Evaluation of water supply system Case study in Naka ... - ENGEES

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Criteria of evaluation - Indicatorsassociated Values Target or suggested value Source of the targetuse of the water facilities and for what purposes% of household using the water facilities < 2% no specific targets -repartition of the use of water all domestic purposes no specific targets -volume of water usednot representative as water is not flowingregularlyno specific targets -operation and maintenancepresence of effective caretakers at theCarter & al. (1999)yescaretaker fulfilling their assigned jobstreatment plantwater quality monitoring recordsproportion of unutilised water pointsyes, but hardly exploitable24% in total, 50% of public taps and 20% ofindividual connectionsurveillance should provide information usefulfor management decisionssystem infrastructure fully functionalduration to repair/replace spare parts up to months, some never repaired no more than 7 days a year of downtimesfrequency of shortage of power supply, eithergenerator or electricity supplymanagement and financingdailyno more than 7 days a year of downtimeslegal structure of the WCA no CBO needs legal ownershipregular meeting yes committee should be meeting regularly% of fee collection revenue collection in an effective waycost recovery of O&Mindicators not adequate for the moment asWCA does not yet own the water system, butrevenue collection in an effective wayrelevant for later evaluationback support from governmental/nongovernmentalagencyequityimplication of women in WCAimplication of the poorest household in theWCAimplication of the minority tribes membersproportion of public taps working compared toindividual connectionlownot evaluatedvery low17% of public taps and 40% of individualconnections working appropriately (high ormoderate pressure)the back stopping agency shall be in regularand effective contact with the communityachieve equity in all aspects of serviceprovisionHoward (2002)Carter & al. (1999)Schouten & Moriarty(2003)Carter & al. (1999)Carter & al. (1999)Appendix DResults – Criteria & Indicators (2)
Evaluation of water supply system – Case study in Naka, NigeriaAppendix ESemi-Structured Interview of userIntroduction: Presentation of the purpose of the survey- date- quarter location (town divided in 4 parts around the round about and the mainroads infrastructure as shown below)NorthIIIIIIIVMakurdidirection- number identification1 – General information about interviewee and tap surveyed- persons interviewed / type of house- owner (public or private) / approximate numbers of users of the tap- type of tap (type A: push up system / type B: turning head / type C: valve)- date of construction- density of population around :- environment (property, road, markets, buildings nearby)2 - Technical evaluation- is it working? If no, why and for how long?- experiences of breakages either in the taps itself or in the pipes? When? Howoften? Time to get things repaired/fixed right?- is technology appropriate?- drainage? Cement platform?- Leakages?3 - User perception of level of services- turbidity, color, taste, smell- discharge or time to fill a basin of 25l / pressure (good enough or too slow)- is there lots of queuing? Approximate time?- Frequence of working time4 - User habits (sources used, for what purposes)- Do you have to pay for water? How much? Is it the same for everybody?- For which purposes is the water used? (drinking, bathing, washing, cooking,gardening…)- Other sources used? For what purposesCranfield University at Silsoe Florianne Bourrigault (2006)
Page 1 and 2:
Cranfield UniversityInstitute of Wa
Page 3 and 4: Evaluation of water supply system -
Page 51 and 52: Preparation of field researchAdapta
Page 53: Criteria of evaluation - Indicators
show all

Evaluation of water supply system Case study in Naka ... - ENGEES

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?