additional technical, non-technical and

financial support. As explained, these application processes are difficult and communities are reluctant

to apply (Ramirez-Toro, 2016). This requires external outreaching support for the application of these

different existing financial and technical programs. Although there is need to financial external support,

this financial support needs to be carefully considered (Bakalian et al., 2009). Research shows that

79

communities can rely too much on external financial sources which can lead to disincentives to financing

their own capacity expansion and system rehabilitation (Bakalian et al., 2009). In conclusion, long term

financial sustainability should not perpetuate their dependency on external support that may ultimately

undermine rural economic development. Nor should it undermine community initiatives to pay for

higher levels of infrastructure or infrastructure expansion (Bakalian et al., 2009).

In spite of the different needs, an important factor which also complicates the matter is the socio-

economic situation in the communities and that of the island. The current economic situation decreases

the opportunities for the communities to improve their water governance structure. Since the current

socio-economic situation in the communities not allows to comply with the SDWA standards (expensive

sample requirements among others) and the important improvements for the CSWS, this most likely

will not succeed in the near and distant future. However, considering the limitation mentioned in chapter

4.7. about the restriction of asking income related questions, a suggestion for future research is to include

specific questions on income, in order to assess more adequately the socio-economic context of the

communities and to compare perceptions considering the income variable. These findings could possibly

explain to what extent the people are, or are not capable to invest more in the CSWS and could lead to

a reconsideration of the earlier conclusions about water governance and the socio-economic situation of

the investigated communities.

Despite the fact Puerto Rico is a high income country and linked to the USA, the island is in a

severe precarious economic situation which seems not to allow the local government to financially

support the investigated communities or they are restrained due to other prioritization (FEGP, 2015;

Soto Figueroa, 2016). Nonetheless, in order to sustain the CSWS in the future this external support is

crucial and will be placed at the expenses and the partly moral obligation of governmental agencies and

other external agencies. In addition, the ageing population of the communities and the island gives

additional rise for concern. The people will be less capable in the future to operate the systems due to

ageing and considering the economic situation, it is not likely the younger generations will return to the

island since the wages diminished and the unemployment rate is increased (FEGP, 2015; EDP, 2015).

Rural water governance and water perceptions

To link the current water governance structure and the perceptions of the residents on different aspects

of their CSWS (quality, quantity, applied household water methods/use), different contradictions appear.

In all the communities, the majority of the residents positively expressed themselves on the current water

governance structure since they feel well informed and included in decision making processes. This

positive perception also reflects itself in the overall positive satisfaction considering the water quality

and in less cases for the water availability.

The perception on positive water quality seem to be most influenced by the degree of

transparency at the tap, good taste, non-perceived health issues, cultural beliefs and knowledge, and trust

80

in the water source. This seems to confirm numerous research on water quality perceptions (Arce-

Nazario et al., 2014; Crona et al., 2010; França Doria, 2010; Optiz-Stapleton, 2009; Prouty & Zhang,

2015; França-Doria, Pidgeon & Hunter, 2009). Water quality perceptions and water governance are

intrinsically inherent to each other; poor governance leads to poor quality of water, which in turn leads

to low perceived water quality (Arce-Nazario et al., 2014; Bakalian et al., 2009; Chan et al., 2015; Crona

et al., 2010). Although this relation is clear among numerous scholars, in this case the cultural beliefs,

knowledge and personal experience about the water quality seem to contradict the scientific evidence in

the investigated communities. This clearly complicates the cooperation in the communities to improve

the CSWS.

The majority of the people is informed by different external parties that the current water quality

can cause different health problems as a consequence the water system not complies with the standards

of the SDWA and due to the occurrence of a water-borne pathogen in their CSWS (Hunter et al, 2010;

Chalmers et al., 2015; Ramirez-Toro, 2016), nonetheless approximately half of the participants uses the

tap water without proper treatment. Different factors seem to influence this particular positive perception

of water quality. Perceived good water quality in the communities is mostly related to the statement “I

never got sick of it” followed by the degree of transparency at the tap and last by the conviction of an

adequate operating water system. This confirms previous research of Optiz-Stapleton (2009) in Patillas,

Puerto Rico in which cultural beliefs and knowledge are precedence over the known scientific facts and

that knowing the scientific facts does not mean people will change their opinions or actions, at least not

immediately (Carlton, 2016). Besides this cultural knowledge, underlying factors influencing the water

quality perceptions could be related to the assumption that people use different defence mechanisms as

stated by Vining (1989) to cope with stressful realities. The findings suggest most people use ‘denial’

as a defence mechanism, which involves screening out stressful realities by ignoring the existent health

threat completely or deny its existence. Another underlying factor influencing this positive water quality

perception, could relate to the suggestion that people exposed to contaminated water for years are not

hindered of increased risks as a result of that exposure, due to acquired immunity (Craun et al., 2005;

Hunter & Swift, 2004).

Furthermore, the perceived and stated overall positive water quality perception in the

communities, contradicts partly the behavioural component, as a large majority of the people apply

household water treatment methods to improve the water quality, such as purchasing bottled water,

boiling the water and make use of a tap filter. Unfortunately, purchasing a tap filter or bottled water is

not possible for everyone due to the high costs, which in turn results in increasing health vulnerabilities

for people with lower levels of economic resources as also stated by Darmame & Potter, (2010).

Additionally, a large percentage (44%) of the respondents which stated they do not treat their water, do

not even use their tap water for personal consumption, exclusively bottled water. This implies that a

large part of the people assesses their potable water quality as “good” because they mostly only use it

for chores in the house and bathing or because they apply household water treatment methods.

81

Despite the fact the people assess the current water governance structure as positive, they are less content

with the water availability, although they seem to accept the limitations in most cases. As for the water

quality, access to water is also partly related to proper water governance (Bakalian et al. 2009; Chan et

al., 2015; Francheys et al., 2016; Moriarty, 2013; Patterson, 2016; Soderberg, 2016). However, different

causes hindering primarily the access of water in the investigated communities are climate related (heavy

rainfall and drought) and secondly influenced by operations of the CSWS (cleaning process).

The relation with water governance and limited access reflects itself in the time of solving

problems during clogged pipelines or in times of drought. There are differences between the

communities in solving these problems. Factors influencing solving the issues comprises of the height

of the water source (which makes it sometimes difficult to reach), the cause of the problem and the

difficulty to collective participation. In the community which lacks the organized water governance

structure and any water treatment, it appears solving the issues with the clogged pipelines takes up the

most time in comparison to the other communities. Perceiving good water governance in relation to

water availability is clearly present in one community where they assess improved water access as one

of the main reasons for good water governance, which also is claimed in research of Bakalian et al.

(2009). Drought and consequently sparingly water use is not always present in the communities. To

cope with the expected water scarcity, proper water governance is necessary to inform and oblige people

in their household water use methods, also claimed in previous research on household water use methods

in relation to expected climate change effects (Darmame & Potter, 2009; Graymore et al., 2009).

Analysing household water save methods in order to cope with water scarcity, different methods

are applied. The people in the communities are aware of the factors influencing the limited water access

as explained above. This confirms other research on perceptions influencing household water use in case

of water scarcity (Darmame & Potter, 2010; Graymore et al., 2009; Corral-Verdugo et al., 2002). As a

consequence of the perceived water system failures of limited water access and environmental changes,

people tend to apply similar strategies as in other global areas, such as obtaining a water cistern or water

drones, collect tap water in bottles and store it in the fridge, and purchase bottled water (Darmame &

Potter, 2010). Nevertheless, it is not possible for all people to obtain a water cistern or constantly buying

bottled water, as a result of limited economic resources. This in turn increases the vulnerability of the

people in times of limited access to water. The frequent problems with the water availability are likewise

an important vulnerability of the CSWS and most likely this vulnerability will increase in the future as

a consequence of climatic changes (Goodrich, Murray & Yang, 2016; Nichols, 2016; Patterson, 2016;

Ramirez-Toro, 2016; Soderberg, 2016). This requires an extra input of good internal management of the

CSWS and likewise governmental agencies should support the communities in times of crisis by

supplying them with water, especially for those who lack the economic resources or precautionary

measures as stated in chapter 3.6..

82

Rural water governance and climate change (risk)-perceptions

Considering the vulnerable geographic location of Puerto Rico which reflects itself in the present

climatic changes and increasing extreme weather events with negative impacts for the island, the

importance of identifying the public risk perception is crucial in order to develop adequate interventions

and motivate the public to adaptation strategies (Arvai et al., 2016; Briguglio, et al., 2001; Crona et al.,

2010; Frondel 2016; Leiserowitz, 2005; Patterson, 2016; Ramirez-Toro, 2016; Soderberg, 2016; Weber,

2010; Weber & Stern, 2011) Water systems and their water sources are vulnerable to the impacts of

climate change and extreme weather events as addressed in chapter 3.6.. This also includes challenges

for water governance considering good O&M, infrastructural adjustments and household water use

regulations needed to sustain and supply healthy potable water (Goodrich, Murray & Yang, 2016;

Nichols, 2016; Soderberg, 2016).

Findings demonstrate the respondents perceive the current effects of climate change in different

aspects. Decrease in the vegetation, increased heat and longer periods of drought and a worsening of all

these, are perceived as causes and effects of climate change. The perceptions and current knowledge

demonstrates the people are aware of certain related scientific facts, yet they lack important information

about additional climatological risks and the needed adaptation strategies (Patterson, 2016; Ramirez-

Toro, 2016; Soderberg, 2016). Considering climate change risk-perceptions, people appear to be

influenced by several factors, consisting of: information obtained by the mass-media, personal

experiences, perceived direct impacts of climate change relating to health, and impacts on vegetation.

The majority of the community residents expressed a high concern for the current and future effects of

climate change in general (42,9 % worried and 34,7% very worried) and expressed a higher concern for

the current and future effects of climate change on their potable water (worried 46,2% to very worried

42,3%). The majority of the people consider drought as the main concern caused by the effects of climate

change. They explained this concern due to their personal experience with the extensive period of

drought in 2015. This expressed concern, due to personal experience, possibly explains the relative high

level of risk perception. Personal experience with climate change impacts is claimed to be an important

factor influencing climate change risk perception (Weber, 2010; Weber & Stern, 2011; Frondel, 2016).

In the case of the general effects of climate change, a large portion believes future generations

will be more affected. Furthermore, in the case for the effect of climate change on their potable water,

two main concerns were mentioned: the diminishing of water and increased heat. Several research shows

that increased personal experiences with climate change and the potential devastating consequences can

motivate and effectively teach people to act upon (Frondel, 2016; Weber, 2010; Weber & Stern, 2011).

In this case, the high level of risk perception in the communities could therefor explain why the large

majority (74%) expressed they want to know or learn more about climate change and extreme weather

events and how this can affect them. However, this motivation is more present during the occurrence of

the experiences and if recognized as the result of human activity (Frondel, 2016; Weber 2010). This

could imply that in order to achieve successful behavioural changes in the communities in relation to

83

the expected climate change impacts, the time to intervene in the near future is important since the

expectation of increased negative impacts exists (Patterson, 2016; PRCCC, 2013; Ramirez-Toro, 2016;

Soderberg, 2016.) As discussed above, people seem to have a basic knowledge of climate change,

however they lack proper information for the local context. As they relate different climatic events to

the cause of climate change this could be an adequate start point to educate the people. Arvai et al.

(2016) state that climate change concern increases when scientific knowledge about the causes of

climate change are known among the public. However, even though they perceived the drought as an

intense circumstance and assess it to worsen in the future, the majority was not directly affected by it.

In addition, providing educational interventions or information about climate change risk does not mean

the people consequently will change their behaviour (Carlton, 2016; França-Doria, 2010; Prouty &Zang,

2016; Weber, 2010, Weber & Stern, 2011). Considering the question to what extent people are

influenced in their household water use by their climate change risk perception, it appears people are

not using their water in a sparingly manner with the main reason of climate change impacts, even though

they have experienced several effects or expressed a high level of climate change risk perceptions.

However, the respondents are used to deal with limited water access and already have managed to apply

different household water save methods to deal with the scarcity of the water. Nevertheless, in order to

succeed with educational transfers, the choice for the knowledge transfer method is crucial as Weber

(2010) states that a mix of teaching “by experience and analytically” is the most adequate way to obtain

environmental sustainable actions.

The current motivation in the communities to learn about climate change and their water system

could as well be used to communicate the need to improve the water governance in order to increase the

water quality. Even though the majority of the people do not perceive their water of low quality, teaching

them about the additional negative impacts of climate change on their water quality could possibly

motivate them to act upon. Since they also expressed a future concern for their water quality caused by

climate change. This in turn could add to the importance of compliance with the SDWA.

In order to cope with the different climate change vulnerabilities, the water governance structure

in the communities gives rise to even more challenges to their water management. Considering the

suggestions and proposed interventions8 by Patterson, Ramirez-Toro and Soderberg in order to cope

with the expected climate change effects, such as infrastructural adjustments and improvements for the

CSWS, obtaining alternative water sources and storage measures, shows again that the communities will

benefit by additional external support as this will lead to an additional financial burden, which the

community residents currently cannot fulfil.

8 Please refer to table 3 in chapter 3.6. for the full list of suggestions and interventions.

84

Relevance of the study

This study provides in-depth information about the understandings and meanings people present about

their rural water systems and climate change. It reveals which factors influence the household water

methods which in turn can help governmental and other external agencies to target interventions to

improve the drinking water quality and quantity in the communities. Additionally, it gives clear new

insights of the current risk-perceptions of climate change in relation to community small water systems,

which provides opportunities to develop adequate educational and practical interventions. These

interventions can provide the communities with important information in order to increase their adaptive

capacity to deal with the interrelated problems of water and climate change.

Besides the opportunities for the external agencies, this document provides the water

committees insights in the current perceptions of the residents on their management skills and it provides

opportunities to improve the current situation. This document could possibly motivate the people in

charge of the CWC’s to ask for additional external support, since issues addressed in this document can

increase the awareness of current and future issues of their water governance.

Furthermore, the chosen method design for this research is considered to be applicable to similar

mountainous rural communities in Patillas, Puerto Rico with surface water sources, since they share

similar socio-demographics and climate change vulnerabilities (Arce-Nazario et al., 2014; Soto

Figueroa, 2016; Ramirez-Toro, 2010; Optiz-Stapleton, 2009; US Census 2010-2014).

Finally, the findings of this research raises a set of important questions for future research: do success

factors of rural water governance systems differ in Puerto Rico when receiving external financial support

vs non-external financial support? To what extent differ the risk-perceptions on rural water systems in

relation to the risks of climate change in Puerto Rico among rural communities vs coastal communities

or urban areas and the actions emerging from this perception? To what extent differ the perceptions and

household water treatment methods for community small water systems and climate change in

communities with different water sources? To what extent influences different levels of income, the

risk-perceptions? Follow-up research after an educational intervention: To what extent are people

changing their household water use methods after receiving the educational intervention on climate

change risks in relation to their potable water?

85

11. Conclusion

In this research the current perception of community residents on four different community small water

systems is investigated and to what extent household water use methods are influenced by climate

change risk perceptions. The findings conclude that there is an overall positive perception on the

community small water systems, based on different aspects of the water system. These perceptions are

influenced by different factors and mostly based on personal experiences and cultural beliefs. However,

this overall positive perception does not align with the analysed current water governance which

explains different inadequacies. Although the majority assesses their water quality as positive, the

scientific facts and the chosen household water treatment methods contradict the former. This

precedence of cultural knowledge over the scientific knowledge complicates the cooperation in the

communities to improve the water system. None of the communities is currently capable to provide its

residents with healthy potable water which complies with the SDWA water treatment rule, due to

different factors (Patterson, 2016; Ramirez-Toro, 2016). Dealing with the vulnerability of contaminated

water, the communities also regularly experience issues considering access to water. Even though the

communities have succeeded to still provide its residents with water since the CAP dissolved, the

expected climate change risks and its impacts on the community small water systems gives rise to more

challenges for their water governance. The residents are already accustomed to deal with limited water

access and apply different household water save methods, however, an additional issue arises since this

is not possible for all the residents due to insufficient economic resources. In addition, the people do not

apply these water save methods with the expected impacts of climate change in mind, although the

majority shares a high level of climate change risk perception for the current and distant future. In short,

despite the different efforts of the communities and the differences between the communities, the

communities would benefit with improved internal- and additional external factors to sustain their water

systems for the near and distant future. In order to sustain and improve the community small water

systems and all the different requirements and vulnerabilities the communities have to deal with, depicts

the communities would benefit with additional long-term external support. Even though the majority of

the communities are currently open for additional external support, external agencies should be wary to

not undermine the community initiatives and capabilities. The focus should be on additional and

transparent support in order to increase the adaptive capacities of the communities, to prevent that the

communities will be put in a dependent role. Suggested appropriate educational interventions or other

knowledge transfer programs can increase the resilience of the communities. However, the current

socio-economic status of the communities and the island, together with the ageing population, deepens

the current problematic situation.

86

Literature list

Abubakar, I., Doria, M. F., Hughes, S., Hunter, P. R. & Syed, Q. (2006). Perceived causes of sporadic

cryptosporidiosis and their relation to sources of information. Journal of epidemiology and community

health, 60(9), 745-750.

Agho, K., Barr, M., Raphael, B., Stevens G. & Taylor, M. (2010). Population risk perceptions of global

warming in Australia. Environmental Research, 110(8), 756-763.

Alan, M. (2009). "Exploring the Ecology of Poverty". Human Ecology. 37 (2): 5

Allen, M. R., Barros, V. R., Broome, J., Christ, R., Cramer, W., Dubash, N. K., (…) Pachauri, R. K.

(2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the

Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Arce-Nazario, J. A., Jain, M., Lim, Y. & Uriarte, M. (2014). Perceptional and socio-demographic factors

associated with household drinking water management strategies in rural Puerto Rico. PloS one, 9(2),

e88059.

Arvai, J., Siegrist, M., Shi, J., & Visschers, V. H. (2016). Knowledge as a driver of public perceptions

about climate change reassessed. Nature Climate Change.

Aston, R., O'Donnell, M., & Platt, C. (2000). Effect of a boil water notice on behaviour in the

management of a water contamination incident. Communicable Disease and Public Health, 3, 56-59.

Ayers, L. W. & Lalumandier, J. A. (2000). Fluoride and bacterial content of bottled water vs tap

water. Archives of family medicine, 9(3), 246.

Balbus, J., Caparas, M., Parkin R., Rivera, I., Rivera-Torres, E., Waters, W. & Willnat, L. (2001).

Vulnerable subpopulations' perceptions and use of drinking water. In Annual Meeting of the American

Water Works Association. Washington, DC.

Anderson, B., Balk, D. & McGranahan, G. (2007). The rising tide: assessing the risks of climate change

and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones. Environment and urbanization, 19(1), 17-37.

Bakalian, A., Davis, J., Komives, K., Lukacs, H., Prokopy, L., Thorsten, R., (…) Whittington, D. (2009).

How well is the demand-driven, community management model for rural water supply systems doing?

Evidence from Bolivia, Peru and Ghana. Water Policy, 11(6), 696-718.

Baldersson, S. & Karanis, P. (2011) Waterborne transmission of protozoan parasites: review of

worldwide outbreaks – an update 2004–2010. Water Res. 45, 6603–6614

Batchelder, W. H., Romney, A. K. & Weller, S. C. (1986). Culture as consensus: A theory of culture

and informant accuracy. American anthropologist, 88(2), 313-338.

Bates, B., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Wu, S. & Palutikof, J. (2008). Climate change and Water: technical

Paper vi. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

87

Baures, E., Clement, M., Delpla, I., Jung, A. V. & Thomas, O. (2009). Impacts of climate change on

surface water quality in relation to drinking water production. Environment International, 35(8), 1225-

1233.

Berg van den, C., Gross, A. & Sara, J. (1996). Rural water supply & sanitation in Bolivia: from pilot

project to national program.

Berlin, B., Breedlove, D. E. & Raven, P. H. (1974). Principles of Tzeltal plant classification: an

introduction to the botanical ethnography of a Mayan-speaking people of highland Chiapas. Language,

thought, and culture.

Bjerström, E. (2002). Lack of awareness–not only the failure of media. Water science and

technology, 45(8), 233-234.

Blount, B.G. & Gragson, T.L. (1999). Ethnoecology: knowledge, resources, and rights. University of

Georgia Press.

Bord, R. J., Fisher, A. & O'Connor, R. E. (1999). Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and

willingness to address climate change. Risk analysis, 19(3), 461-471.

Braman, D., Kahan, D. M., Mandel, G., Ouellette, L. L., Peters, E., Slovic, P. & Wittlin, M. (2012). The

polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature climate

change, 2(10), 732-735.

Briguglio L., Hay, J. E., Nurse, L. A., Ragoonaden, S., Sem, G., Suarez, A. G. & Wong, P. P. (2001).

Small island states. Climate change, 843-875.

Brody, S. D., Grover, Vedlitz, A., H. & Zahran, S. (2008). Examining the relationship between physical

vulnerability and public perceptions of global climate change in the United States. Environment and

behavior, 40(1), 72-95.

Budds, J., & Loftus, A. (2014). Water and hydropolitics. The Companion to Development Studies, 365.

Campos, J., Minnigh, H. A., Ramirez-Toro, G., Rivera, R., & Torres, J. (2005). Empowering the

overlooked: Providing decision-making skills and tools for small potable water systems in Puerto

Rico. Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation, 2005(12), 3759-3773.

Carlton, J. S., Haigh, T., Knutson, C. L., Lemos, M. C., Mase, A. S., Prokopy, L. S. & Todey, D. P.

(2016). The effects of extreme drought on climate change beliefs, risk perceptions, and adaptation

attitudes. Climatic Change, 135(2), 211-226.

Chalmers, R. M., Hunter, P. R., Minnigh, H. A., Ramirez-Toro, G. I. & Robinson, G. (2015).

Cryptosporidium in small water systems in Puerto Rico: a pilot study. Journal of water and

health, 13(3), 853-858.

Chan, M. Y., Cuadrado, L., Ezbakhe, F., Franceys, R. Hutchings, P., Mesa, B. & Tamekawa, C. (2015).

A systematic review of success factors in the community management of rural water supplies over the

past 30 years. Water Policy, 17(5), 963-983.

Charmaz, K. & Thornberg, R. (2014). Grounded theory and theoretical coding. The SAGE handbook of

qualitative data analysis, 153-169.

Clayton, C. R. I., Colbourne, J. S., Fife‐Schaw, C. & Owen, A. J. (1999). A Mental Model's Approach

to Customer Perception of Drinking‐Water Supply and Quality. Water and Environment Journal, 13(4),

241-244

88

Cognitie (2016) in ENSIE. Retrieved from: https://www.ensie.nl/betekenis/cognitief?q=cognitief

Conklin, H. C. (1954). The relation of Hanunóo culture to the plant world.

Council, P. R. C. C. (2013). State of Puerto Rico’s climate 2010–2013 executive summary. Assessing

Puerto Rico’s social-ecological vulnerabilities in a changing climate.

Crona, B., Gartin, M., Westerhoff, P. & Wutich, A. (2010). Urban ethnohydrology: cultural knowledge

of water quality and water management in a desert city. Ecology & society, 15(4), 36.

Cross, K., & Latorre, C. (2015). Which water for which use? Exploring water quality instruments in the

context of a changing climate. Aquatic Procedia, 5, 104-110.

Craun, G., Frost, F. J., Harter, L., Kunde, T. R., Muller, T. Roberts, M., & Tollestrup, K. (2005). How

clean must our drinking water be: the importance of protective immunity. Journal of Infectious

Diseases, 191(5), 809-814.

Darmame, K. & Potter, R. B. (2010). Contemporary social variations in household water use,

management strategies and awareness under conditions of ‘water stress’: the case of Greater Amman,

Jordan. Habitat International, 34(1), 115-124.

Dunwoody, S. & Griffin, R. J. (2000). The relation of communication to risk judgment and preventive

behavior related to lead in tap water. Health communication, 12(1), 81-107.

Economic & Social Planning Program Puerto Rico Planning Board (2014) Economic Development Plan

for Puerto Rico 2015 (Report Planning Board Puerto Rico). Retrieved from the website of the

Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico:

http://www.bgfpr.com/searchnew.html?search=economic%20development%20plan%202015

Etkin, D., & Ho, E. (2007). Climate change: perceptions and discourses of risk. Journal of risk

research, 10(5), 623-641.

Faris, J. D., Gill, B. S. & Haen, K. M. (2000). Saturation mapping of a gene-rich recombination hot spot

region in wheat. Genetics, 154(2), 823-835.

Franca-Doria, M., Hunter, P. M. & Pidgeon, N. (2005). Perception of tap water risks and quality: a

structural equation model approach. Water Science and Technology, 52(8), 143-149.

França-Doria, M., Pidgeon, N., & Hunter, P. R. (2009). Perceptions of drinking water quality and risk

and its effect on behaviour: A cross-national study. Science of the Total Environment, 407(21), 5455-

5464.

França-Doria, M. (2010). Factors influencing public perception of drinking water quality. Water

policy, 12(1), 1-19.

Franceys, R., Hutchings, James, A. J. P., Mekala, S., & Smits, S. (2016). Revisiting the history, concepts

and typologies of community management for rural drinking water supply in India. International

Journal of Water Resources Development, 1-18.

Franks, T., & Cleaver, F. (2007). Water governance and poverty a framework for analysis. Progress in

Development Studies, 7(4), 291-306.

89

Frondel, M., Simora, M., & Sommer, S. (2016). Risk perception of climate change: Empirical evidence

for Germany.

Gartner, K. (2015). Liquid Assets, Institutions, Climate Change and Conflict: The Political Ecology of

Water in Maji Moto Group Ranch, Narok South, Kenya A Case Study of Water-Related Conflict in a

Maasai Community.

Gedrag (2016) in ENSIE. Retrieved from: https://www.ensie.nl/redactie-ensie/gedrag

Glynn, C. J., Park, E. & Scherer, C. W. (2001). Community involvement and risk perception at personal

and societal levels. Health, Risk & Society, 3(3), 281-292.

Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico (2015). Puerto Rico Basis Facts. Retrieved from the

website of the Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico:

http://www.bgfpr.com/economy/puerto-rico-facts.html

Graymore, M., Jorgensen, B., & O'Toole, K. (2009). Household water use behavior: An integrated

model. Journal of environmental management, 91(1), 227-236.

Hahn, E. (2005). The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time by Jeffrey Sachs Penguin

Press, 2005. Sustainable Development Law & Policy, 6(1), 22.

Hay, I. (2000). Qualitative research methods in human geography (third edition, 2010). Oxford

University Press.

Herrera-Pantoja, M. & Hiscock, K. M. (2015). Projected impacts of climate change on water availability

indicators in a semi-arid region of central Mexico. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 81-89.

Hunter, P.R. & Swift, L. (2004). What do negative associations between potential risk factors and illness

in analytical epidemiological studies of infectious disease really mean? European journal of

epidemiology, 19(3), 219-223.

Hunter, P.R., Minnigh, H.A. & Ramirez-Toro, G. (2004) Small and medium potable water systems:

Challenges and Sustainability. Roundtable on Environmental Health Science, Research and Medicine -

Workshop on Sustainable Water (Presentation)

Hunter, P.R. (2009). Household water treatment in developing countries: comparing different

intervention types using meta-regression. Environmental science & technology, 43(23), 8991-8997.

Hunter, P. R., Minnigh, H. A. & Ramirez-Toro, G. (2010). Impact on diarrhoeal illness of a community

educational intervention to improve drinking water quality in rural communities in Puerto Rico. BMC

Public Health, 10(1), 219.

Johnson, B. B. (2003). Do reports on drinking water quality affect customers' concerns? Experiments in

report content. Risk Analysis, 23(5), 985-998.

Junta de Planificacíon de Puerto Rico (2009). Plan Desarrollo Integral Puerto Rico (Report of the Junta

de Planificación, San Juan, Puerto Rico). Retrieved from the website of Junta de Planificación:

http://www.jp.gobierno.pr/Portal_JP/Portals/0/VP/AvisosOtros/PIDES

PR%20Borrador%20para%20Vista%20P%C3%BAblica%20Septiembre%202009.pdf

Katz, T. & Sara, J. (1997). Making rural water supply sustainable. Report on the Impact of Project Rules,

UNDP—Word Bank Water & Sanitation Programme, Washington DC.

90

Kempton, W. (1991). Lay perspectives on global climate change. Global Environmental Change, 1(3),

183-208.

Leiserowitz, A.A. (2005). American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous? Risk analysis, 25(6),

1433-1442.

Maldonado, C. & Ramirez-Toro, G. (2005) Enhancing the Cooperativa de Acueductos de Patillas. In

Patillas, Puerto Rico. (Presentation).

Nazarea, V. D. (Ed.). (1999). Ethnoecology: situated knowledge/located lives. University of Arizona

Press.

Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2012). Twenty-first century globalization: a new development era. In Forum for

Development Studies (Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 367-385). Routledge.

Opitz-Stapleton, S. (2009). Political ecology of safe drinking water in the United States with a case

study focus on Puerto Rico. (Doctoral dissertation) Colorado US: University of Colorado at Boulder.

Oreskes, N. (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306(5702), 1686-1686.

Perceptie (2016) in ENSIE. Retrieved from: https://www.ensie.nl/redactie-ensie/perceptie

Perception (2016) in Wikipedia. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception

Prouty, C., & Zhang, Q. (2016). How do people's perceptions of water quality influence the life cycle

environmental impacts of drinking water in Uganda? Resources,Conservation and Recycling, 109, 24-

33.

Puerto Rico (2016). In Worldfactbook. Retrieved from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-

world-factbook/geos/rq.html

Raj, S.D. Bottled water: how safe is it? Water Environ. Res. 2005, 77, 3013-3018.

Ramirez-Toro, G. (2012). Tópico 2 Calidad de Agua: Legislación y Reglamentación : Ley de Agua

Potable Segura (Presentation).

Ramirez-Toro, G. (2014) Relación entre la salud y la falta de alcantarillado sanitario en comunidades

rurales en Puerto Rico (Presentation).

Rapley, J. (2007). The Neoclassical Answer to Failure. Chapter 4 in: Understanding Development.

Theory and Practice.

Rogers, P. (2002). Water governance in Latin America and the Caribbean. Inter-American

Development Bank.

Rogers, P., & Hall, A. W. (2003). Effective Water Governance. Global Water Partnership Technical

Committee.

Scazza, M. (2015). The reconfiguration of the hydrosocial territory of the peninsula of Santa Elena,

Ecuador A threat to ancestral land.

Scheyvens, R. (Ed.). (2014). Development fieldwork: A practical guide. Sage.

91

Sjoberg, L. & Wahlberg, A. A. (2000). Risk perception and the media. Journal of risk research, 3(1),

31-50.

Slovic, P. (2000). The perception of risk. Risk, society, and policy series. London: Earthscan.

Tropp, H. (2007). Water governance: trends and needs for new capacity development. Water

Policy, 9(S2), 19-30.

United States Census Bureau (2010). American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Patillas, Municipal

of Puerto Rico 2010-2014 (Census of community facts). Retrieved from the website of the US Census

Bureau:

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Safe Drinking Water Act (Report US EPA)

Retrieved from the website of the US EPA:

http://www.epw.senate.gov/sdwa.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2003). Small Systems Guide to Safe Drinking Water

Act Regulations. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (4606M) US EPA 816-R-03-017

September 2003. Retrieved from: www.epa.gov/safewater

Vining, J. (1989). Understanding the response to environmental risk information. Biohazards of

Drinking Water Treatment, 21-33.

Weber, E. U. (2006). Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global

warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic change, 77(1-2), 103-120.

Weber, E. U. (2010). What shapes perceptions of climate change? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:

Climate Change, 1(3), 332-342.

Weber, E. U., & Stern, P. C. (2011). Public understanding of climate change in the United

States. American Psychologist, 66(4), 315.

Weller, S. C. (2007). Cultural consensus theory: Applications and frequently asked questions. Field

methods, 19(4), 339-368.

World Health Organisation & UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation

(2010) Progress on sanitation and drinking-water: 2010 Update. Geneva and New York, World Health

Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund, 2010.

92

Appendix

Semi-structured interview guide Spanish Version

Fecha :

No entrevista :

Tiempo :

Cuestionario para la entrevista sobre las percepciones y conocimiento de las sistemas del agua y el

cambio climático en Patillas, Puerto Rico.

Código casa :

Barrio :

Sexo F/M :

Edad :

Composición del hogar y estado civil

1. Me podría decir que es su estado civil?

Soltero/a

Soltero/a sin hijos

Casado/a o asociación domestica sin hijos

Casado/a o asociación domestica con hijos

Divorciado/a con hijos

Divorciado/a sin hijos

Usted me podría decir con cuantas personas vive usted en esta casa?

Educación

2. Cuál es el grado más alto completado por usted?

No escuela

Escuela elemental o menos

Escuela Intermedia

Escuela Superior

Formación Técnica (diploma)

Universidad (bachillerato)

Universidad (Maestría)

Postgrado

Otro .............

Actividad diaria

3. Qué hace usted diariamente?

Si este trabajando, pregunta en qué?

Empleo remunerado

Auto-empleo/independiente/emprendedor

Ama de casa/hombre de casa

93

No tengo trabajo y buscando

No tengo y no buscando

Estudiando

Retirado/a Pensionado/a

Voluntario/a

Incapacitado/a de trabajar

Percepción y conocimiento

Cambio climático

4. Ha escuchado usted sobre el cambio climático?

a. Que ha escuchado?

5. Qué nota usted del cambio climático aquí en Puerto Rico (y si nota algo, desde cuándo) ?

a. Y más específicamente aquí en Patillas?

b. Qué piensa usted qua notaria en el futuro del cambio climático?

6. Cual efecto tiene el cambio climático para usted ahora?

a. Y qué piensa usted cómo lo podría afectarle en el futuro?

7. Ha escuchado usted sobre los eventos climáticos extremos?

a. Qué ha escuchado?

8. Qué nota usted de los eventos climáticos extremos en Puerto Rico (y si nota algo, desde

cuándo)?

a. Y más específicamente aquí en Patillas?

9. Cual efecto tiene los eventos climáticos extremos para usted ahora?

a. Y qué piensa usted cómo los podrían afectarle en el futuro?

10. Piensa usted que el cambio climático y los eventos climáticos extremos podrían tener un

efecto en su agua potable?

a. Respuesta sí > en cual efectos piensa?

b. Por la razón que usted piensa que el cambio climático y los eventos CE podrían afectar su

agua potable, usted usa el agua en alguna manera específica?

c. Usted está interesado en saber/aprender más del cambio climático y los eventos CE y

como podrían afectarle?

11. Usted está preocupado en general para el futuro sobre los efectos del cambio climático y los

eventos climáticos extremos?

a. Respuesta sí > qué son las preocupaciones?

12. Cuán preocupado/a está con los efectos del cambio climático y los ECE en general?

muy preocupado preocupado neutral sin preocuparse Totalmente

sin preocuparse

1 2 3 4 5

13. Podría indicar cuan está preocupado/a con los efectos del CC y ECE para su agua potable

también en una escala 1-5?

94

muy preocupado preocupado neutral sin preocuparse totalmente sin

preocuparse

1 2 3 4 5

a. Si esté preocupado/a : qué son las preocupaciones para su agua potable?

Sistema del agua

14. Qué conocimiento tiene usted/qué sabe usted ahora sobre (de su sistema) del/su agua potable?

a. Usted está interesado para saber más de la sistema?

15. Qué opina usted ahora sobre la calidad de su agua potable?

a. Y por qué?

b. Nota usted un cambio en la calidad del agua (y qué)? Y desde cuándo?

c. Qué cree usted qué son los factores para obtener agua de buena calidad?

d. Qué piensa usted que es necesario para mejorar la calidad del agua?

e. Qué podría hacer usted para mejorar la calidad del agua?

16. Cuan está satisfecho de la calidad actual del agua? Podría indicar en una escala de 1 a 5 su

satisfacción?

Muy insatisfecho insatisfecho neutral satisfecho Muy satisfecho

1 2 3 4 5

17. Qué le parece usted, quien tiene la responsabilidad para obtener una buena calidad del agua?

Y por qué?

18. Tiene constantemente servicio del agua?

a. Usted nota a veces un cambio en la disponibilidad del agua? (y sí, cuándo?)

b. Qué piensa usted, ¿cuál es la razón para la disponibilidad del agua potable?

c. ¿Piensa usted que hay otras razones para la disponibilidad del agua?

19. Si el servicio está funcionando, ¿qué le parece de la cantidad del agua?

a. ¿Nota una diferencia en la cantidad del agua? Y Desde cuándo lo nota y qué nota?

b. ¿Qué piensa usted cuál es la razón para la cantidad del agua en el sistema?

c. ¿Piensa usted que hay otras razones para la cantidad del agua en el sistema?

d. ¿Qué piensa usted que podría hacer para mejorar la cantidad del agua?

20. ¿Cuál(es) factor(es) piensa usted podría(n) afectar la calidad y la cantidad del agua?

21. ¿Qué opina usted sobre la organización/la administración de su (sistema del) agua potable?

a. ¿Porqué lo opina eso?

b. ¿Le parece que hay suficiente información para usted sobre cuándo y quienes manejan el

sistema del agua?

c. ¿Le parece está informado suficiente y adecuadamente sobre del progreso de su agua

potable?

d. ¿Le parece importante saberlo? Y por qué?

22. Hay un costo para el agua? Sí hay, cuánto es mensual?

a. Y usted lo paga?

95

b. Le parece, que este costo es justificado para la calidad y la cantidad del agua que obtiene?

c. Y le parece que este costo es justificado para el mantenimiento de la sistema?

Estrategias de gestión del agua

23. Hace algo con su agua del grifo, antes de consumirlo?

a. Sí> qué hace?

b. Porqué lo hace?

24. El agua que consume, viene del grifo o por otro medio? Sí > por qué?

25. Para qué utiliza el agua?

26. Cuán le importa, cuánto agua usa en general?

sin importancia poco importante neutral importante muy importante

1 2 3 4 5

a. Y porqué es así?

27. Existen reglas o normas en la comunidad sobre el uso del agua?

a. Respuesta sí > usted sabe que son las reglas y normas?

b. Qué opina usted de estas reglas?

c. Si usted sigue las reglas, por qué?

d. Y si no sigue > por qué no?

e. Usted sabe porque existe esta reglamento?

28. Hay unas preguntas?

96

Semi-structured interview Translated from Spanish to English

Date :

Number interview :

House code :

Sector of Patillas :

Age :

Interview guide for the semi-structured interviews to investigate the perceptions and knowledge of

four communities in Patillas, Puerto Rico on their community water-systems and on climate change

and extreme weather events.

Marital Status:

1. Can you tell me what is your marital status?

- Single

- Single, with children

- Cohabiting, with children

- Cohabiting, without children

- Divorced, with children

- Divorced, without children

With how many people do you live in this house?

Education

2. What is your highest achieved educational diploma

- No schooling

- Primary education

- High school graduate, or equivalent

- College credit, no degree

- Trade/technical/vocational training

- Associate degree

- Bachelor degree

- Master degree

- Doctorate degree

- Other ……..

Current daily activity:

3. What is your current daily activity?

- Paid employment (wage employment)

- Independent/Entrepeneur

- Housewife/househusband

- Out of work (looking for work)

- Out of work (not looking for work)

- Studying (fulltime/part-time)

- Retired

- Volunteer

- Unable to work

Perceptions and knowledge climate change and extreme weather events

Climate change (CC)

4. Have you heard about climate change?

a. And what have you heard?

Resp.:

5. What do you notice about climate change in Puerto Rico (and since when)??

a. And what do you notice more specific in Patillas?

97

b. What do you think you will notice in the future of CC ?

Resp.:

6. What kind of effect does CC have on you now?

a. What kind of effect/impact do you think it can have on you in the future?

Resp.:

Extreme weather events (EWE):

7. Have you heard about extreme weather events?

a. What have you heard?

Resp.:

8. What do you notice in Puerto Rico of the EWE? And since when?

a. And specifically in Patillas?

B. Resp.:

9. What is the effect of these EWE for you now?

a. And how do you think it can affect you in the future?

Resp.:

Climate change and extreme weather events impacts on potable water

10 Do you think CC and EWE can have an effect on your potable water?

a. And if yes, what do you think?

b. If you think CC and EWE can affect your potable water, do you use your water in a certain way

because of it?

C. Do you like to know more about CC and EWE and how this can affect you?

Resp.:

11. Are you worried for the future effects of CC and EWE in general?

a. what are your worries?

Resp.:

12. Can you indicate how worried you are on a scale from 1-5 about the general impact of CC and

EWE in Puerto Rico?

very worried worried neutral not worried Without any worry

1 2 3 4 5

Resp.:

13.Can you give on a scale from 1-5 how worried you are about the future effects of CC and EWE on

your potable water?

very worried worried neutral not worried Without any worry

1 2 3 4 5

a. And what are your concerns for your potable water?

Resp.:

Opinions on water-system

14. What do you know of your potable water-system?

a. Do you like to know more about the water-system?(if yes, what would you like to know?)

Resp.:

15. What do you think of the current quality of your potable water?

98

a. And why do you think that?

b. Do you notice/have you noticed a change in the water quality? Since when?

c. What do you think are the factors to obtain good water quality?

d. Do you think something is necessary to improve the water quality?

e. What could you do to improve it?

Resp.:

16. How content are you with your water quality on a scale of 1-5 ?

very unsatisfied unsatisfied neutral satisfied Very satisfied

1 2 3 4 5

Resp.:

17. Who do you find responsible for obtaining good quality of the water? And why?

Resp.:

18. Do you have a constant water-availability?

a. Do you sometimes notice a change in the water availability? If yes, since when?

b. What do you think is the reason for the water availability?

c. Do you think there are other reasons affecting the availability of the water?

Resp.:

19. If the service is working, what do you think of the water quantity?

a. Do you notice a change in the water quantity? If so, what? Since when?

b. What reasons do there exist which can affect the quantity in your water-system?

c. Do you think there are other reasons which can affect the quantity of the water?

d. What do you think you can do to improve the water quantity?

Resp.:

20. Which factors do you think can affect the water-quality and water quantity?

21. What do you think of the management of your water-system? and why?

a. Do you think there is enough information available for you about when and who maintains the

water-system?

b. Do you find you are informed enough and adequately about the progress of the water-system?

c. Do you find this important to know? Why?

22. Do you have to pay for the water-service? If yes, what is the monthly amount?

a. Do you pay?

b. Do you consider the amount of the monthly tariff sufficient for the water quality and quantity you

obtain?

c. Do you consider the monthly tariff sufficient for the O&M? Why not/why (when yes)?

c. Resp.:

Water-governance strategies

23. Do you do something with your water before you use it for personal consumption? What and why?

Resp.:

24. Do you use other water than tap water and why and when?

Resp.:

25. Where do you use your water for?

Resp.:

99

26. Can you indicate how important it is for you how you use your water on a scale on 1-5?

a. can you explain why it is so?

not at all important less important neutral Important Very important

1 2 3 4 5

Resp.:

27. Do there exist certain rules within the community about the use of the water?

a. what are these rules?

b. what do you think of these rules?

c. do you follow these rules and why?

d. and if not following > why not?

e. do you know why these rules exist?

Resp.:

28. Do you have any questions or comments?