Water and Sanitation in Bunkpurugu, Ghana: an analysis of current resources and options for community action
Matthew Blake Walker
Practicum submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Urban and Regional Planning In Urban Affairs and Planning
Ralph Hall
John Randolph Marcy Schnitzer April 29th, 2011
Blacksburg, VA
Keywords: water and sanitation, participatory learning and action, Ghana, micro-planning
All photos are by Michael Boampong (used with permission) unless otherwise noted Table of Contents
Executive Summary……………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………..2 Collaboration Background..……………………………………………………………..………………………………………………….3 Report Organization..……………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………………..3 Section I: Project Context………………….……………………………………………………………………………………………….4 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4 Methods…...……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4 Water Comparisons: Country, Region, District…………………………………..………………………...... 4 Sanitation Comparisons: Country, Region, District………………………………………...……………...... 5 Location of Bunkpurugu…………………………….…………………………..………………………………………….6 District Planning Context………………………………………………….……………………………….……………….7 Participant and Stakeholder Descriptions……………………………………………….……………..…….…….9 Development Education Club…………………………………………………………………………….…10 Young People We Care………………………………………………………………………………………...11 Community Members…………………………………………………………………………………………..11 Section II: Project Process and Results…………………………………………………………………...……………………….12 Project Development………………………………………………………………………………………………………..12 Project Implementation…………………………………………………………………………………………..……….13 Funding………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..13 Methods……………………………………………………………………………………………………………...13 Interview Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….14 Household Characteristics…………………………………………………………………………………….14 Water Sources Used……………………………………………………………………………………………..15 Water Sources Used by Season………………………………….…..…………………………………….16 Water Source: Surface Water from Public Dam……….…….….………………………………...17 Water Source: Public Wells…………………………………………………………………………………..18 Water Satisfaction…….………………………………………………………………………………….……...19 Water Quality Perceptions…………………………………………………………………………………...20 Household Water Habits……………………………………………………………………………………...21 Productive Use Comparison by Source………………………………………………………………...22 Water Improvement Preferences and Productive Use……….………………………………...23 Sanitation Usage………………………………………………………………………………….……………...24 Sanitation Satisfaction………………………………………………………………………………………….25 Characteristics of Households with Diarrhea………………………………………………………..26 Water Improvement Preferences and Health……………………………………………………….27 Sanitation Improvement Preferences…………………………………………………………………..28 Challenges/Limitations of Community Interviews………………………..…………………………………..29 Section II Conclusion………………………….……………………………………………………………………………..30 Section III: Participatory Action Planning for Bunkpurugu………………..………………………………………..…..31 Background and Development………………….……………………………………………………………………..31 Methods………………….……………………………………………………………………………………………………….31 Facilitator Considerations………………….……………………………………………………………………………..32 Background on Community Participation in Development……………………………..………….…….32 Summary Comparison and Sequence of Community Research Options………….…………….….33 Community Mapping………..…………………..…………………………………………………………………...…...34 Transect Walk……………………………………………………………………..……………………………………….…..36 Success Story…………………………………………………………………………………..………………...38 Stakeholder Analysis……………………………………………….………………….………………….………………..39 Mind Mapping………………………………………….……………………………………………………….……………..41 Force Field Analysis…………………..………..………………………………………………….………………………..43 Visioning Scenarios……………………………………………………….………………………………………………….44 Matrix Scoring……………………………………………………….………………………………………………………...45 Community Workshop………………...……………………………….………………………………………………....47 Action Planning………..………………………………………..…………………………………………………………….50 Section III Conclusion…..………..…………………………………..……………..…………………………….……...51 Practicum Conclusion……………………………………………….………………………………………..………….………………...52 References……………………………………….……………………………..………………………………………..……………..……...53 Appendix A: Participatory Action Planning Examples………………………………………..………………………………55 Appendix B: Survey Documents……..………………………….………..……………………..……………………..…………….69 Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to encourage additional opportunities for community-led water and sanitation research, evaluation, and planning in Bunkpurugu, Ghana. The report provides regional and local context, analyzes responses to a small-scale household survey (n=32) undertaken in Bunkpurugu, and outlines options for further community action planning. This information can be used by the Development Education Club (DEC), Bunkpurugu community members and local policy makers to guide future planning processes.
Using the internet, I collaborated with the Development Education Club, (DEC) a youth group working on environmental sustainability issues in Bunkpurugu, to conduct a water and sanitation survey in their community. With funding from Ghanaian non-profit organization Young People We Care (YPWC), ten youth and DEC Coordinator, Matthew Yosah, interviewed 40 households on their access to water and sanitation services over two days. The interview data was analyzed and missing or unclear responses were resolved through personal communication with the DEC Coordinator.
Most notably, the data appeared to imply that households who drink water only from the well have a lower chance of having diarrhea symptoms than those who drink from both sources or some other source. This is difficult to verify because most people drink from both sources and because the sample size is small. It also appears that households using some other unspecified source of water for drinking have a higher chance of having diarrhea.
Respondents who used water from the dam believed that the quality was bad or fair, while those using water from the wells believed the quality was good or fair. Further, about half of people in Bunkpurugu used water from the dam in productive activities while almost three quarters of respondents used water from wells for productive activities. These findings validate community preferences for wells, environmental/hygiene education and rainwater harvesting over surface water.
The community interviews provide a basic understanding of water issues in Bunkpurugu and can be used as both a tool for determining next steps and a foundation for additional community-led research. This quantitative information can be confirmed and explained with qualitative research through participatory methods. The DEC could initiate a community-led process for planning water, sanitation, hygiene and environmental projects in partnership with local stakeholders. By following the general process of Look, Think and Act outlined in this report, the DEC and other community partners can collect more detailed information that will help position them to implement appropriate projects or programs.
This project may provide insights into virtual collaboration, project planning and implementation that could be applicable to future online collaborations in different contexts.
2
Collaboration Background
This project is the product of a longer-term virtual relationship with Young People We Care (YPWC) and the Development Education Club in which I helped organize YPWC’s Global Sister Schools/Groups International Network for Sustainable Development Program. I applied to participate in this program through the United Nations Online Volunteering network, and became a Global Youth Ambassador in 2007 along with the DEC Coordinator, Matthew Yosah. We worked together on a Global Exchange Project linking youth in West Virginia and Bunkpurugu through letter and e-mail exchanges. The goals of YPWC’s program was to “create an enabling environment through which social and economic development between African schools and other schools and youth groups of countries in other continents” through sharing best practices and project ideas that advance the MDGs” (YPWC, 2010b). The correspondences were designed to describe local environmental issues (specifically water) in each local context and share ideas for taking action. The information produced during this project, such as written observations and photos, provided a useful starting point for understanding the community context through the lens of participating youth.
Report Organization:
The report is structured into three sections in order to divide the content by the three main project phases:
The first phase of the project involved researching, listening and learning about Bunkpurugu, its broader context within Ghana and the Northern Region, and the main stakeholders involved with the issue areas. Section I introduces all of this project context.
The second phase of the project involved collaborating with the DEC to plan and design the interview questions, conducting the interviews (collected by the DEC) and analyzing the data. Section II summarizes and analyzes the community interview process and methodology, the data and highlights the main results.
As the analysis revealed missing or incomplete information, the third project phase involved researching and selecting qualitative methods for the DEC to use in order to build upon the information gathered from the interview process. Section III outlines possible next steps for advancing further community analysis and problem-solving around watershed and water supply issues and is designed to encourage action planning and project implementation.
3 SECTION I Project Context Introduction This section compares water and sanitation trends on different geographic scales, summarizes District Planning initiatives, provides information about participants and stakeholders and highlights opportunities for collaboration. Comparing regional and national water and sanitation trends provides a context to better understand interview responses. The description of participants and stakeholders provides a glimpse of the institutional context of Bunkpurugu and potential opportunities for information exchange and collaboration.
Methods This information was collected by researching multi-lateral organizational reports and websites and Ghanaian local and regional government websites. Statistics from these reports were depicted in graphs and charts to make comparisons and illustrate local, regional and national trends. Based on these reports and planning documents, information about stakeholder organizations was gathered from websites and personal communication to create a stakeholder table (Table 1.1 on p. 9).
Water Comparisons: Country, Region, District While access to water in Ghana is improving overall, a closer examination of regional and local data highlights major disparities in improvements. As Figure 1.1 indicates, there was a steady increase in access to improved water sources in rural areas of Ghana, as well as a steady decline in the use of unimproved sources (UNICEF & WHO, 2010). “Improved” refers to water from household taps, public standpipes, boreholes, protected dug wells, protected springs, and rainwater. Ghana as a whole is on track to achieve the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) targets for Country and Regional Comparison of Water Access access to improved water sources (NDPC & UNDP Ghana, 2010). While 74% of households in Ghana have access to improved water sources, only 39% of households in the Northern Region have access to improved water sources (Figure 1.2). Most people in this region use rainwater, springs, rivers, and streams to meet their water needs. One fifth of households harvest rainwater in dug-out ground depressions. Collection and use of some of these sources may increase water-borne diseases such as diarrhea and malaria (MLGRD, MP, & MS, 2010a).
Access to Improved Water in Ghana 80%
60%
40%
20%
0% 1990 2000 2008
Figure 1.2: Differences in Ac- Improved Unimproved cess to Water between Country and Regional levels. Source: Adapted from UNICEF & World Figure 1.1. Access to Improved Water in Ghana (% of Population). Source: Adapted Health Organization (2010). from: UNICEF & World Health Organization (2010).
4
Sanitation Comparisons: Country, Region, District
Access to Improved Sanitation in Ghana 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1990 2000 2008
Improved Unimproved Open Defecation
Figure 1.3: Use of Sanitation in Rural Ghana (% of Population). This graph depicts the proportion of people using improved and unimproved sanitation, including open defeca- tion. Source: Adapted from UNICEF & World Health Organization (2010).
As shown in Figure 1.3, the amount of people in Ghana using an improved sanitation facility increased over the last two decades. “Improved” sanitation includes flush/pour flush toilets, Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) latrines, pit latrines with slab, and composting toilets. Over the same two decades, there was also an increase in using no facilities (open defecation) (UNICEF & WHO, 2010). While the trend appears promising, country-wide data can often hide major discrepancies found between smaller scales of regions and districts. For instance, in Ghana (urban and rural areas), about 33% of households have no access to sanitation, but in the Northern Region, 75% of households have no access to sanitation facilities. In addition, 80 – 90% of households in 10 of the 13 districts of the Northern Region are without sanitation facilities (see Figure 1.4) (MLGRD, MP, & MS, 2010a). While Bunkpurugu is one of five settlements in the District with 5,000 or more people and is the administrative capital of the District, it still faces difficulties in providing access to clean water and sanitation.
Country, Regional and District Differences in Access to Sanitation
Figure 1.4. Differences in Access to Sanitation between Country, Regional, and District Levels. The series of pie charts show the major discrepancies in access between different levels of aggregation. Source: Adapted from: UNICEF & World Health Organization (2010), MLGRD, MP, & MS (2010b).
5
Project Location: Bunkpurugu, Ghana
Figure 1.5. Project Location: Bunkpurugu, Ghana. Bunkpurugu, a settlement of about 6,500 people, is located in the Bunkpurugu-Yunoo District of the Northern Region of Ghana. Source: Adapted from www.maps.google.com, http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunkpurugu-Yunyoo_District
6
District Planning Context
The Bunkpurugu-Yunyoo District of the Northern Region currently has no piped water or sewage facilities. Between 2004 and 2005, there was a 35% increase in the proportion of the population with access to improved water sources and a 9.3% increase in people with access to Kumasi Ventilated- Improved Pit (KVIP) facilities. Households rely mainly on surface water and community wells for domestic and productive water needs (personal communication: Matthew Yosah, 2010). As seen in Table 1.1, the Bunkpurugu-Yunyoo District Assembly’s 2006 to 2009 planning documents indicate that the Assembly intends to construct small-town water systems, boreholes, and hand dug wells with pumps; improve sanitation in the district; and raise awareness about hygiene and the environment. Little noticeable progress has been made to date (MLGRD, MP, & MS, 2010b).
Understanding the local government’s long-term plan can prevent project duplication and assist the DEC and community members in identifying potential opportunities for collaboration. The planning document indicates that the District Assembly intends to increase community participation, including youth involvement in regular planning meetings. This could be an opportunity for community members and youth to participate in decision-making for their communities on multiple levels. On a larger scale, community ideas may be incorporated directly into future choices about policies or projects. On a smaller scale, if the government is already planning on installing water systems, people in the community may be able to contribute ideas about system and location preferences.
Participant and Stakeholder Descriptions
There are a number of community and regional stakeholders involved with water, sanitation, and environmental planning issues. Table 1.2 displays some key stakeholders and how they could be useful in supporting the goals of the DEC. For example, the DEC could connect with the Ghana Coalition of NGOs in Water and Sanitation (CONIWAS) to learn about how other communities and organizations have dealt with water supply issues. The local District Assembly is also an important stakeholder to collaborate with on water projects, as this could potentially ensure policy and financial support for community preferences or initiatives. The list is not exhaustive and is included to highlight potential partners at different levels and sectors and provide contact information. The DEC and community members should revise or create their own detailed stakeholder analysis to better fit their needs (Section III).
7 Table 1.1 Selected District Assembly Proposed Actions 2004-2009
WATER Raise awareness on use of safe water, hygiene and environment
Construct 127 boreholes in communities without boreholes and below 50% coverage
Construct 7 small town water systems (one in Bunkpurugu)
Construct 50 Hand Dug wells with pumps in select communities
Complete the construction of Bunkpurugu Dam
SANITATION Create sanitation support fund to construct latrines
Construct 70 school latrines
Construct 12 public latrines (10-Seater Kumasi Ventilated Improved Pit latrines) in select communities
Teach hygiene education in schools and selected communities
Recruit 80 sanitation and hygiene workers
Enact sanitation bye-laws in Bunkpurugu
Form and train Water & Sanitation Committee and Water & Sanitation Devt. Boards
Form Association of District WATSAN Committees
Organize quarterly yearly meetings for stakeholders in Water and Sanitation in the District
Organize annual workshops with stakeholders in water and sanitation
Train stakeholders in WATSAN planning, review, monitoring and evaluation
DEFORESTATION Enact & enforce bylaws on bush fires, tree felling, grazing & farming along water bodies
Establish and maintain 10 tree nurseries in the District
Establish 10 hectare forest reserve and woodlots in all 190 communities
Undertake tree planting along all water courses and around dams and dug-outs
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL GOVERNANCE & PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Invite 5 Youth Group & 5 Women Group leaders to General Assembly as Ex officio members
Institute award schemes for Greenest Community and Institutions
Organize monthly community meetings in all 191 communities
Form Green Clubs in schools
Source: Adapted from MLGRD, MP, & MS (2010b).
Table 1.1. Summary and Areas for Collaboration with Water, Sanitation and Environmental Stakeholders. Stakeholder What they do What could it offer? Contact information Bunkpurugu- Brings government policy and Collaboration opportunities for water P.O Box 1, Bunkpurugu-Yunyoo Yunyoo District decision-making to the local level and sanitation planning w/ community Northern Region Ghana, W / Assembly Africa (+233-3720) 23959 The Community Helps government, companies, and Financial support for water or sanitation Private Mail Bag Water and community orgs. in rural areas to projects and hygiene education Kotoka International Airport Sanitation provide improved water supply and assistance Accra - Ghana Agency (CWSA) sanitation services, as well as +233-(0)21-518401/3 hygiene education [email protected] http://www.cwsagh.org District Water (consists of an engineer, hygiene No DWST currently exists, but the None at this time and Sanitation expert and community organizer) District Assembly plans to train and Teams (DWST) Provides technical assistance at the implement one. This Team could district level to voluntary elected eventually offer technical advice to water and sanitation boards water and sanitation boards Water and Gender-balanced voluntary groups No Committee or Dev’t Board currently None at this time Sanitation that own and manage water and exists, but the District Assembly plans to Committee and sanitation systems. They usually form them. The group could allow an Dev’t Boards have one or two leaders trained in opportunity for community input and repair and maintenance decision-making District Provides information and Encourage environmentally friendly Contact through District Agriculture Dev’t assistance to farmers practices to farmers to protect water Assembly Unit Forestry Regulates and manages forest Provide support and donations of Resource Mangt Support Center Commission of resources in Ghana for sustainable saplings and seeds for tree planting P. O. Box 1457 Kumasi-Ghana Ghana use and resource conservation projects +233 51 28525, 22376, [email protected]
Traditional Paramount Chief, Divisional Chief, Support land conservation and Government Sub-chiefs & local positions management issues, especially in areas oversee land, certify land leases, adjacent to or surrounding headwaters and settle land and family disputes of water sources Young People Empowers youth to take action in Experienced facilitators for community [email protected] We Care local and global issues participation activities, financial support www.ypwc.org or donations Ghana Coalition Partners with different sectors to Connect the DEC and YPWC to other P.M.B KA 24, Airport. of NGOs in influence policy, remove barriers NGOs working on similar issues Farrar Street, Mango Tree, WATSAN and promote access to water, Asylum Down, Accra, Ghana (CONIWAS) sanitation, and hygiene +233 21 250816 [email protected] Foadaan (Global Addresses forest depletion and Provide saplings from tree nurseries and GVEP International Head Office Village Energy encourages renewable energy use new water sources from boreholes they 73 Wicklow Street Partnership Int’l) in Bunkpurugu-Yunyoo District dig for watering trees London WC1X 9JY, UK +44 (0) 207 713 8246 [email protected] Engineers Helps government to identify areas Partner with the DEC and use data 366 Adelaide Street West, Suite without Borders of high need for water and collected from past and future efforts to 601, Toronto, Ontario M5V 1R9 (Canada) sanitation in rural areas based on propose solutions to local government 1.416.481.3696 [email protected] reliable data Development Educates teens & implements Skills and talents in service projects [email protected] Education Club environmental service projects Schools (area schools) Space for events and planning. Advertisement of projects or programs Religious (area churches and mosques) Space for events and planning. Institutions Advertisement of projects or programs
Government Non-governmental Local
Development Education Club
The Development Education Club (DEC) is a group of teenagers in Bunkpurugu, Ghana, who are passionate about improving the environment and solving water and sanitation issues. The Bunkpurugu DEC is one of two youth groups in Ghana sponsored by Young People We Care (YPWC), a Ghanaian non -profit organization. The purpose of the clubs are to engage and promote youth action on development issues between the organization’s larger events like “Stand Up and Take Action,” an annual event in which millions of people around the world raise awareness and advocate for leaders to end poverty by taking steps to achieve the MDGs. YPWC encourages youth leadership by promoting these clubs and incorporating their perspectives into planning future programs.
The DEC was established in 2008 to expose youth to local, national and global issues and provide community service opportunities. Members learn to think critically about issues that affect their lives, and work on projects that help achieve the Millennium Development Goals. The DEC Coordinator and youth officers lead weekly meetings with about 10 to 25 club members. The DEC includes youth leadership positions of president, vice president, secretary and treasurer, and is guided by a school or community adult mentor. As participating youth gain leadership experience working with the club, they are viewed by some YPWC adult leaders as potential leaders in the organization (Michael Boampong, personal communication). The current DEC Coordinator, Matthew Yosah, acts as a supporting adult mentor by providing tools, resources, trainings, and connections to YPWC and international networks. Yosah is from Bunkpurugu and is now attending the University of Development Studies in Tamale, which provides formal knowledge and experience in community development.
The DEC focuses on Millennium Development Goal 7 on Environmental Sustainability, and is specifically interested in targets related to climate change, deforestation and water and sanitation (see Table 1.2). Participants take action in their community through issuing out communiqués or volunteering in service projects such as litter cleanups, tree planting events and trainings on environmental issues. In April 2010, the DEC participated in Global Youth Service Day trainings on tree planting, tree nurseries and forest management. In June 2010, they participated in capacity building workshops related to environmental sustainability, a village cleanup around schools, markets and sanitation facilities and a mango tree planting project at a local high school (YPWC, 2010).
In January 2011, DEC members helped create a survey and conducted 40 community interviews about water and sanitation use in Bunkpurugu. This project was chosen from a set of options I proposed to the DEC because they believed this type of data collection was the first step in trying to increase access to improved water and sanitation. A detailed explanation of the interview process and research results can be found in Section II.
Table 1.2: DEC’s Millennium Development Goal Focus Areas. Millennium Development Goal 7 Ensure Environmental Sustainability Target 7.A Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs and reverse the loss of environmental resources Target 7.C Halve, by 2015, the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation Source: Adapted from United Nations (2010).
10
Young People We Care Young People We Care (YPWC) is a youth-led nonprofit organization headquartered in Kumasi, Ghana, with satellite offices in the United Kingdom and Canada. The organization is led by youth aged 15 to 30 and adult mentors working together on global development issues. Their mission is to: “Provide young people with tools and resources for effective action, educate and inform the youth on global issues, inspire youth to take action, encourage youth participation in global issues, and identify and build sustainable partnerships aimed at youth development” (YPWC, 2011a). Their vision is to “provide a ‘youthful voice’ that seeks to address the numerous challenges facing leaders of tomorrow by effectively using young resourceful minds to influence the course of global policy formulation and development in a consistent and harmonized manner” (YPWC, 2011a). YPWC’s programs include 1) Global Sister Schools and Groups, 2) Youth: Migration and Development, 3) Leadership Forum, 4) Millennium Development Goals, and 5) HIV/AIDS.
Community Members The population of Bunkpurugu and the Northern Region has a diverse ethnic background and religion, but share similarities in household characteristics and livelihoods strategies. The native people of Bunkpurugu are the Binobas who speak Moar, while other tribes include the Mamprusis who speak Mampruli, Dagombas who speak Dagbani, and other tribes that migrated to the area (Matthew Yosah, personal communication). On a larger scale, the Northern Region contains several different ethnic groups including the Mole Dagbon, the Gurma, the Akan, and the Guan (see Figure 1.6). Figure 1.5 shows the proportion of religious beliefs amongst people living in the Northern Region. The majority of people are Muslim, followed by people practicing Traditional Religions, Christians, and other religious groups (MLGRD, MP, & MS, 2010a). The exact religious proportions of Bunkpurugu’s population are unknown. The average household size in Bunkpurugu is 9.9 members, with about 1/3 each of children under 5, youth 5 to 18, and adults. All residents use water for domestic purposes such as drinking, bathing and cooking. A majority of residents also use water for “productive activities,” or those related to advancing an individual’s overall livelihood capacities, such as agriculture, gardening, livestock or small businesses.
Major Ethnic Groups of Northern Region and Religions of Northern Region * *
Figure 1.6. Major Ethnic Groups of Northern Region and Religions of Northern Region. The pie charts show that over half of the people in the Northern Region are from the Mole Dagbon Ethnic Group and more than half are Muslim. Source: Adapted from MLGRD & MP&MS (2010a). *No sample size provided 11 SECTION II Project Process and Results
Project Background and Development
Based on information from previous collaboration in a Global Exchange program, I proposed three project ideas to the DEC with the aim to further their goals and the YPWC mission. The options included 1) designing a series of environmental leadership workshops for DEC weekly meetings (including community research, evaluation, decision-making, and project implementation), 2) developing tools and providing resources to help the DEC facilitate an Assets-Based Community Development Approach with community members (explained in Section III in more detail) and 3) developing and implementing a community survey tool to assess the current status on water and sanitation and preferences for improvements. The DEC selected the third project option because they believed it could provide guidance in working towards their goal of providing clean drinking water to Bunkpurugu. In addition, this type of local data does not exist for this area of Ghana but is critical for planning and implementing appropriate projects and programs.
The creation of the survey tool was an adaptive and collaborative effort with DEC youth. I developed a basic framework for the interview questions based on several past projects (Hall 2010), and the DEC met and developed a list of questions related to their interests and goals. The ideas were combined and refined several times through working with the DEC Coordinator, Matthew Yosah, and my committee chair, Ralph Hall, at Virginia Tech. See Appendix B for a copy of the entire survey tool.
Photos by DEC
12 Project Implementation
Funding A short proposal and budget were submitted to Young People We Care for printing and volunteer incentives. The DEC was approved for 100 GHC (about US $67), which they used to print and photocopy the survey forms. We also tried various social media routes including a facebook page, donations on the YPWC website and a Global Giving Challenge to cover additional costs. In-kind donations are currently not an option in this area of Ghana, as businesses like the internet café just started up recently. The DEC Coordinator spent personal money on internet café time and cell phone minutes, and I spent money on internet phone calls to cell phones. In-kind donations, mini-grants and private donations are continually sought for future collaboration, programming and community action projects (as outlined in Section III).
Methods In January 2011, DEC members were trained in interview techniques and interviewed 50 households on water and sanitation over the period of two days. Trainings for the interviewers consisted of studying and reviewing the questions as a group, practicing and roleplaying in pairs, and reviewing implementation logistics. The DEC divided up the village into 5 sections to ensure equal representation from people living in all geographic areas. These included the Catholic Church Area, the Namang Kuan (Chief Palace Area), the Zongo area, the Bilfacu Area, and the Louk House area. Two of these areas were later dropped because the survey forms were incomplete (see p. 29). Figure 2.1 illustrates the three general locations of the remaining areas used in the final analysis. Teams of interviewers randomized the data collection by sampling every 5th household along their specified route. If no one answered or a person was unable to participate in the project, the team moved to the next house. Ten DEC volunteers divided up into five teams of two members to cover each of the sections. Since most people in the village do not speak English, DEC members were required to translate the survey from English to Moar during the interviews. The DEC Coordinator selected 32 high-quality interviews out of the 50 because there were challenges in recording responses (explained on p.29). The DEC Coordinator entered handwrittendata into a master spreadsheet. The following pages include the main findings.
Namang
Zongo Bilfacu
Figure 2.1. Satellite Image of Bunkpurugu illustrating the general divisions of the three final interviewed areas. Source: Adapted from GoogleMaps (2011). 13 Interview Analysis
Household Characteristics
Primary Respondent (n=12) Only 12 interviewers asked about the primary inter- Female Head of House viewee’s identity. Out of these 12 respondents, about 0% half were male household heads and about 40% were Other both male and female household heads. None were 8% female household heads. This gender discrepancy must be considered when comparing responses such as opinions on future water and sanitation measures, Male Head of and opinions about current water quality and usage. It Male and House Female Heads is important to ensure that any future participatory 50% (both) research activities represent both men and women to 42% understand gendered differences in water needs and preferences.
Figure 2.2. Primary Interviewee Gender
Youth by Gender Household by Age (n=32)
Adults 33% Male Youth Youth 5 to 18 36% Female 36% Youth 64% Children Under 5 n=31 31%
Figure 2.3. Household Composition by Age, showing Youth Gender.
The average household size is 9.9 with about 1/3 adults, 1/3 youth and 1/3 children under 5. Youth that are 5 to 18 years old are notably predominantly female with about 2/3 female and 1/3 male. More research is needed on gender by age for adults and children under 5. The average number of days worked for wages was 39 in the rainy season and 96 in the dry season (n=10). The average pay per day of work was 2 Ghanaian Cedi (GHC) (about 1.30 USD), resulting in an average pay of about 78 GHC for the rainy season and 193 GHC for the dry season (per person), and a total of 270 GHC per year per person (about 178 USD). Examples of youth chores related to water use cited by some interviewees included farming, cooking, washing and caring for livestock. Five out of thirteen males (38%) between 5 and 18 fetch water com- pared to 9 out of thirteen females (69%) in the same age range. 14 Water Sources Used
Water Sources Used* (n=21) 120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
Percentage of Population Percentageof 20%
0% dam public spring irrigation private public private tanker other well canal well tap tap truck Sources
Figure 2.4. Water Sources Used. *Multiple responses allowed
The two main sources of water for Bunkpurugu are surface water from a community dam and four hand-dug wells located around the dam. The dam is used by 100% of people in the village, while 95% of people use water from public wells. The majority of residents are about 1 mile from these sources and transport water by donkey carts (personal communication Mathew Yosah).
While the data indicates that no other sources are used, personal communication with the DEC Coordinator revealed that people use other water sources not reflected in the responses. Some Bunkpurugu residents harvest rainwater during the rainy season and purchase water throughout the year from youth selling it from donkey carts. In planning any future water interventions, it will be important to know more information about exact sources of water used.
While the survey was designed to obtain information on the quantity of water each household used, this information was only collected from a few households. The volume of water used per household is a critical piece of information for determining possible water supply interventions and needs further community research.
15 Water Sources by Season
Public Well Usage
Dry Season Rainy Season Don't Use 5%
Don't Use 32%
Use Use 68% 95%
n=22 (n=22) (n=22)
Figure 2.5. Public Well Usage in Dry and Rainy Season.
Dam Usage
Dry Season Dam Rainy Season
Don't Use 0%
Don't Use 16%
Use Use 84% 100%
Figure 2.6. Dam Usage in Dry and Rainy Season.
There was an expected difference between the use of both the public well and surface water between the dry season and the rainy season. Individuals likely harvest rainwater in the rainy season to satisfy their water demands (Matthew Yosah, personal communication). While only 16% of people stop using the public dam during the rainy season, 32% stop using the public well. This is probably because one of the public wells is covered by flood waters during the rainy season. The 68% of people still using public wells probably use one of the other three hand-dug wells, which are about 20 minutes away from the dam and not flooded during the rainy season. (Matthew Yosah, personal communication).
16 Water Source: Surface Water from Public Dam
Photos by Matthew Yosah and DEC
Use of Surface Water* (n=31)
cooking
washing
bathing
drinking Use
livestock
agriculture
small business
0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage of Population using Surface Water
Figure 2.7. Public Well Usage in Dry and Rainy Season. *Multiple responses allowed
The dam was constructed by blocking the natural flow of a creek that runs adjacent to Bunkpurugu (see Figure 2.8). The creek is part of the Volta watershed. During the dry season, the dam has very low levels of water, but it usually floods in the rainy season, covering up the adjacent public well. As figure 2.7 above illustrates, most people use the dam water for cooking, washing and bathing (close to or over 80%). Over 50% of people use surface water for drinking, while only a small percentage of people use it for livestock (about 30%), agriculture (about 20%), and small business (about 10%). Figure 2.8. Bunkpurugu Creek and Dam. This satellite image shows the blockage constructed to dam the water flowing from the creek. Source: Adapted from GoogleMaps (2011).
17 Water Source: Public Wells
Photos by Matthew Yosah and DEC
Use of Public Well Water* (n=21)
cooking
bathing
washing
drinking
livestock
agriculture
small business
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Percentage of People using Public Wells
Figure 2.9. Use of Public Well Water. *Multiple responses allowed
The Bunkpurugu-Yunyoo District has soils with high porosity and a landscape with relatively minor elevation changes. The District Assembly’s website states that these characteristics prevent large amounts of runoff and indicates a high amount of ground water recharge (MLGRD & MP&MS 2010b). In this area of Ghana, the ground is composed of sandstone, quartzite and arkose minerals, which are joined together tightly and are impermeable. The average borehole depth in this region is about 100 meters and yield about 3,600 liters/hour (Mining Portal of Ghana, 2006). More information is needed on the exact depth of current wells and the depth of the water table. As shown in Figure 2.10 above, most people use the public wells for cooking (100%) , bathing (90%), and washing (90%). More than half of interviewees use public well water for drinking. In addition, almost half of respondents use public well water for livestock, and a few use this water for agriculture.
18 Water Satisfaction
Water Quality Satisfaction (n=31) Water Quantity Satisfaction (n=32) somewhat satisfied somewhat 6% satisfied 19% not satisfied not 81% satisfied 94%
Figure 2.10. Water Quality and Water Quantity Satisfaction.
Reasons for Water Dissatisfaction (n=32)
Water non potable Unreliable Too much time Not enough for Household Too costly Not enough for livestock Not enough for crops Other Insufficient hours
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 2.11. Reasons for Water Dissatisfaction.
Ninety-four percent of interviewees were not satisfied with their water quantity, while 81% were dissatisfied with their water quality. Even though more people were dissatisfied with water quantity than water quality, the biggest reason people were dissatisfied with their overall water supply situation was their perception that the water is non-potable (almost 90% of participants). Other main reasons for dissatisfaction were that the water source was unreliable, collecting water took too much time and an insufficient quantity for the household.
19 Water Quality Perceptions
Water Quality Satisfaction (n=31)
somewhat satisfied 19%
not satisfied 81%
Public Well Quality Surface Water Quality
Good 0% Bad 17% Fair 40%
Good 60% Fair 83% Bad 0% (n=20) (n=30)
Figure 2.12. Perception of Water Quality from Public Well and Dam.
As illustrated in Figure 2.12, the community perceived the quality of dam water to be much lower than that of the public well. The quality of dam water was rated as 83% Fair and 17% Bad (0% Good), where- as the public well was 60% Good and 40% Fair (0% Bad).
20 Household Water Habits
Household Water Treatment (n=32) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30%
Percentage of Population Percentageof 20% 10% 0% No Treatment Cloth Filter Boil
Figure 2.13. Household Water Treatment.
Almost 90% of households use no form of water treatment. A correlation between treatment and diarrhea cases was inconclusive as the sample size for households that treated water was not sufficient to establish a trend. Further research is required to identify relationships between treatment methods and health implications.
Source of Water Stored in House (n=30) 120%
100%
80%
60%
40% Number of Responses of Number
20%
0% Dam Public Well Public Tap Private Well
Figure 2.14. Source of Water Stored in House. Most families have three or four large pots that store about 25 gallons of water each (Matthew Yosah, personal communication). Almost everyone stores water from the dam in their house, while about 80% store water from the public well in their house.
21 Productive Use Comparison by Source
Comparison of Productive Use by Percentage and Activity from Public Well and Dam
Productive Users of Water from Dam Productive Activities
Productive Users of Water from Public Well Productive Activities
Small Agriculture Business 9% 0%
Livestock 91%
n=11
Figure 2.15. Comparison of Productive Use by Percentage and Activity from Public Well and Dam.
Water used for an activity such as agriculture, livestock, or small business is referred to asa “productive use” of water. In these activities, water is used beyond purely domestic purposes for overall livelihood activities that support families (Moriarty & Butterworth 2003). Figure 2.15 illustrates noticeable differences between people using dam water and well water for productive uses. Almost three quarters of people in Bunkpurugu use water from wells for productive activities, while about half of people use water from the dam for productive activities. Almost half of the people who use dam water for productive activities use it for livestock, while over one third use it for agriculture and about one sixth use it for small businesses. In contrast, about 90% of people using water productively from public wells use it for livestock, about 10% use it for agriculture and 0% use it for small businesses.
22 Water Improvement Preferences & Productive Use
Preferences for Water Improvements* (n=31)
drill/dig wells to pump environmental/hygiene education collect and purify rainwater ponds to recharge groundwater improved sanitation plant trees to recharge groundwater water source protection pump from surface source other purify in home
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 2.16. Preferences for Water Improvements. *Multiple responses allowed
Water Improvement Preferences by Productive and Domestic Only Users*
Drill/dig wells and pump water Community environmental/hygiene education Collect rainwater to purify and store in tanks Construct small ponds to recharge groundwater Improved sanitation facilities Plant trees to help recharge groundwater Water source protection measures Pump water from surface water source Purify existing water source in the house
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
(Wells) domestic and productive (n=10) (Dam) domestic and productive (n=13) (Wells) domestic only (n=11) (Dam) domestic only (n=5) *Multiple responses allowed
Figure 2.17. Water Improvement Preferences by Productive and Domestic Only Users.
Surprisingly, preferences did not vary significantly between productive and domestic-only users. The one noticeable pattern was that those using water productively preferred “Water source protection measures” about half as much as those only using it for domestic activities. One possible explanation for this is that the phrase could be interpreted to mean that the water source would be protected from user withdrawals, which could prevent productive users from generating an income. Further research is required to understand the reasoning behind this preference.
23 Sanitation Usage
Sanitation Usage* (n=31) Almost 93% of people responded that they used “no facilities/outdoors” for sanitation, while 35% 100% responded that they used public latrines. Al- 80% though the question was designed to determine 60% open defecation prevalence, respondents may have interpreted “no facilities” to mean the type 40% of private pit latrines people construct behind 20% their houses. These so-called “man-holes” are dug 0% pits with structures for privacy and ventilation to
Percentageof Population Public Latrine No Facilities (outdoors) reduce odors (Matthew Yosah, personal communication). Sanitation Type *Multiple responses allowed Figure 2.18. Sanitation Usage.
There were noticeable differences in public latrine Sanitation Type by Area of Bunkpurugu usage between the three areas of Bunkpurugu. (n=29) Everyone in the Bilfacu Area used public latrines, 150% compared to about 25% in the Naanmang Kuan Area and 0% in the Zongo Area. More information 100% is needed on income for the three interviewed 50% areas of Bunkpurugu in order to see if economic 0% differences correspond with the types of sanitation Bilfacu Area Cheif Palace Area Zongo Area used. Also, as a high percentage of people using (Naanmang Kuan) this type of sanitation preferred composting toilets
Percentage of Population Percentageof Area of Bunkpurugu as a possible future sanitation measure, more Outdoors/No Facility Usage Public Latrine Use research is needed to determine if these latrines Figure 2.19. Sanitation Type by Area of Bunkpurugu. are actively being used as composting toilets and if the meaning of composting toilets was lost in translation or if it has different local meanings.
24 Sanitation Satisfaction
Satisfaction with Public Latrine (n=11) Satisfaction with No Facilities (n=12)
not satisfied very 17% somewhat satisfied satisfied 8% 36% not satisfied somewhat 64% satisfied 75%
Figure 2.20. Sanitation Satisfaction by Use.
Reasons for Sanitation Dissatisfaction* (n=32)
Costly to build toilet Smells bad Unclean Pit is full, poor drainage No toilet in home Far from house Reasons No privacy Embarrassing Health concerns Other
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
*Multiple responses allowed Percentage of Population
Use Public Latrine (n=11) Don’t use Public Latrine (n=20)
Figure 2.21. Reasons for Sanitation Dissatisfaction.
At just over 80%, “costs for building toilets” was the most significant reason for dissatisfaction with sanitation. At less than 30%, the second most common reason was that facilities smelled bad. Almost three times as many residents were dissatisfied with toilet costs in comparison to other reasons. Most people who were dissatisfied with toilet construction costs do not use public facilities. The data and personal communication revealed that people not using public latrines spend a considerable amount of money to construct and use their own outdoor pit latrines (Matthew Yosah, personal communication).
25 Characteristics of Households with Diarrhea
Households with Diarrhea Symptoms in the Past Year (n=22)
No 45% Yes 55%
Figure 2.22. Households with Diarrhea Symptoms in the Past Year.
Over one half of respondents reported that at least one person in the household had diarrhea symptoms in the last year. Seven out of the nine people who drank from both sources had diarrhea. Not one of the five respondents who drank only from the well had diarrhea, while one out of the three people who drank only from the dam had diarrhea. Three out of the four people who drank water from some other source had diarrhea (see Table 2.1 below). While this appears to imply that households who drink water only from the well have a lower chance of having diarrhea symptoms than those who drink from both sources or some other source, it is difficult to verify because most people drink from both sources and because the sample size is small. It also appears that households using some other unspecified source of water for drinking have a higher chance of having diarrhea. More research is needed about these alternative sources of water.
Table 2.1. Diarrhea Prevalence by Drinking Water Source. Drink from Well Drink from Dam Drink from Dam Drink from Other Total Only Only and Well Source
Yes diarrhea 0 1 7 3 11
No diarrhea 5 2 2 1 10
Total 5 3 9 4 21
26 Water Improvement Preferences and Health
Preferences for Water Improvements* (n=31)
drill/dig wells to pump environmental/hygiene education collect and purify rainwater ponds to recharge groundwater improved sanitation plant trees to recharge groundwater water source protection
Water Measures pump from surface source other purify in home
0 20 40 60 80 100
*Multiple responses allowed Percentage of Population Figure 2.23. Preferences for Water Improvements.
Preferences for Water Improvements (n=22)
environmental/hygiene education ponds to recharge groundwater collect and purify rainwater improved sanitation pump from surface source plant trees to recharge groundwater drill/dig wells to pump other water source protection Water Measures purify in home 0 10 20 30 40 50 *Multiple responses allowed Percentage of Population
Households reporting diarrhea symptoms Households not reporting diarrhea symptoms Figure 2.24. Preferences for Water Improvements by Households with and without Diarrhea.
Wells, environmental and hygiene education, and rainwater harvesting were the most preferred options for future water measures. Notably, more households who reported diarrhea symptoms preferred these measures than households without diarrhea. Households reporting diarrhea preferred hygiene education about 10% more than households without diarrhea symptoms, rainwater harvesting about 2 times greater, and drilling wells about 9 times greater. Households with diarrhea also prefer pumping surface water about half as much as households without diarrhea. This implies that there is a relationship between households with diarrhea, low preference for surface water and high preference for groundwater. In addition, only about 5% of households without diarrhea preferred water source protection compared to almost 20% of households with diarrhea.
27 Sanitation Improvement Preferences
Preferences for Sanitation Improvements* (n=33)
composting toilets
private toilets
environmental/hygiene education
shared toilets
community toilets Sanitation MeasuresSanitation
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
*Multiple responses allowed Percentage of Population Figure 2.25. Preferences for Sanitation Improvements.
Sanitation preferences listed above were read for respondents to select. Composting toilets and private toilets (likely user-constructed) were the most preferred options for future sanitation measures. As mentioned previously, further clarification is needed on the term “composting toilet” to understand whether it is the same or similar to the type of “man-hole” system some families currently use.
Preferences for Sanitation Improvements by Households with and without Diarrhea* (n=22)
composting toilets private toilet facilities shared toilets community toilets
Sanitation MeasuresSanitation environmental/hygiene education
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 *Multiple responses allowed Percentage of Population
Households reporting symptoms of diarrhea in the last year
Households not reporting symptoms of diarrhea in the last year
Figure 2.26. Preferences for Sanitation Improvements by Households with and without Diarrhea.
Out of all the households reporting symptoms of diarrhea in the last year, over 20% preferred composting toilets to improve sanitation.
28 Challenges/Limitations of Community Interviews
The data analysis revealed several limitations to the questions asked, the training of the interviewers and the survey tool itself. Despite the interviewer trainings, there were multiple challenges in collecting and recording the data. For instance, some of the forms came back with missing data, such as water volumes, which is one of the most important measures for planning future water interventions. In addition, there were other questions missing responses and handwriting was sometimes hard to decipher. As a result, the DEC coordinator selected 32 interviews, eliminating two of the original five village sections interviewed from the data analysis. The 32 interviews were chosen based on their quality in following the survey format and procedure, and on the quantity of questions answered. The DEC coordinator stated that if there had been more time to train volunteers prior to the interviews, then issues related to completing survey forms could have been reduced. In addition, as time for analysis was limited, we prioritized what data the DEC coordinator would enter to reduce the short-term burden of data entry. The DEC coordinator plans to enter the remaining data after his studies are completed for the year.
The design and use of the survey could be improved by refining terms and providing definitions for potentially unclear terms. The survey tool appeared to need more detailed explanations of some terms, specifically regarding different types of sanitation. Concepts of composting toilets, private toilets and no facilities may have had different meanings in Bunkpurugu. As the questions were mostly quantitative, it would have been beneficial to include more open-ended questions. There also could have been more questions related to hygiene in the household, such as information on handwashing frequency, how people remove water from storage containers and whether or not lids are used on storage containers. Information about the gender composition for adults and children under five also should have been collected. In addition, language barriers likely contributed to misinterpretations, as most people in the village do not speak English. Older DEC members who have basic English proficiency were required to translate the survey from English to Moar during the interviews (Matthew Yosah, personal communication).
While interviewing people in surveys undeniably includes community members, it can be viewed as a “lower” form of community participation that can miss the reasoning behind current conditions and attitudes. If questions highlight perceived deficiencies or problems, they can sometimes be disempowering or uncomfortable and can lead to inaccurate information (Gaventa & Cornwall 2006). For instance, there was a discrepancy between collected responses and previous statements and observations about diarrhea in Bunkpurugu. Using a survey tool as a means to collect community information also had limitations because it only captures one moment in time. Critics claim that surveys only capture one dimension of reality and some can disempower interviewees by making them feel like subjects of an outsider’s research agenda (Gaventa & Cornwall 2006). Despite these critiques and limitations, the data analysis provided useful information for determining next steps.
29 Section II Conclusion
The data revealed a number of interesting relationships and patterns that may be useful in considering future water and sanitation planning in Bunkpurugu:
The data may imply that households who drink water only from the well have a much lower chance of contracting diarrhea than those who drink water from both sources. However it is difficult to verify this relationship because the majority of people with diarrhea drank water from both sources and because of the small sample size.
The majority of people using water from the dam perceived the quality as fair to bad, while those using water from the wells believed the quality was mostly good.
Wells, environmental and hygiene education, and rainwater harvesting were the most preferred options for future water measures.
Composting toilets and private toilets (likely user-constructed) were the most preferred options for future sanitation measures.
About one half of people in Bunkpurugu use water from the dam in productive activities, while almost three quarters of people used water from wells for productive activities.
Most users of public latrines were not satisfied with this service due to issues related to maintenance (dirty, smelly, full pit), while users of family- constructed pit latrines were more satisfied, but concerned with the high costs of building the toilets.
The interview results provide a basic understanding of water issues in Bunkpurugu that can be used as both a tool for determining next steps, and a foundation for additional community-led research and understanding. However, as previously noted, the use of a survey tool as a means to collect community information provides only a snapshot of a community and may require confirmation, clarification and more nuanced research. As a result, it is important to supplement and triangulate the quantitative information already collected with additional qualitative research through participatory methods. The following section outlines a series of participatory methods that could be used in Bunkpurugu to promote a community-led research and planning initiative.
30 SECTION III Participatory Action Planning for Bunkpurugu
Background and Development
The community interviews provided information that can be used as both a tool for determining next steps, and a foundation for outlining a framework of options to encourage a community-led investigation of Bunkpurugu’s current status and community-led planning for future improvements in water and sanitation (as described in Table 3.1 on p. 33). However, further qualitative research is required to confirm a number of questions and details raised during community interviews. The DEC could initiate a community-led process for planning water, sanitation, hygiene and environmental projects either by leading the recommended activities themselves or collaborating and partnering with local stakeholders. By following the general process of “Look,” “Think” and “Act” (Stringer, 1999) outlined in this report, the DEC and other community partners will be able to collect more detailed information and opinions about their water situation and be well positioned to implement related projects or programs. The following guide provides examples of available tools and processes for the DEC to consider in identifying and developing strategies for improving local water resources in collaboration with community members.
Methods
After the data analysis presented in Section II was completed, a list of additional or remaining questions were organized by category. Various quantitative methods were researched in order to select those that could be useful to determine in-depth information and reasoning related to the remaining questions. Each tool was selected based on the anticipated benefits, relevance to the issues and appropriateness for Bunkpurugu. Activities were chosen based on their suitability for evaluating the issues of water, sanitation, health and the environment. The activities were also selected based on how realistic each would be for the DEC leaders to facilitate based on required time, funding, materials and skills. Cost considerations resulted in the selection of mostly low-cost or free activities in order to reflect the low financial capacity of the club. The ability of each activity to provide an inclusive and comfortable atmosphere for the variety of people who comprise the Bunkpurugu community (including illiterate people) was also a major consideration. With all of these factors in mind, I attempted to find tools that would not only provide answers to remaining questions, but build on the previous community preferences and opinions to achieve desired results. The activities were organized into three main phases of participatory action planning: Look, Think and Act. The tools are proposed in a certain sequence to encourage cumulative benefits in the overall planning process, but users must select and adapt the methods and sequence to fit their own needs.
31 Facilitator Considerations
Table 3.1 on p. 33 of this report summarizes the strengths, weaknesses, and main questions for each activity. Facilitators should attempt to answer some of these remaining questions during the associated participatory research activity in the Table. While each activity assumes that the purpose is to improve community access to water and/or sanitation, they can also be applied to broader community planning issues. The activities each take considerable time to prepare for and complete, and are designed to be implemented over a long period of time. Throughout all of the following activities, it is important to ensure a diverse group of participants representing community differences in age, gender, ethnic background, ethnic background, religion, profession and income level. While it may be more difficult to achieve, facilitators should strive to invite people who are not normally represented in these types of community activities.
Background on Community Participation in Development
Participatory approaches in local development issues were a response to a long list of failing top-down policies and programs (Hira & Parfitt, 2004). These approaches allow community members’ priorities to be advanced through a variety of techniques known as Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), Participatory Action Research (PAR) and later Participatory Learning and Action (PLA). These techniques include a long list of hands-on activities in which community members use local knowledge to explain and make sense of the complexities of their surroundings. It is important to note that these approaches, which are almost always implemented by an outside organization or researcher, are criticized for encouraging dependency, reinforcing or ignoring unequal power relationships and spaces for participation, simultaneously supporting and questioning cultural practices, and applying the same techniques in different situations (Gaventa & Cornwall, 2006). Despite these concerns, there is a great potential for these tools to be facilitated by leaders in the DEC and the broader community rather than outside agencies. This process could allow people in Bunkpurugu to perform their own analysis of the water situation and mobilize resources to take action.
32 Table 3.1: Summary Comparison and Sequence of Community Research Options Research Tool Question to Explore Advantages Disadvantages
1. Community What is each household’s water volume usage per day? Low cost, Everyone can participate Could raise potential Where are the water points? What are the exact Mapping Represents participants’ boundary sources of water used? How many people use knowledge of the area conflicts rainwater during the rainy season? What is the average Depicts information important to depth of the wells/the water table? May not community goals accurately depict Where are the sanitation points? Gather info on the local knowledge “man-hole” system some families currently use to see if Can be used as a tool to start discussions it is the same or similar to composting toilets (recycling Could make
human waste in a sealed chamber into usable soil) Shows connections between sensitive humans and the environment information Where are households with diarrhea? Reasons for publicly available purifying/not purifying at home How do pollutants enter our water sources? 2. Transect Walk Where does water draining to the main water sources Provides an informal environment Potential for the originate? for people to voice their cross-section perspectives map to become What are the land uses/human actions in areas close to the focus of the and upstream of water sources? Provides a useful monitoring tool activity
LOOK How do these impact the water quality of the dam/ People’s local knowledge is Information well? What is the actual quality of different sources? shared, affirmed and used in could be biased if different ways Why are some people (productive users of water) only one group of similar people 3. Stakeholder What groups in different sectors are involved in water Illustrates power differences Potentially resource issues? sensitive subject Analysis Can be used as a tool to build matter How much influence does each stakeholder have on the partnerships and strategies water? Can be complex How accessible is the organization? 4. Mind Mapping What are the main issues from previous research/ Generates many creative ideas May not yield activities and how are they connected? specific and Shares and organizes ideas from immediate What are the main issues and what are possible multiple community members solutions solutions? 5. Force Field What are the factors impacting current water Allows participants to determine Can be complex resources? the best areas to intervene with Analysis actions What is causing the poor water quality of the dam? 6. Visioning How do people envision their Bunkpurugu in the Creates a collective community Can sometimes future? vision for the future be challenging to Scenarios visualize an ideal What steps would need to be accomplished to achieve Can be used as a tool to strategize future this vision? local actions
THINK 7. Matrix Scoring What are realistic options for improving water and Creates a holistic comparison of Can be easily sanitation access? (refer to interview results) alternatives that can be used to dominated by make decisions facilitator Why are some measures preferred over others? (these are the criteria) 8. Community What were the main findings of the community Validates results with a wider Can be interviews and community-led research? group of people (including challenging to Workshop government officials) facilitate What are the next steps in improving water resources? Involves large mix of people in Can be identifying important next steps challenging to achieve a diverse group Long-term, ACT 9. Action What are the first achievable steps in pursuing Breaks down complex and Planning improved water resources? overwhelming changes into requires manageable steps and responsible commitment and individuals time from participants LOOK
Community Mapping Process
This process uses the common language of maps to allow community members to represent themselves through drawing and identifying features or land uses important in their lives (IFAD, 2009). The activity highlights connections between the land and the community as well as social and cultural aspects that could be missed in “official” maps. The best or most useful ones have a high level of participation from people of a different background, income level, gender, age or perspectives. The content of the maps show local knowledge of places, names, resources and interactions, but do not need to Figure 3.1. A sanitation mapping and calculation activity comply with any strict standards (like scale or in Tanzania. Source: Kar (2008). design). At the same time, if maps could follow conventions similar to those used by local decision makers, it may be a more effective tool to use in advocating community perspectives (IFAD, 2009). The strengths of mapping is that it illustrates information important to the community’s goals and intended use. In addition, anyone can be involved (does not require any expert knowledge) and it has a low cost. For instance, people can even draw a map on the ground and use objects like stones and sticks to mark specific content (Chambers & Kar, 2008). The drawbacks of this process are that it could cause unintended conflicts over boundary disputes, it may not accurately represent people’s Figure 3.2. A detailed view of a map in Uttar Pradesh, local knowledge, and it can make sensitive India. Source: IFAD (2009). information publicly available (such as the location of valuable natural resources) (IFAD, 2009).
Application to Bunkpurugu
This activity could be helpful in identifying the location of water resources and areas used for sanitation and encourage - in depth discussions about the interaction between people and natural resources. Maps could allow people to identify pollutants in the watershed and trace potential paths to drinking water sources. They could also encourage a discussion about sanitation options by visually depicting the current status of sanitation Figure 3.3. An example of a ground map in Kenya. use in the area. Mapping could also highlight Source: Mount Kenya East Pilot Project (MKEPP). existing forested areas to conserve or areas to Source: IFAD (2009). 34 reforest in order to protect water sources. LOOK
Guide: Mapping Water and Sanitation
1. This exercise assumes the previously determined purpose from the DEC: to gather additional information about Bunkpurugu’s water and sanitation to help community members (and the local government) in planning these issues. 2. Facilitators should determine if the map will cover town limits or include larger areas of the watershed outside these political boundaries. 3. Ask people to draw: Boundaries Physical features Roads and paths Farms, fields, parks and forests Schools, health clinics, churches, businesses and government buildings Water sources and features Sanitation points Houses Garbage disposal areas Livestock pasture/grazing areas (Wood, 1998). 4. Have participants draw lines connecting their house to places where they access water and sanitation (Chambers & Kar, 2008). 5. Divide everyone up into groups of two. Have one person pretend to be a tour guide and one pretend to be a visitor to the village. The guides must show the visitors as much as they can on the map and try to describe what life is like in Bunkpurugu. The visitor must ask questions (Wood 1998). 6. Discuss what people like about the community’s water, sanitation and natural resources, and if they would like to see any improvements. Ask “What are the most important problems?” Record the answers if possible (Wood, 1998). 7. Have participants draw lines on the map to illustrate any issues or connections they make in the discussion. 8. Ask the group to evaluate the map by discussing if there is anything missing, if the information is accurate and what they consider to be the most important part of the map (Wood 1998). 9. Encourage the group to reflect on the activities by explaining what they liked and disliked about them (Wood, 1998). 10. Explain that the map can be used again in discussing possible alternative options for improved water and sanitation. Time: allow at least 2 to 3 hours Source: adapted from Wood (1998) and Chambers & Kar (2008)
35 LOOK
Transect Walk
Process
This method encourages community members to assess their community’s physical environment. Transect walks are often used to understand relationships between human settlement and the local ecology. Participants usually identify different land uses, important natural resources and features in the landscape. Participants attempt to look at familiar places with a new perspective by engaging in discussions while walking. The walk is led by community leaders who have planned out the route ahead of time based on previous community mapping discussions and results Figure 3.4. An example of a transect walk in Karatu, Tanzania. (FAO, n.d.). A cross-section map with Source:http://cpar-tanzania.blogspot.com/2009/08/participatory -baseline-exercise.html. descriptive information about each different land use or environmental zone is created after the walk. The strengths of this activity are that it provides an informal environment for people to voice their perspectives, it provides a useful monitoring tool and people’s local knowledge is shared, affirmed and used in different ways. A weakness of the activity is the danger that the end product (cross-section map) could become the focus of the activity rather than meaningful discussion and analysis (Kumar, 2002).
Application to Bunkpurugu
The DEC and YPWC can use this activity to confirm the interview analysis. Building on the previous exercise, participants could visit important water sources and areas used for sanitation. In the Bunkpurugu context, while a transect walk to water sources would likely include a visit to the dam and public well, it could also explore how water drains to these points or how different land uses and human actions may impact the water. Walking upstream from the dam to observe the conditions of the stream before it enters the dam, and observing the land uses around the stream near its beginning may assist in understanding why the dam received poor water quality ratings in the community interviews. The group could also identify any other small streams or drainage swales that enter or drain to the stream or dam. Appendix A includes an example of questions to consider in the field and a survey tool for assessing stream quality.
36 LOOK
Guide: Transect Walk in Bunkpurugu
1. Determine the purpose of the walk and a strategy for how it might be used so that participants understand how it will address community issues. 2. If a map was produced in the previous activity, community leaders/the DEC should study the map to determine the best route through the community that highlights the issues the group wishes to discuss. If a map was not produced, leaders could discuss important areas and issues that should be highlighted during the walk. The group does not have to walk in a straight line—the path can meander wherever it needs to go (Kumar 2002, Chambers & Kar 2008). 3. Identify all types of community members and invite a diverse group in age, gender and income level to participate in the activity. Explain the purpose and objectives of the activity clearly. Decide whether the group will go out together or break up into smaller groups. Small groups can provide the opportunity for comparing results and highlighting different perspectives. For instance, men and women could produce different observations and maps which could later be compared and discussed (Kumar, 2002). 4. Determine important land characteristics to keep track of what people saw in each area. This can be based on the purpose of the walk as defined above. One or two people could be in charge of writing or drawing the observations (Kumar, 2002). An example of this type of field notes form can be found in Appendix A. 5. Schedule a time and place and make sure everyone is aware and invited. 6. Begin the walk. Stop at landscape features, water sources, sanitation areas, or changes in land use or ground cover to discuss what everyone sees. Encourage everyone to speak so that people can learn from hearing each other’s different perspectives on observations about the location (FAO, n.d.) 7. An analysis of each of the water sources may also be helpful, but may require a little more time and information collection. An example form on how to complete this is included for reference on p. 59 in Appendix A of this report. 8. At the end of the walk, discuss and record the main findings of the activity and ask if there are still any unanswered questions about what participants observed in the community. Ask people to draw a picture depicting each different land type or use, and write or draw information from field notes to fill in information about each one (Kumar 2002, FAO n.d.). 9. The final map can be used as a monitoring and evaluation tool to assess changes inthe environment over time that may result from implementing projects or programs (Kumar, 2002). Time: Varies depending on route Sources: Kumar (2002), FAO (n.d.), Chambers & Kar (2008).
37 LOOK
Success Story: Mapping and Transect Walk
Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) is an initiative that uses PRA tools in an attempt to provoke community participation and action to improve sanitation and hygiene. This field tested approach, a response to the more typical style of top-down approaches, in which toilets are subsidized by governments, triggers community members into recognizing and solving sanitation issues through collective action and control of the process. “Triggering” can occur during mapping activities or on transect walks to popular places of open defecation. Community members are able to analyze potential connections between poor sanitation and community health, as well as the various ways that human waste can be connected to a households’ food and water (Chambers & Kar, 2008).
A group of youth in their early twenties were involved in a Community-Led Total Sanitation committee in Kilifi, a rural village in Kenya. They encouraged the community to ensure everyone had access to improved sanitation by playing key roles in the triggering process, which involved community mapping and transect walks. Several youth groups were created in which participants worked together to help construct toilets and start small businesses. In some examples, youth were responsible for educating family members about sanitation and hygiene. As a result of their participation, village elders showed new signs of respect towards youth in the village, believing that they had something valuable to contribute. Youth were invited to the chief’s meetings, formerly an opportunity reserved for elders, to participate in village decision-making and planning. They were also encouraged to hold official leadership positions. The success of this example was attributed to collaborative youth problem– solving on common issues (Shutt, 2010).
38 LOOK
Stakeholder Analysis (with Venn Diagram)
Process
A stakeholder analysis with a Venn Diagram is used to show relationships between different organizations or stakeholders in a particular community. Participants use varying sized circles to show how they perceive the relative importance of different groups. Circles are overlapped with each other by different amounts to show the strength of connections between two organizations. Distance between circles illustrates the degree of influence that one group has over another (Kumar, 2002). This activity is useful in illustrating power differences between different community actors. The process can sometimes be confusing if facilitators attempt to explain all of the steps to participants at once (Kumar, 2002). It is recommended that a step-by- step process be followed as described on the following page. Another potential weakness is that the sensitive subject matter of ranking an Figure 3.5. An example of a stakeholder analysis from Wollo, organization’s value could cause some Ethiopia (Mikkelsen 2005, p.93). participants to downplay negative aspects (Kumar, 2002).
Application to Bunkpurugu
The DEC could use a Venn Diagram with a group of community members to analyze the different stakeholders involved with water resources planning. The diagram could include public, private, non-profit or community groups involved in water supply, community development and environmental protection.
Figure 3.6. DEC Coordinator Matthew Yosah partners with a local school in a community cleanup event.
39 LOOK
Guide: Stakeholder Analysis
1. Determine the purpose of the analysis and a strategy for how it might be used so that participants understand how it will address community goals. 2. Have participants list professional institutions or entities, informal networks and clubs and individuals (Snow, 2001). 3. Have participants draw pictures or write names of these stakeholders on blank cards. 4. Ask participants to order the stakeholder cards based on their level of importance or influence on the water protection/access/planning issues. Place the cards from topto bottom in order of stakeholders with the most influence to those with the least (Kumar, 2002). 5. Ask participants to use the order of stakeholder cards to assign each one to an appropriately sized paper cutout in order to reflect the level of importance defined in the previous step. For instance, the stakeholder cards on the top (most influence) would be attached to the largest circles, while the cards at the bottom (least influence) would get attached to the smallest circles. Other locally available material such as stones could be used instead of paper cut-outs (Kumar, 2002). Attach the cards to whatever material is used (if paper circles, glue them on, etc.). 6. Have participants draw a large circle on the ground to represent the community. Ask them to place the stakeholder circles on the ground in relationship to the community circle to show how accessible they are. For instance, if a community club is comprised of community members, they would be placed on or inside the circle, but a government agency might be placed further away from the community to show harder accessibility (Kumar, 2002). 7. Ask participants to assess their placement of stakeholder cards and decide if any changes to their arrangement or size should be made. 8. Ask participants to overlap any organizations or groups that have a close relationship or interaction with each other. The amount of overlap can be used to illustrate the strength of the connection (Kumar, 2002). 9. Facilitate a discussion about why stakeholders were placed in this arrangement. Ask what the analysis implies about trying to solve water and environmental issues in the community? Who are the key stakeholders in this issue? Are they the most or the least accessible, or somewhere in between? Ask what the diagram would look like in an ideal situation and what could be done to achieve this (Anyaegbunam, Mefalopulos, & Moetsabi, 2004). 10. Copy the stakeholder analysis over to a sheet of paper, ensuring that the relative sizes, distances and overlaps of the organizations remain the same. Write down a summary or some notes of the discussion’s main points (Kumar, 2002). Time: 2 to 3 hours
40 Think
Mind Mapping
Process
Mind mapping is a visual type of brainstorming that uses patterns and hierarchies to organize ideas into different categories. It promotes creativity in exploring connections between different issuesor concepts (Buzan & Buzan, 1994). Using Mind Mapping can generate twice as many creative ideas as traditional group brainstorming by combining participants’ collective ideas (Buzan & Buzan, 1994). Although this activity is focused on encouraging the process of thinking, a negative aspect may be that the focus on process may not yield specific and immediate solutions. Participants should be aware that they will only be developing ideas during this activity, and that the opportunity for defining concrete solutions will occur in later activities.
Application to Bunkpurugu
This process can be used in problem-solving, analysis and decision-making. Participants can start with key issues related to water revealed in the previous “Look” activities such as the community map or transect walk, or from the community interview analysis in Section II. They could use these issues to identify a main subject or focus of the brainstorming activity. This activity could be helpful in providing creative avenues to explore the connections of related issues in the community, or in exploring possible alternative solutions to water access or resource protection strategies.
Figure 3.6. This Mind Map on literature illustrates how large ideas are broken into smaller components (Buzan, 1994, p.143).
41 Think
Guide: Mind Mapping
1. Clearly define the subject of the mind mapping activity. 2. Begin with individual Mind Maps. Each person should draw a quick mind map by drawing the previously defined subject in the center of a page, then writing or drawing every related idea they can think of branching out from the center (allow about 20 minutes). Encourage people to keep ideas they think are unrealistic or strange on their drawing. After a break, have participants do a second mind map, organizing the ideas generated in the quick mind map by creating a basic ordering structure with main ideas branching off into more specific ideas that fit into or relate to the larger one. If the same idea appears twice, underline it; if it appears 3 times, draw a shape around it; if it appears 4 times, make a 3-dimensional shape around the idea (Buzan & Buzan, 1994). 3. Divide participants into groups of 3 to 5 and ask them to share ideas with each other and add any new ideas to each individual’s map. All ideas should be supported no matter how unrelated they may seem (Buzan & Buzan, 1994). 4. Create the first group Mind Map. Select a participant to be in charge of drawing the group map on a large sheet of paper. As in the previous step, all participants should share their maps and ideas, making sure that all ideas are incorporated into the final group mind map. The group will decide on the main branches and then organize everything off of this structure (Buzan & Buzan, 1994). 5. Take a break from the activity in order to let the brain rest and the ideas sink in. This could conclude the session for the day, as long as the same people can come back again to finish the second portion of the activity (Buzan & Buzan, 1994). 6. Repeat steps 2 to 4 in order to “capture the results of the newly considered and integrated thoughts” (Buzan & Buzan, 1994, p. 169). The two group mind maps can then be compared and contrasted (Buzan & Buzan, 1994). 7. The mind map can be used as a decision-making tool in a variety of ways. First, if the group is trying to decide between two or more decisions, they can place points ranging from 1 to 100 to rank an idea‘s importance (positive or negative). The points could then be totaled to understand if there is a negative or positive net total from a proposed action. In addition, tools such as Matrix Scoring (see p. 46 of this report) can integrate mind maps to aid decision-making (Buzan & Buzan, 1994). Time: about 4 hours (could be done in two sessions)
42 Think
Force Field Analysis Process This activity explores the positive and negative factors impacting a community’s present situation. It looks at forces favoring or encouraging change (driving forces) and those preventing change (restraining forces). The driving factors can be thought of as balloons floating upward and the restraining forces can be thought of as rocks tied to the balloons (see Figure 3.8 and a full sized version in Appendix A). The balloons and rocks are different sizes, representing varying strengths of their impact (Kumar, 2002). The activity allows participants to determine the best areas to intervene, but can sometimes be complex. Application to Bunkpurugu This is a different way to look at all of the factors that impact the current water resources situation in Bunkpurugu. For instance, what is causing poor water Figure 3.7. This figure is an example of how quality of the dam? This method can be used to identify participants can visualize driving forces (balloons) and restraining forces (rocks) (Kumar, 2002, the most effective forces on which to focus specific p. 276). actions for change. Guide: Force Field Analysis
1. Determine the purpose of the Force Field analysis and a strategy for how it might be used so that participants understand how it will address community goals. 2. Write the problem you wish to discuss in the middle of a piece of paper (see diagram on p. 63 of this report). Ask participants to think about all of the positive driving forces (balloons) and negative restraining forces (rocks) impacting the current status of the problem. Have them list or draw these forces on cards (different colored cards could be used to differentiate between the two types of forces). 3. Have participants place the driving forces (balloons) above the listed problem on the sheet of paper, and the restraining forces (rocks) below it. Ask them to show the significance of each force by moving the cards to various distances away from the middle. The greater the distance between the force and the problem, the greater the effect of that force (whether positive or negative). 4. Ensure the entire group agrees with the arranged cards, and make needed adjustments. 5. Ask participants how they can make changes to the identified problem by supporting “balloons” or lessening the effects of “rocks”? Have them write these ideas on cards and place them near the related force. After allowing sufficient time for this process, discuss the benefits and drawbacks of the recommended actions. The scoring activity (see p. 46 of this report) can be used to analyze and compare the alternative ideas. Time: 1 1/2 to 2 hours Source: Adapted from Kumar (2002). 43 Think
Visioning Process Visioning scenarios is a process for imagining possible (and ideal) future situations for a community. A vision scenario is the first part of visioning and helps people clearly define their hopes so that they can imagine an alternative future. The pathway scenario process focuses developing strategies to achieve this vision (Wollenburg, 2000). Scenarios create a collective vision for the future that can be used as a tool to strategize local actions. However, it can sometimes be challenging to visualize an ideal future community. Application to Bunkpurugu
This activity may be useful in creating a collective Figure 3.8. This drawing shows the current community vision for the future that could be used to status of a village, the first step in the vision- strategize and take actions at the local level. The “vision ing process. Source: Kumar (2002). map” can explore how Bunkpurugu’s land use patterns can help protect the environment. Guide: Visioning Scenarios
1. The facilitator(s) should first break participants into small groups. The Community Map (from p. 35) will be used to represent the current status of the community. If possible, copies of this map should be distributed to all groups. Ask group members to add anything else to the map that they think may be missing. 2. Next, have community members create a vision scenario in their small groups. To accomplish this, the facilitator could ask a general question such as, “What would you like to see changed in your community in 50 years?” While water resources will likely be a focus of the exercise, participants should also consider how different future land uses may affect these resources. For example, how could natural areas or forests be planned in ways that protect water sources? How could homes and businesses be developed in ways that protect the environment and natural resources? Participants should draw a “vision” map of Bunkpurugu to illustrate their ideas. 3. Ask each group to share and compare the differences between the two maps to the entire group of participants. 4. If possible, come to an agreement on the vision or visions that best represents everyone’s ideas. Several ideas may need to be combined into a final group map. 5. Ask participants to identify the key opportunities and constraints to achieving their defined vision. Refer to the Force Field Analysis activity on p. 43 for a detailed explanation about how to visualize these different forces. 6. Ask participants to develop a long-term strategy for achieving their vision. Ask how opportunities could be strengthened or constraints weakened. Ask about the most “efficient points of leverage” (Wollenburg, 2000, p. 28). What is realistic? What do they have control of changing? How would different stakeholders have to work together? Time: This process can last several hours or several days depending on the scope Source: Adapted from Wollenburg (2000). 44 Think
Matrix Scoring to Evaluate Choices
Process
Ranking can be used as a decision-making tool to analyze and graphically illustrate a large amount of information and community preferences. It can also be used to understand how people in the community make decisions. Participants determine the items or ideas to compare and develop different criteria to assign scores. By ranking items with different categories, a holistic comparison can be made amongst the various options (Kumar 2002). Drawbacks are that the process can be easily dominated by the facilitator. The activity takes about one and a half hours. Figure 3.9. Matrix Scoring in Kajiado District, Kenya. Source: International Livestock Research Institute (2009).
Application to Bunkpurugu
This activity can be used to evaluate future water and sanitation supply options generated from the interview analysis or during community activities such as mind mapping, visioning or assets inventories. General ideas from these prior activities could be used to define more specific water-related measures, interventions or planning strategies for the future. Advantages of this method are that it is quick, it can promote discussion and it follows a logical sequence. Also, any available materials could be used to complete the activity. For example, a grid can be drawn on the ground and participants can place pebbles inside each square. Disadvantages are that the process has the potential to be dominated by facilitators rather than participants. It is important to ensure that participants are the sole definers of criteria used for ranking (Kumar, 2002).
Figure 3.10. A finished example of Matrix Scoring in Aukpa-Adoka, Nigeria. Source: Kumar (2002).
45 Think
Matrix Scoring to Evaluate Choices
1. Determine the purpose of the Matrix Scoring and a strategy for how it might be used so that participants understand how it will address community goals. 2. Identify all types of community members and invite a diverse group in age, gender and income level to participate in the activity. 3. Use previous activity results (community maps, mind maps) to start a discussion on the options to solving water supply (or other defined issues) in the community. Write these down in a list. 4. Determine the criteria to score the options. One way to do this is to compare two of the options listed to decide which is better. Ask participants to give a score from 1 to 10 for each one, and then have them explain why they made that decision. Write all of these reasons down to form the criteria (write these across in a row). Ensure that the criteria are all positive attributes of the options (for example: low cost, easy to implement, etc.). 5. Draw the matrix with the options listed down and the criteria listed from left to write across the top (see the example on p. 66 in Appendix A). 6. Start at the top left of the matrix and read aloud the first criteria, going down through each alternative and scoring them from 1 to 10 (1 representing the worst score and 10 representing the best). When the first criteria (column) is complete, move to the right to complete the next criteria for all options. 7. The points can be added across each alternative to show a final score on the right column. If participants want, they can also assign different weights to each criteria to show that some should have a greater impact on their decision-making than others. 8. Ask participants to explain what the matrix reveals about the various options. The facilitator can “interview” the matrix by asking additional questions to clarify why a certain decision was made. Time: 1 1/2 to 2 hours Source: Adapted from Kumar (2002).
46 act
General Community Workshop
Process Description
In general, the purpose of hosting a community workshop is to report back the main findings and conclusions of the community research (including interviews and participatory techniques) to the entire community or other stakeholder groups such as the local government. Advantages of workshops are that conclusions are discussed with participants to confirm the information and reach a consensus on future actions, roles and responsibilities (Sontheimer, Callens, & Seiffert, 1999). However, the process can be difficult to facilitate and it may be challenging to achieve a diverse group of participants.
Application to Bunkpurugu
A workshop could be used to summarize the community participation process or to report the main findings and results of the water and sanitation interviews to the local government and/or community members. Small groups can discuss possible next steps for water resources based on the main findings and their general understanding of community resources.
Guide: General Workshop
1. Facilitators of previous participatory activities (“Look” and “Think” sections from this guide) should present the main conclusions of both the community interviews and community-led analysis.
2. Split participants up into several groups based on composition, such as men, women, youth and government officials.
3. Ask each group to use the information to develop actions that their group could take using locally available resources.
4. Ask each group to present their ideas to the larger group.
5. Ask for volunteers interested in participating in smaller core project planning groups to continue the work started at this meeting.
Time: Allow about 2 to 3 hours
Source: Adapted from Sontheimer, Callens, & Seiffert (1999).
47 act
Community Workshop Extension: Asset Inventory Workshop
Process Description
A specific process for determining possible future actions is called an Assets Inventory, which focuses on an area’s strengths rather than its weaknesses. While this process is often part of a longer-term process, it often starts with the identification of different community strengths (assets). Several examples of simple inventory tools exist and have been used in different situations, but the process works best when community members select the best method for their use. See p. 65 of this report for an example of a community-developed capacity inventory.
There are five types of assets that are usually a part of an inventory (Snow, 2001): 1) individual talents and skills 2) associations and relationships 3) institutions and professional entities 4) land, property and physical resources 5) economic resources.
Application to Bunkpurugu
In order to identify community assets, the DEC could choose to collect specific names matched with individual strengths and skills (based on the example in Appendix A on p. 65), or facilitate a group activity that starts people thinking about how to potentially use identified assets to increase access to improved water (see p. 49 of this report).
Figure 3.11. DEC and YPWC Community Workshop for Global Youth Service Day.
48 act
Guide: (Specific) Assets Inventory Activity
1. Follow steps 1 and 2 of the General Workshop Guide on p. 47 (Sontheimer, Callens, & Seiffert 1999). 2. Develop a purpose for this Assets Inventory process. For example, based on previous statements, the specific goal of this activity could be to develop community solutions for improving water and sanitation in Bunkpurugu by using existing connections and resources. What can people do right now using what they have available? 3. Set up areas for small groups to work and if available, place markers/pencils, post-it notes/index cards and some poster board/sheets of large paper at each station. 4. Divide participants into groups of 4 or 5 people and have them sit around the materials. To encourage more participation, groups can be divided by men, women, youth, government officials or any other groups that make sense with the participants attending the workshop. 5. Have each group write down the following 5 asset categories across a poster board or sheet of paper: individual, associations, institutions, physical and economic. 6. Ask groups to write/draw examples of their own individual strengths or skills in the following way: (allow 10 minutes for them to write or draw as many assets as they can) “Gifts of the head” (things they know something about and would enjoy talking about or teaching others) “Gifts of the hand” (things they know how to do and enjoy doing) “Gifts of the heart” (things they care deeply about) (Kretzmann, McKnight, Dobrowolski, & Puntenney 2005). 7. Ask groups to write/draw examples of associations and relationships in Bunkpurugu (allow 10 minutes for them to write as many assets as they can). These could be voluntary organizations, clubs or groups, or other social gatherings (Snow, 2001). Ask people to place their words or pictures under the correct category on the poster board or large sheets of paper. 8. Ask groups to write/draw examples of institutions and professional entities in Bunkpurugu (allow 10 minutes for them to write as many assets as they can). These could include businesses, government or non-profit organizations with a staff and budget (Snow, 2001). Ask people to place their words or pictures under the correct category on the poster board or large sheets of paper. 9. Ask groups to write/draw examples of land, property and physical resources in Bunkpurugu (allow 10 minutes for them to write as many assets as they can). These could include different buildings, equipment, tools, supplies and natural resources (Snow, 2001). Ask people to place their words or pictures under the correct category on the poster board or large sheets of paper. 10. Ask groups to write/draw examples of economic resources in Bunkpurugu (allow 10 minutes for them to write as many assets as they can). This could include individual productive work (formal work experience, training and education, or community-based experience), consumer spending patterns and power, or local businesses (Snow, 2001). Ask people to place their words or pictures under the correct category on the poster board or large sheets of paper. 11. Next, ask each group to use all of the assets on their paper to create a project or program that would address the defined purpose identified in step 1. (Allow about 30 minutes). 12. Have each group present their project idea to the entire group. 13. Ask the group a few discussion questions to close the activity. Do people think any of the project ideas are realistic? Why or why not? What is preventing community members from pursuing projects such as these? 14. Have the facilitators or volunteers either take photos of the completed Asset Inventory papers or write down all of the assets identified in each group. 15. Ask for volunteers interested in continuing to meet to work on identified projects. Time: Allow about 2 to 3 hours Source: Adapted from Kretzmann, McKnight, Dobrowolski, & Puntenney (2005), Snow (2001) 49 act
Action Planning
Process Description
Action Plans are simple project plans that describe what actions will be taken, what resources will be used, people responsible for the actions and a timeline for implementation (Peace Corps OPATS 2007b). A strength of this type of planning is that it breaks down complex and sometimes overwhelming changes into manageable steps with responsible individuals. A disadvantage is that planning is a long-term process and requires commitment and considerable time from volunteers.
Application to Bunkpurugu Figure 3.12. DEC Coordinator with group of community members.
This process can be used to plan out how projects defined in previous activities (such as community workshops) will be implemented. Groups of community volunteers from the previous workshop or the DEC could act as project planning groups on different aspects of community water and sanitation, collaborating together on resources, ideas and timing. Guide: Group Action Planning
1. Define the purpose of your work (for example, improving water supply in Bunkpurugu) 2. Define several specific results that the team can accomplish using available resources to further their purpose (for example: community training on household water purification). 3. Break down each result into all of the activities that would need to be accomplished in order to achieve it. 4. Write each activity on a worksheet (see Appendix A, p. 66 for an example) followed by the resources needed and responsible person. 5. Use a second worksheet (See Appendix A, p.67) to develop a timeline for all of the activities for one result. Place an X in each month that the activity will take place or draw lines with vertical bars I I to show when an activity will start and end. Use lines with arrows across the months if the activity is ongoing. 6. Review the Action Plan (activity worksheet and timeline) to monitor progress on completing actions. The Action Plan should be viewed as a flexible document that will need tobe adapted as the project develops. 7. Collaborate with any other project planning groups that may be meeting about water issues to compare achievements, ideas and best practices. Time: The plan may take 2 hours to create and core group may meet weekly for about 1 hour Source: Adapted from: Peace Corps OPATS (2007b). 50 Section III Conclusion
This section outlined a framework of available tools and processes to involve community members in identifying and developing strategies for improving local water resources. The activities were grouped into “Look,” “Think” and “Act” categories and a certain sequence was proposed to encourage cumulative benefits in the overall planning process, but users should select and revise the methods and sequence to fit their own needs. The “Look” activities were selected to encourage a detailed and qualitative analysis of their current community situation. The “Think” activities were proposed in order to promote the development and comparison of multiple future options or community scenarios. The “Act” activities were included to put some of the ideas created in the “Think” activities into action. Together, this framework is intended to provide the DEC and community members with tools for local planning efforts in Bunkpurugu.
51 Practicum Conclusion
The regional and local context, the interview analysis and options for further community action planning presented in this report were designed to guide the Development Education Club (DEC), Bunkpurugu community members, and local policy makers in future planning processes. The interview data revealed a number of interesting relationships between water sources, health and user preferences. The source of drinking water appears to have a relationship to the likelihood that a family will contract diarrhea. This information is supported by the poor water quality ratings given to the dam by community members and the community’s most preferred options for future water measures: wells, environmental and hygiene education and rainwater harvesting. These options could be used as a starting point in more detailed community planning on this topic. The qualitative and participatory activities outlined in this report can be used to confirm the interview data and initiate and implement local projects.
Project Implications The process and results of this project have a number of implications for consideration in similar endeavors. Virtual collaboration with small community groups in low-income countries may provide a model for community-action planning and collective mobilization around local issues. This method of virtual international development has several advantages:
Potential for involving large numbers of people across vast geographic distances Reduces project travel costs to ensure that the majority of any funding is allocated to benefit local initiatives Capitalizes on cross-cultural knowledge sharing, awareness and innovation Increases time efficiency of communication between program or project collaborators
If this type of virtual collaboration were implemented strategically through local community organizers or activists, it could potentially mobilize community members to solve local problems without relying heavily on funding to support external personnel. However the drawbacks of this approach are that it relies heavily on technologies such as internet phone programs, instant messaging and cellular phones that aren’t necessarily available in low-income areas. In addition, the process of community development can become impersonal and may hide the complexities of local power dynamics. Building strong relationships is extremely important in ensuring community ownership of the process and respectful interactions between collaborators. Further research is required to evaluate other similar online development collaborations and compare strengths, weaknesses and best practices.
52 References
Anyaegbunam, C., Mefalopulos, P., & Moetsabi, T. (2004). Participatory Rural Communication Appraisal: Starting with the People (2nd ed.). Rome: SADC Centre of Communication for Development Harare and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Buzan, T. & Buzan, B. (1994). The Mind Map Book: How to use Radiant Thinking to Maximize your Brain’s Untapped Potential. London: BBC Books Department of Public Information, United Nations (2010). We Can End Poverty 2015: Millennium Development Goals. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/environ.shtml Gaventa, J. & Cornwall, A. (2006). Challenging the Boundaries of the Possible: Participation, Knowledge, and Power.Institute of Development Studies Bulletin, 47 (6), 122-128 Forestry Policy and Institutions Branch (n.d.). The Forest Manager’s Guide to Participatory Forest Management: Module 3. The Participatory Process in Forest Management: A Toolbox. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Retrieved from: http:// www.fcghana.com/pfma_fao/archive_docs/ref_docs/pfm_manager_guide_module3.pdf Hall, R. (2010). Assessing the Link between Productive use of domestic Water, Poverty Reduction and Sustainability: Senegal Country Report. Report available from: [email protected] Hira, A. & Parfitt, T. (2004). Development Projects for a New Millennium. London: Praeger International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)(2009). Good Practices in Participatory Mapping. Retrieved from: http://www.ifad.org/pub/map/PM_web.pdf Kar, K. & Chambers, R. (2008). Handbook on Community-Led Total Sanitation. Retrieved from: http://www.communityledtotalsanitation.org/resource/handbook-community-led-total- sanitation Kretzmann, J., McKnight, J., Dobrowolski, S., & Puntenney, D. (2005). Discovering Community Power: A Guide to Mobilizing Local Assets and Your Organization’s Capacity. Asset-Based Community Development Institute, School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University. Retrieved from http://www.abcdinstitute.org/docs/kelloggabcd.pdf Kumar, S. (2002). Methods for Community Participation: A Complete Guide for Practitioners. London: ITDG Publishing Mikkelsen, H. (2005). Methods for Development Work and Research: A New Guide for Practitioners (2nd ed.). New Delhi: Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd Mining Portal of Ghana (2006). Hydrogeology: Occurrence of Groundwater in the Various Rock Types in Ghana. Retrieved from: http://www.ghana-mining.org/ghweb/en/geologymining/geology/ hydro.html Ministry of Local Government & Rural Development, Maks Publications & Media Service (MLGRD, MP, & MS) (2010a). Northern Demographic Characteristics.http://www.ghanadistricts.gov.gh/ region/?r=6 Ministry of Local Government & Rural Development, Maks Publications, & Media Service (MLGRD, MP, & MS) (2010b). Bunkpurugu-Yunyoo. Retrieved from: http:// bunkpurugu.ghanadistricts.gov.gh/ Moriarty, P. & Butterworth, J. (2003). The Productive Use of Domestic Water Supplies: How Water Supplies can Play a Wider Role in Livelihood Improvement and Poverty Reduction. IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre. Retrieved from: www.irc.nl/redir/content/ download/4489/53143/file/livelihood.pdf
53 National Development Planning Commission (NDPC)/Government of Ghana and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Ghana (NDPC & UNDP Ghana) (2010).2008 Ghana Millennium Development Goals Report.Retrieved from: http://www.undp.org/africa/ documents/mdg/ghana_april2010.pdf Peace Corps Office of Overseas Programming and Training Support (OPATS) (2007a).Participatory Analysis for Community Action (PACA) Training Manual. Information Collection and Exchange. Retrieved from: http://multimedia.peacecorps.gov/multimedia/pdf/library/PACA-2007.pdf Peace Corps Office of Overseas Programming and Training Support (OPATS) (2007b). Promoting Powerful People. Information Collection and Exchange. Retrieved from:http:// multimedia.peacecorps.gov/multimedia/pdf/library/T0104_promotingpower.pdf Shutt, C. (2010). Chapter 7: CLTS in East Africa: A Pathway to Child and Youth Empowerment? Participatory Learning and Action 61: Tales of Shit: Community-led Total Sanitation in Africa. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). Retrieved from: http:// www.communityledtotalsanitation.org/resource/tales-shit-community-led-total-sanitation- africa-pla-61 Snow, L. (2001). The Organization of Hope: A Workbook for Rural Asset-based Community Development. Chicago: ACTA Publications Sontheimer, S., Callens, K.,& Seiffert, B.(1999).Conducting a PRA Training and Modifying PRA Tools to Your Needs. An Example from a Participatory Household Food Security and Nutrition Project in Ethiopia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from: http:// www.fao.org/participation/english_web_new/content_en/Sector_doc/PRA_nutrition.pdf Stringer, E (2007).Action Research (3rded.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications UNICEF & World Health Organization (WHO) (2010).Progress on Sanitation and Drinking-water. Retrieved from: http://www.wssinfo.org/ United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) & World Health Organization (WHO) (2009).Diarrhoea: Why Children are still Dying and What can be Done. Retrieved from: http://www.unicef.org/health/ files/Final_Diarrhoea_Report_October_2009_final.pdf United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2010). Human Development Report 2010. Retrieved from: http://hdr.undp.org/en/ West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (2009). West Virginia Save Our Streams Stream Survey Form. Retrieved from: http://www.wvca.us/envirothon/stream-assessment- protocols.pdf Wood, S., Sawyer, R., Simpson-Hebert, M. (2000). PHAST Step-by Step Guide: A Participatory Approach for the Control of Diarrhoeal Disease. Geneva, World Health Organization (unpublished document WHO/EOS/98.3). Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/ hygiene/envsan/phastep/en/ Wollenburg, E., Edmunds, D., & Buck, L.(2000). Anticipating Change: Scenarios as a Tool for Adaptive Forest Management. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research Young People We Care (YPWC) (2011a). Welcome to Young People We Care. Retrieved from: http:// www.ypwc.org/ Young People We Care (YPWC) (2011b). Global Sister Schools and Groups Network. Retrieved from: http://www.ypwc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=159 Young People We Care (YPWC) (2010). Disney Friends for Change Project Report. Retrieved from: http://youthserviceamerica.org/grants/disney-friends-change-grants
54 APPENDIX A Participatory Action Planning Examples
Community Mapping……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…...57 Watershed Mapping……………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………..…...58 Transect Walk……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..59 Transect Walk Field Notes Form...……………………………………………………………………………………………………….60 Stream Assessment Form…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...61 Stakeholder Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………62 Mind Mapping…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….63 Force Field Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………….64 Matrix Scoring……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..65 Assets Inventory Example for Community Workshop………………………………………………………………………….66 Action Planning Form………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….67 Action Planning Timeline……………………………………………………...…………………………………………………………….68
55 Community Map Example:
Figure 4.1. This is an example of a Community Resource Map of a Chikli Village, showing water sources such as water har- vesting structures, handpumps and a river, as well as other natural resources (Kumar, 2002, p. 76).
56 Community Watershed Map Example:
Figure 4.2. These images illustrate changes in a watershed in Karnatake, India over about 50 years, including less trees and more houses (Kumar, 2002, p. 78). 57
Transect Walk Map Example
ith descriptions underneath ithdescriptions
ew
Figure 4.3. This is an example of a Transect Walk Map from Orissa, India. The top includes drawings of the different lands us drawings The includes lands example an of top Map is different the of from India. Orissa, Walk Transect a This 4.3. Figure 102). p. 2002, (Kumar,
58 Transect Walk Example Form
Table 4.1. A Transect Walk Field Notes Form Example. This type of matrix can be adapted to fit local needs. Source: Adapted from FAO (n.d.). Feature or Land Use Condition/Quality? Uses and Users? Management?
59 Example: Stream Assessment for Transect
Figure 4.4. Stream Assessment Form Example. Source: West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (2009).
60 Stakeholder Analysis Example. Source:
Figure 4.5. Stakeholder Analysis Example (Mikkelsen, 2005, p. 93).
61 Mind Mapping Examples:
Figure 4.6. Mind Map Example (Buzan & Buzan, 1994, p. 75).
Figure 4.6. Mind Map Example (Buzan & Buzan, 1994, p. 143).
62 Force Field Analysis Example:
(Kumar, 2002, p.276).
Figure 4.7. Force Field Analysis Example Sheet (Kumar, 2002, p. 276).
63 Matrix Scoring Example
Figure 4.8. Matrix Scoring Example. (Kumar, 2002, p. 267).
64 Assets Inventory Example
“Gifts of the head” (things you know something about and would enjoy talking about or teaching others)
“Gifts of the hand” (things you know how to do and enjoy doing)
“Gifts of the heart” (things you care deeply about)
Figure 4.9. Assets Inventory Example Questions. Source: Adapted from Kretzmann, McKnight, Dobrowolski, & Puntenney (2005).
65 Action Planning Example Form
Table 4.2. Action Planning Example Form. Source: Adapted from: Peace Corps Information and Exchange (2000). Activity Resources Needed Responsible Person
66 Action Planning Example (Timeline)
Table 4.3. Action Planning Timeline Example Form. Source: Adapted from: Peace Corps Information and Exchange (2000).
Activity Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
67 APPENDIX B Survey Documents
Survey Tool…………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………..…...70
Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval Letter…………………………………………………………………..…...74
68 YPWC Development Education Club, Environmental Sustainability (MDG 7) Project: Water Needs Assessment in Bunkpurugu , Northern Region, Ghana Water Sources Question # 1. river, creek, 2. spring 3. irrigation canal 4. public well 5. private well 6. public tap 7. private tap 8. tanker truck 9. other lagoon, pond (a) Do you use (read/insert source of water) in the dry season? Y/N (ask questions b through e next) (b) Do you use the source in the rainy season? Y/N (if N to both, go over to next question, if Y to either, ask questions below) (c) Use of water 1. drinking 5. Agriculture 2. cooking 6. Livestock 3. washing 7. Small business 4. bathing (d) What do you think about the quality of this water source? (great, good, fair, bad) (e) Do you pay for using this source? (If so, how much?) (f) What is the distance to this source? (g) How much time does it take to walk one way to this source? (minutes) (h) How much time does it take to wait for/collect water in the dry season? (minutes) (i) How much time does it take to wait for/collect water in the rainy season? (minutes) (j) How many trips do you/family member make to this source each day in the dry season? (k) How many trips do you/family member make to this source each day in the rainy season? l) What is the volume of the container used to transport water? (in liters) (ask questions a-e for source 2-9)
YPWC Development Education Club, Environmental Sustainability (MDG 7) Project: Water Needs Assessment in Bunkpurugu , Northern Region, Ghana
10) From what you remember over the past year, what months would you a) Clear consider the “rainy season?” b) Milky c) Contains sediment (silty)
a) January g) July d) Coffee b) February h) August e) Orange/red c) March i) September f) Other
d) April j) October g) Don’t know e) May k) November 22) What does your drinking water (from primary source) taste like? f) June l) December 11) How many days per week do you work(average)? a) Salty b) Chlorinated A. dry season____ B. rainy season _____ c) Metallic 12) How many weeks per year do you work(average)? d) Other A. dry season____ B. wet season _____ e) No taste f) Don’t know 13) What is the average pay per day of work? ______23) How do you treat your drinking water (from primary source)? 14) A. How many adults live in this household? a) boil B. How many children live in this household? b) cloth filter C. How many children between 5 and 18 live in this household? c) ceramic filter D. How many (5-18) are males and what are their household roles? d) sand filter e) chlorine addition E. How many (5-18) are females and what are their household roles? f) none 15) What jobs are children in this house engaged in outside of household g) other duties for income? h) don’t know 24) About how frequently do you treat your drinking water (primary source)? 16) What kind of energy do you use for cooking? a) Once a day Gas, firewood/charcoal, electricity b) Once a week 17) How many trees are around your house? c) Once a month 18) Do you think trees are important to you/the community? If so, why? d) Twice per year 19) How satisfied is your household with their water supply situation? e) Once per year A. Quality: f) No treatment a) very satisfied 25) Do you store water in the house from some sources? Yes/No b) somewhat satisfied c) not satisfied If yes, what sources? B. Quantity (availability): a) river, creek, lagoon, pond f) public tap a) very satisfied b) spring g) private tap b) somewhat satisfied c) irrigation canal h) tanker truck c) not satisfied d) public well i) other 20) If not satisfied, what specifically don’t you like about it? a) Too much time e) private well b) Not enough for HH 26) What do you store water in? c) Not enough for crops a) tanks d) Not enough for livestock b) pools
e) Too costly c) barrels f) Water non-potable d) pots g) Unreliable h) Insufficient hours e) buckets i) other f) containers 21) What is the color of your drinking water (from primary source)? g) other YPWC Development Education Club, Environmental Sustainability (MDG 7) Project: Water Needs Assessment in Bunkpurugu , Northern Region, Ghana 27. (Follow up to Question 26). How much would it cost today to replace the tank that you have?
28) flush toilet 29) private latrine 30) shared private 31) public latrine 32) no facility 33) other latrine (outdoors)
a) What type of sanitation does Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes your household regularly use? No No No No No No
b) Where does the waste from sewer system sewer system sewer system sewer system sewer system sewer system this facility go? septic tank septic tank septic tank septic tank septic tank septic tank hole in ground hole in ground hole in ground hole in ground hole in ground hole in ground other other other other other other
don’t know don’t know don’t know don’t know don’t know don’t know
c) How satisfied is your very satisfied very satisfied very satisfied very satisfied very satisfied very satisfied
household with this type of somewhat satisfied somewhat satisfied somewhat satisfied somewhat satisfied somewhat satisfied somewhat satisfied not satisfied not satisfied not satisfied not satisfied not satisfied not satisfied sanitation?
34) If not satisfied with sanitation, what specifically don’t you like? 37) A. Do you think the village needs to improve available access to a) no toilet in home g) no privacy b) pit is full, Poor drainage h) embarrassing sanitation? Yes/No c) costly to build toilet i) health concerns B. If so, what kind of system or measures do think would be the d) smells bad j) other best for this village? e) unclean k) no answer a) community environmental/hygiene education f) far from house b) community toilets 35) Has anyone in the household been sick with symptoms of diarrhea in c) shared toilets A. the last month? Yes/No d) private toilet facilities B. In the last year? Yes/No e) composting toilets C. If so, could you guess how many days he or she was sick? f) other 38) Would you be interested in volunteering with our club on 36) A. Do you think the village needs to improve available sources of community service projects? water? Yes/No 39) Do you have any other ideas about projects our community could B. If so, what do you think would be the best for this village? work on to improve our local environment? a) purify existing water source in the house 40) BEFORE INTERVIEW1. Who was the primary interviewee? b) collect rainwater to purify and store in tanks a) Male head of house c) drill/dig wells and pump water b) Female head of house d) pump water from surface water source c) Male and female heads (both) e) plant trees to help recharge groundwater d) other f) construct small ponds to recharge groundwater 41) BEFORE INTERVIEW2. Was there a secondary interviewee? If so, who g) community environmental/hygiene education was it? h) water source protection measures a) Male head of house i) improved sanitation facilities b) Female head of house j) other c) other YPWC Development Education Club, Environmental Sustainability (MDG 7) Project: Water Needs Assessment in Bunkpurugu , Northern Region, Ghana
42 POST INTERVIEW: What was the roof of the house made of? a) Wood b) cement c) Metal/tin d) Tile e) Other f) Don’t know
43 POST INTERVIEW: Could you estimate the size of the roof? _____square feet 44 POST INTERVIEW: What were the walls of the house made of? a) Dirt/mud b) Wood c) Cement d) Metal/tin e) Other f) Don’t know
45 POST INTERVIEW: What were the floors of the house made of? a) Dirt/mud b) Wood c) Cement d) Tile e) Other f) Don’t know
Office of Research Compliance Institutional Review Board 2000 Kraft Drive, Suite 2000 (0497) Blacksburg, Virginia 24060 540/231-4606 Fax 540/231-0959 e-mail [email protected] Website: www.irb.vt.edu MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 8, 2010
TO: Ralph Hall, Matthew Walker, Matthew Yosah
FROM: Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board (FWA00000572, expires June 13, 2011)
PROTOCOL TITLE: Water Supply Planning in Rural Ghana
IRB NUMBER: 10-862
Effective November 8, 2010, the Virginia Tech IRB Chair, Dr. David M. Moore, approved the new protocol for the above-mentioned research protocol.
This approval provides permission to begin the human subject activities outlined in the IRB-approved protocol and supporting documents.
Plans to deviate from the approved protocol and/or supporting documents must be submitted to the IRB as an amendment request and approved by the IRB prior to the implementation of any changes, regardless of how minor, except where necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to the subjects. Report promptly to the IRB any injuries or other unanticipated or adverse events involving risks or harms to human research subjects or others.
All investigators (listed above) are required to comply with the researcher requirements outlined at http://www.irb.vt.edu/pages/responsibilities.htm (please review before the commencement of your research).
PROTOCOL INFORMATION: Approved as: Exempt, under 45 CFR 46.101(b) category(ies) 2 Protocol Approval Date: 11/8/2010 Protocol Expiration Date: NA Continuing Review Due Date*: NA *Date a Continuing Review application is due to the IRB office if human subject activities covered under this protocol, including data analysis, are to continue beyond the Protocol Expiration Date.
FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS: Per federally regulations, 45 CFR 46.103(f), the IRB is required to compare all federally funded grant proposals / work statements to the IRB protocol(s) which cover the human research activities included in the proposal / work statement before funds are released. Note that this requirement does not apply to Exempt and Interim IRB protocols, or grants for which VT is not the primary awardee.
The table on the following page indicates whether grant proposals are related to this IRB protocol, and which of the listed proposals, if any, have been compared to this IRB protocol, if required.
Invent the Future
V I R G I N I A P O L Y T E C H N I C I N S T I T U T E A N D S T A T E U N I V E R S I T Y VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY An equal opportunity, affirmative action institution
IRB Number 10-862 page 2 of 2 Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board
Date* OSP Number Sponsor Grant Comparison Conducted?
*Date this proposal number was compared, assessed as not requiring comparison, or comparison information was revised.
If this IRB protocol is to cover any other grant proposals, please contact the IRB office ([email protected]) immediately.
cc: File
V I R G I N I A P O L Y T E C H N I C I N S T I T U T E A N D S T A T E U N I V E R S I T Y VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY An equal opportunity, affirmative action institution