Does Rural Water System Design Matter? A Study of Productive Use of Water in Rural Nepal

Abstract

In Nepal, rural water systems (RWS) are classified by practitioners as single-use domestic water systems (SUS) or multiple-use water systems (MUS). In the rural hills of Nepal, subsistence farming communities typically use RWS to support income-generating productive activities that can enhance rural livelihoods. However, there is limited research on the extent of existing productive activity and the factors enabling these activities. This paper examines the extent of water-related productive activities and the factors driving these activities based on a study, undertaken between October 2017 to June 2018, of 202 households served from five single-use domestic water systems and five multiple use water systems in the mid-hills of Nepal. The research found that a majority (94%) of these households engaged in two or more productive activities including growing vegetables and horticulture crops, raising livestock, and producing biogas and Rakshi (locally-produced alcohol), regardless of the system design, i.e., SUS vs. MUS. Around 90% of the households were engaged in productive activities that contributed to over 10% of their mean annual household income ($4,375). Since the SUS vs. MUS classification was not found to be a significant determinant of the extent of productive activity, the households were reclassified as having high or low levels of productive activity based on the quantity of water used for these activities and the associated earned income. A multinomial logistic regression model was developed to measure the relative significance of various predictors of high productive activity households. Five dominant predictors were identified: households that farm as a primary occupation, use productive technologies, are motivated to pursue productive activities, have received water-related productive activity training, and have received external support related to productive activities. Whereas MUS are designed for productive activity, nearly every household in SUS communities was involved in productive activities making them ‘de-facto’ MUS. These results challenge the current approach to rural water provision that views SUS and MUS as functionally different services.

Thinking beyond domestic water supply: approaches to advance multiple-use water systems (MUS) in the rural hills of Nepal

“…By combining the views of the key informants with the findings from the focus groups and household surveys (GC et al, 2019(GC et al, , 2021, we identify a range of strategies that, if widely adopted, could encourage the wider acceptance and use of MUS in the hills of Nepal. We have organized our discussion of these concerns into six categories of mediating factors, which we discuss in turn in the sections that follow: nascent local governments as the principal agents of governance responsible for MUS; government official, user and private supplier capacity-building; palika multi-use water systems registration; improved coordination and collaboration among different sectoral actors and across levels of governance involved in water provision and management; more effective policy advocacy by MUS proponents and changes in national policy that formally recognize these systems and coordinate to support them among relevant departments; and sustained international donor support for MUS.…”

“…Previous studies have found that household garden plots and livestock production supported by rural water systems can contribute significantly to local economies (GC et al, 2019;Moriarty et al, 2003). Successful MUS implementation in 10 communities in the middle hills of Nepal, for example, increased those villages' median annual income by US$156 per household when compared with households using a system designed solely for domestic water use (GC et al, 2019). In general, previous analyses have found that MUS can be effective in generating income and improving people's livelihoods (Hall et al, 2017;Mikhail & Yoder, 2008;van Koppen et al, 2006).…”

“…While, as noted above, income from MUS water use on small vegetable plots (Smits et al, 2011) and from livestock, dairy, bio-gas, horticulture and alcohol production (GC et al, 2019) has the potential to provide financial and social benefits, Pradhan et al (2019) have contended that Nepali government policies need first formally and broadly to recognize MUS's economic and social development value and create financial and institutional arrangements to support it. A critical aspect of securing that goal will be sharing information concerning the benefits of these systems with potential stakeholders.…”

Issues and Problems of Community Water Supply Schemes with Special Reference to Nepal

“…Water can be treated at a reservoir tank in large volumes then distributed to households from distribution pipelines. This technique is known as centralized or community water treatment [23]. Around the several centralized water treatments technologies which need to be chosen for implementation based on the condition of water quality to be treated and design, some of those techniques are screening and aeration, sedimentation, coagulation and flocculation, clarification, slow sand filter, rapid sand filter, disinfection by physical method i.e.…”

“…For example, candle filter, bio-sand filter, boiling, solar disinfection (SODIS), sedimentation, etc. are some of the household water treatment techniques [23].…”