Not for reproduction or distribution or commercial use.
This article was originally published by IWA Publishing. IWA Publishing recognizes the retention of the right by the author(s) to photocopy or make single electronic copies of the paper for their own personal use, including for their own classroom use,
or the personal use of colleagues, provided the copies are not offered for sale and are not distributed in a systematic way outside of their employing institution.
Please note that you are not permitted to post the IWA Publishing PDF version of your paper on your own website or your institution’s website or repository.
Please direct any queries regarding use or permissions to [email protected]
Inadequate accessibility as a cause of water inadequacy: a case study of Mpeketoni, Lamu, Kenya
Hussein Wako Gedo
aand Md Manjur Morshed
baDepartment of Land Adjudication & Settlement, Ministry of Lands, P.O. Box 30297-00100, Nairobi, Kenya
bCorresponding author. Room 902, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
Water adequacy depends on multiple variables. The provision of adequate drinking water in Sub-Saharan Africa often gets blurred by distortions in supply and demand relationships. Different development organisations have attempted to find solutions to the provision of adequate drinking water. However, while some attempts have suc- ceeded in addressing water adequacy in terms of both the quantity available and that demanded, most attempts have failed to address other components of water adequacy. This paper analyses one such case in Mpeketoni, one of the six administrative divisions in the coastal district of Lamu, Kenya, and emphasises that accessibility in terms of distance and price are the major factors determining the success of this initiative. The paper finds that, whilst the target quantity has been achieved, accessibility has not been ensured. Considering the local factors, this paper suggests a spatial distribution of water facilities for adequacy. The paper’s conclusion is that the infra- structure required to reach the target is quite difficult in the present context, and thus alternatives must be considered.
Keywords: Buffer area; Demand; Kenya; Kiosk; Scarcity
1. Introduction
Much of Africa, Asia and Latin America are stressed in terms of access to clean water (Falkenmark, 1989; Showers, 2002). In Sub-Saharan Africa, 85% of the rural population do not have access to safe drinking water (MacDonald & Calow, 2009). Confronted by necessity and demand, an ambitious target was set by the international community in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to reduce the population without safe access to drinking water by half by 2015 (UN, 2000). Considering this target and the necessity, several studies have projected the availability, shortage and growing demand for the finite supply of drinking water in the face of population growth and rapid urbanisation (Postel, 1992, 2000; Gleick, 1993; World Bank, 1996; Oudshoorn, 1997). Possible options are also being
doi: 10.2166/wp.2013.009
© IWA Publishing 2013
suggested for the African continent (Churchillet al., 1987;Baumannet al., 1998;MacDonald & Calow, 2009). However, it is worth mentioning that the options vary within the continent, both between countries and between rural and urban areas. Therefore, any planning for water adequacy must consider the local context.
Kenya is classified as a chronically water scarce country. The country’s natural endowment of fresh water is limited by an annual renewable fresh water supply of only 647 m3per capita (Ministry of Plan- ning and National Development, 2006). Globally, a country is categorised as water stressed if its annual renewable freshwater supplies are between 1,000 and 1,700 m3 per capita, and water is scarce if the country’s renewable freshwater supplies are less than 1,000 m3 per capita (Ministry of Planning and National Development, 2003, 2006). This problem has been compounded by water resources degra- dation and by low investments in infrastructure development, maintenance and operation of the existing water supply systems. The country’s water availability per capita has consistently dwindled, from 1,850 m3 in 1969 to 550 m3in 2010 (Ministry of Water and Irrigation, 2005).
Access to safe drinking water in Kenya is spatially skewed in favour of urban areas. By March 2003, access to safe water was estimated at 89% in urban areas and 46% in rural areas, as reported in the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey Report of the Central Bureau of Statistics (Ministry of Planning and National Development, 2003). This means that, overall, about 57% of the total population has access to a safe drinkable water source. According to the same report, about 48% of the total population (urban and rural combined) has access to sanitation. However, these figures are disputable if safe drink- ing water is defined as water from improved sources such as household connections, public standpipes, boreholes, protected wells or springs and rainwater collection. This is because most of the rural com- munities in the country depend on unimproved water sources such as vendors, tanker trucks and unprotected wells, springs and open pans.
At the district and divisional levels, apart from water resource endowments, the Kenyan Govern- ment’s poor investment in water infrastructure continues to undermine access to safe water. Such is the inability of the Government to invest in water infrastructure in rural outlying districts and divisions that this role has more often been taken over by donor-funded Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs), International Development Organisations and Community Based Organisations (CBOs).
This case study of Lake Kenyatta in Mpeketoni is one such donor-funded water project which was designed to complement the Government’s rural agricultural settlement programme in the district. Pro- viding‘adequate’safe drinking water to the area was one of the main targets of the project which is the focus of the present study. In evaluating the water supply system in a rural setting, the study shows that modest demand-driven population-based planning might fail in addressing water adequacy. Further- more, the study points out the challenges to the long-term sustainability of the project, which is constrained by the investment capacity of the Government and the subject population’s capacity to pay. Achieving the project’s target is presumably a distant prospect and, therefore, an alternative system complementing the project has been proposed for water adequacy in the local context.
2. Analytical framework
According to the World Health Organization (WHO, 2004), water adequacy is not only determined by the difference between available water and actual consumption both in the present and in the future (quantity), but also by quality, accessibility, affordability and continuity (Asian Development Outlook,
2007). In the WHO description, it is clear that, while an adequate quantity is important, the actual ade- quacy index is the interplay of all five factors: quantity, quality, continuity, affordability and accessibility. The planning and design of rural water supply systems in most developing countries often prioritise quantity and overlook the other factors when addressing adequacy. This study focuses on accessibility (including infrastructure) and affordability since the other three have already been achieved.
Accessibility is defined as water being within safe physical reach, being affordable, being accessible in law and in fact, and with information on water issues being provided. According to WHO and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), reasonable access means the availability of at least 20 litres per person per day within 1 km of the user’s dwelling (WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, 2004). Water accessibility is fundamental in determining the quality of the supply, the quantity consumed and its affordability, since accessibility influences pri- cing. The quantities of water collected and used by households are primarily a function of the distance to the water supply or total collection time required (WHO, 2004). This, according to WHO (2004), broadly equates to service level. The basic level is one in which water is available within 1 km, 30 min- utes are required for fetching and return (round trip), and volumes of water collected average 20 litres per capita per day.
To analyse the interplay of distance for adequacy, the spatial distribution of the water facilities was considered. Geographic information system (GIS) maps were used for spatial analysis of the distribution criteria, together with questionnaire interviews with the local authorities to identify the existing facili- ties. To analyse the situation, the existing water supply system was digitised and geo-referenced and a map was produced. Buffer distances were then calculated from the water access points (pipeline and kiosk). The area outside the buffer area is defined as the uncovered area. In accordance with the WHO criteria for water adequacy, it is demonstrated that accessibility rather than supply is the major issue in the case study area. Finally, after considering the local factors, an alternative water supply system is proposed and infrastructure demand is calculated.
3. Study area
Lamu is one of the seven districts that make up the coastal province of Kenya (Figure 1). It borders the Indian Ocean to the south, the Tana River district to the southwest, Ijara District to the north and the Republic of Somalia to the northeast. The district lies between latitudes 1°400 and 2°300 South and longitude 40°150 and 40°380 East. Mpeketoni is one of the six administrative divisions of the district and has the highest population among all the divisions. Over 95% of the total population of the division live in the study area, the Lake Kenyatta Settlement in Mpeketoni. This may be attributed to the fact that human settlement in the whole area began as an agricultural settlement scheme, planned and implemented by the Government as part of the nationwide rural agricultural settlement programme. It is the first such settlement in the district and became a model for others that followed.
With an estimated population of 30,452 in 2009, Mpeketoni division encompasses slightly more than 35% of the total population of the district (based on Lamu district population figures from Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, 1999; see Table 1). Economically, it is the dominant agricultural area in the district. According to the Lake Kenyatta Water Users Association (LAKWA) estimates in 2009 (before the census in August of the same year), the population of Mpeketoni had steadily increased
Fig. 1. Study area: Mpeketoni, Lamu, Kenya.
Table 1. Population growth rate in Mpeketoni, Kenya (Sources:Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, 1999;LAKWA, 2009).
Year Mpeketoni population Annual % growth Lamu population Annual % growth rate
1979 11,770 – 42,299
1989 18,548 5.76 56,783 3
1999 25,530 3.76 72,686 2.5
2009 30,452 1.93 86,707 1.93
Projected 2029 44,615 5.08 – –
over the previous 30 years from 11,770 in 1979 to 30,452 by 2009. This may be attributed to high in- migration between 1979 and 1999, which coincided with the beginning and subsequent development of the Lake Kenyatta Settlement Scheme. A high fertility rate and decreasing infant mortality rate (due to improved health services and better economic conditions as a result of the development of the scheme) are the major contributing factors for the high in-migration.
As shown inTable 1, although the growth rate was high in the years between 1979 and 1989, the in- crease in absolute numbers was higher in the years 1989–1999 than it was from 1979–1989. This may be explained by the increased in-migration triggered by the creation of new settlement schemes around Lake Kenyatta. However, with the reference population for the period from 1999 to 2009, the increase in absolute numbers decreased to 4,922 reflecting the real impact of a decreasing growth rate. In essence, Mpeketoni continued to register a higher population growth rate compared to that of the entire district. In the study area, the link between water and population is shown by the fact that the area attracts more people than any other in the whole district. In fact, availability of safe drinking water is the main reason for people to settle in the area. It is therefore important to gauge the availability of water against the actual consumption, which itself is a function of the population increase or decrease.
4. Discussion
4.1. Water supply system
The Lake Kenyatta settlement project was a collaborative joint project of the Government of Kenya and the Federal Republic of Germany, through the German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) and German Development Bank (KFW). It was the first rural agricultural settlement project that fused the human settlement components of planned land allocation and infrastructure development. The project envi- saged a complete settlement with all the necessary infrastructural facilities such as access roads, safe drinking water, schools and dispensaries.
The Lake Kenyatta Water Supply System is a simple rural water supply system designed to provide safe drinking water to an overall population of about 40,000 people (Figure 2). It has a central supply system consisting of 11 wells. Among these, five are production wells while six are peziometric or monitoring wells. The wells are located in the southern part of the area in the Lake Kenyatta depression and are between 18 and 22 m deep. Water from the well is pumped by two immersed pumps, which are run by electric power from a small power plant. A total of 163 km of distribution pipeline, including the trunk line taking water from the wells to and from the storage tank, have been constructed. There are two storage tanks, with capacities of 1,000 and 100 m3, respectively. The tanks are both centrally located on the highest point in the area to allow the gravitational flow of water for distribution. In total, 61 water kiosks (public stand pipes) are distributed within the LAKWA jurisdiction area.
Another important factor to consider in planning a drinking water supply system in rural Kenya is the scattered population distribution over a vast plain. With the exception of the centre of the study area, the population density is too low to provide cost-effective facilities, e.g. piped water, which requires a con- siderable amount of capital investment. The MDGs’needs assessment report for Kenya in 2006 stated that:
‘While the dream of every Kenyan is to have piped water in the house, this dream cannot be achieved under the MDGs project because the scattered settlement pattern in the rural areas makes household
connections through piped schemes prohibitively costly. Therefore, where piped schemes are planned the proposed level of service would be by communal stand posts’(Ministry of Planning and National Development, 2006).
This issue of a supply system is discussed further below.
4.2. Water supply and demand
The supply system was designed for a consumption rate of 25 litres per person per day, and was intended to last 40 years. According to LAKWA, the current daily consumption rate per person averages three and half litres, making a total of 120 m3. Though the current daily per capita consumption is less than the designed rate, this is not a good indicator of continued water availability in terms of quantity.
The production capacity of 1,100 m3per day is still realised by LAKWA. However, only 12% (120 m3) of this is consumed daily. The management attributes this to the availability of other sources of water such as rivers, ponds and wells. However, these are not protected or improved sources, and the water quality is therefore inferior. The choice of getting water from these alternative sources is more likely to be a result of the cost of obtaining water from LAKWA facilities (a 20 litre jerry can costs 5 Kenyan shillings), and the easier accessibility of the alternative sources, rather than simply their availability.
Fig. 2. Population and water supply distribution in Mpeketoni, Kenya.
4.3. Water accessibility
In the Lake Kenyatta area, the provision of water kiosks was determined on a uniform scale of a 1 km radius. The assumption was that, since the system was to serve the occupants of the regularly planned and surveyed plots in the settlement scheme, the distribution of the population would be fairly uniform. How- ever, GIS analysis of the coverage has shown that some areas were critically more than 1 km away from the nearest kiosk. The water supply system in Lake Kenyatta was designed to give basic level access.
According to LAKWA, water kiosks were built 1 km apart (initial design). In terms of spatial coverage, however, this is yet to be realised in some areas, as shown by the distribution of water facilities on a map (seeFigure 3).
An average round trip to get water takes approximately 45 minutes, and all water consumed is paid for. The tariffs are 5 Kenyan shillings (ksh) per 20 litre jerry can at the kiosks with ksh 100 standing charges and an additional ksh 100 per 0.1 m3 consumed monthly for household connections (1 USD¼78 ksh). There were only 64 individual or private connections during the study period, which reflects the cost of private connections and the distance from the water sources (LAKWA, 2009). Drinking water affordability is a complex choice and is, in fact, interlinked with accessibility.
First, the cost is substantially higher for rural communities in the study area and thus few people can afford water from LAKWA sources or kiosks. Second, in developing countries, women and children are most often those responsible for collecting drinking water, and there is therefore a high probability that they will use the nearest unimproved sources. Third, studies suggest that the time spent for water hauling in developing countries is close to the market wage rate of unskilled labour forces which directly
Fig. 3. Water adequacy in Mpeketoni, Kenya.
affects the choice of the sources (Whittington et al., 1990; see also: Curtis, 1986; Cairncross & Cuff, 1987).
One criterion set by the GTZ funding was that the investment ensures cost recovery and, thereby, long-term sustainability. However, a piped water supply system is viable in densely populated commu- nities under the condition that the target population is able to pay. Replication of this in a sparsely populated rural setting, as in the study area, is often constrained by the cost associated with the devel- opment and operation of the system. The donors funded the initial stage of the project but the responsibility to operate, maintain and expand the coverage has been transferred to LAKWA. A centra- lised supply system with a target of covering a vast area by the installation of pipelines would ultimately lead to high water costs, and this fact is evident from the small number of household connections. There- fore, such drinking water supply initiatives should consider low cost decentralised systems, keeping in mind the protection and improvement of natural and locally available options.
4.4. Water infrastructure growth
In total, 163 km of pipeline has already been constructed. The initial construction work was carried out by GTZ (150 km) between 1994 and 2004. GTZ was the initiator of the project and hence the nas- cent years of the project were fully sponsored by them. From 2004 to the present, a further 12.9 km of pipeline has been constructed by others, as follows: 4.2 km by the Ministry of Lands through the District Land Adjudication Office (DLASO), 7.2 km by LAKWA and 1.5 km by other donors (Table 2). Water is distributed at the end points through water pipelines and kiosks. Water kiosks were selected due to the high costs of individual connections, and the rural and scattered nature of the settlements common in many areas of the district.
There were only 64 individual or private connections and a total of 61 kiosks distributed in the area.
Of these, 49 were constructed by 1994 by GTZ, five by DLASO, five by LAKWA and one by another organisation. According to LAKWA, factors considered for the location of water kiosks or water points were water demand, population within the area and a walking distance of about 1 km.
On average, the pipeline was extended by 15 km per year from 1994 to 2004 during the GTZ spon- sored time. Afterwards, this dropped to 2.6 km per year in 2009. This sharp decline indicates that the initial growth rate cannot be sustained. Water kiosks increased in number by an average of 4.9 annually between 1994 and 2004, and thereafter decreased to 2.2 per annum. The difference is linked to the finan- cial resources available in the two periods. Understandably, the financial clout of GTZ is evident in the high number of facilities constructed between 1994 and 2004. It is clear that investment costs are the biggest factor in determining facility expansions. Generally, pipelines and water kiosks are the most
Table 2. Infrastructure growth in numbers from 1994 to 2009 (Source:LAKWA, 2009).
1994–2004 2004–2009
Type GTZ Governmenta LAKWA Others
Pipeline 145 9.2 7.2 1.5
Kioks 49 5 5 1
Tanks 1 1 – –
Bore holes 11 – – –
aGovernment settlement programme, executed by the Ministry of Lands.
important components for expansions of the supply system. Continued growth of the supply system is necessary to achieve its goal, although this seems to be unattainable considering the cost of pipeline expansion in the local context. Therefore, water provision by kiosks is taken into consideration for poss- ible future planning in accordance with the MDGs and the plan envisaged by LAKWA.
4.5. Alternatives for future water supply
One major issue discussed so far is the weakness of the central water supply system and the slow growth of infrastructure. Another is the spatial exclusion in terms of kiosk and pipeline coverage. These two issues together seem to count against the benefits of good population based planning and the adoption of appro- priate technology. This is a pointer to the often mentioned challenges in planning for water provision. The number of people per tap or well used to calculate the number of water distribution points required, and the selection of the most convenient locations for these points in a given community vary widely. Studies suggest different standards: from 20 to 50 in Columbia to 500 people in Nigeria. However, it would seem reasonable to provide a tap or well for a maximum of 200 people (Wagner & Lanoix, 1959).
The initial construction of the water supply system was completed in 1994. Given the annual popu- lation growth rate of 3.76% in the 1989–1999 inter-census period (seeTable 1), the population of the area by the time of completion of the initial construction was approximately 22,307. This is expected to double in approximately 40 years, a fact that is alluded to by the target planning population number of 40,000. In planning community water provision, especially in rural communities, there is hardly a uni- versal design standard. For urban conditions, it is customary to design water systems to serve the population expected in 10–25 years. On the basis of available data for some rural areas of the world, a 50% increase in population would appear to be the minimum figure upon which any rural water supply design should be based, irrespective of the period of design adopted (Wagner & Lanoix, 1959). With reference to the study area, the initial plan took into account that the current population will double, reaching 44,615 by the target year 2029, 35 years after the water supply system began.
In addition, analysis of population growth as shown in Table 3 corresponds to the estimation for the central water supply system. This not only corresponds fairly to the planned 40 year service life of the project, but also falls within acceptable limits of forward planning.
It would seem reasonable to assume that, in the majority of instances, a well or a tap should be pro- vided for a maximum population of 200 people (Howard & Bartram, 2003). Contextually for the study area, given the current population of the division at approximately 30,452, and given that 90% of this population stay in the Lake Kenyatta area, the current number of water kiosks serves approximately 500 people each. This is rather high for sufficient water delivery. On top of this, some areas do not have the necessary number of kiosks and almost 8,000 people do not have access to a water kiosk within 1 km.
This is almost one third of the population of the area, meaning that the number of people currently within 1 km of the kiosk is almost equal to the population during the initial planning (22,307). In an attempt to improve this situation, an assessment of the existing facilities (kiosks) and the concomitant additional requirements are presented inTable 3andFigure 4. This assessment was based on a reduction of the number of people to be served from the current 500 people to 300 people per kiosk. Though this is still higher than the WHO suggestion, it is nonetheless rational given that the figure of 200 will yield a very high number of kiosks beyond the capacity of LAKWA to provide.
A GIS analysis of the proposal was carried out and the results show that all areas would be within 700 m of 1 km from a kiosk. In Figure 4, all areas are 700 m or less from the nearest water kiosk.
Noticeably, the low density areas (seeFigure 2for population distribution) are nucleated villages where people are settled within approximately a 1 km radius, and are therefore covered by the proposed number of kiosks (Questionnaire Interview,LAKWA, 2009).
5. Conclusion
From the above discussion, the primary reason for an inadequate water supply in Mpeketoni, Lamu, Kenya, is inaccessibility in terms of distance from the water source, the cost of the infrastructure and the cost of water. At the same time, infrastructure expansion is the prime necessity for the project to provide
Table 3. Water kiosks and pipelines available and required per 300 people (Source:LAKWA, 2009).
Area name
Area in km2
90% of population
Kiosk requirement per 300 people
Additional kiosks
Current pipeline (km)
Additional pipeline required (km)
Central 35 8,771 29 20 40.85 120.37
Kiongwe 16 554 2 1 3.29 6.22
Mkunumbi 19 344 1 0 4.04 0.00
Ndambwe 8 667 2 1 1.65 1.13
Baharini 26 5,367 18 11 10.36 25.09
Tewe 14 3,058 10 7 9.71 34.98
Hongwe 43 5,519 18 10 37.59 69.15
Bomani 10 3,114 10 7 13.8 23.85
Mapenya 23 4,981 16 10 14.32 19.03
Uziwa 22 6,473 21 16 13.45 45.36
Muhamarani 36 1,873 6 3 31.19 0.00
Total 252 40,721 133 86 180.25 345.18
Fig. 4. Kiosk distribution for the target year, 2029.
safe drinking water in the area. Considering the present status of pipelines and kiosks, and in order to cover 90% of the projected population, about 345 km pipeline and 83 additional kiosks must be built–a mammoth task for LAKWA. Rather than using a piped water supply, the present study shows that an adequate water supply is possible using a kiosk based supply system.
Finally, this study re-emphasises that water adequacy has multiple variables, and that access to water in terms of distance is one of the major factors in the study area. Except in the town centre, a large part of the study area is sparsely populated and, based on current infrastructure development, providing water access through the planned process might not be achievable. For rural Kenya, alternative options requir- ing less time and capital, such as hand pumps which have been successful in some Asian countries (Whittingtonet al., 1987) or ground water developments (MacDonald & Calow, 2009) should be con- sidered for a sustainable water supply.
Acknowledgements
The study period was supported by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). We acknowl- edge Professor Einhard Schmidt Kallert, of TU-Dortmund, Germany, for his comments over the whole process of this research. Also, many thanks are due to Maik Teubner and Björn Schwarze, TU-Dortmund, for their assistance in GIS analysis. Finally, the authors would like to extend their gratitude to the anony- mous reviewer and to Jerome Delli Priscoli, the Editor in Chief,Water Policy.
References
Asian Development Bank (ADB) (2007).Asian Water Development Outlook: Achieving Water Security for Asia. ADB, Man- daluyong Metro Manila, Philippines.
Baumann, D. D., Boland, J. & Hanemann, M. W. (eds) (1998).Urban Water Demand Management and Planning. McGraw- Hill, New York.
Cairncross, S. & Cuff, J. L. (1987).Water use and health in Mueda, Mozambique.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 81, 51–54.
Churchill, A. A., de Ferranti, D., Roche, R., Tager, C., Walters, A. A. & Yazer, A. (1987). Rural Water Supply and Sanitation:
Time for a Change. World Bank Discussion Paper No. 18. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Curtis, V. (1986).Women and the Transport of Water.Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
Falkenmark, M. (1989). The massive water scarcity now threatening Africa –Why isn’t it being addressed?Ambio 18(2), 112–118.
Gleick, P. H. (ed.) (1993). Water in Crisis: A Guide to the World’s Fresh Water Resources. Oxford University Press, New York.
Howard, G. & Bartram, J. (2003).Domestic Water Quantity, Service Level and Health.World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva.
Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (1999). Lamu District Census Report. Lamu District Office, Lamu, Republic of Kenya.
Lake Kenyatta Water Users Association (LAKWA) (2009).Questionaire on Water Provision by LAKWA. Field survey, Lamu, Kenya, July 2009.
MacDonald, A. M. & Calow, R. C. (2009).Developing groundwater for secure rural water supplies in Africa.Desalination 248, 546–556.
Ministry of Planning and National Development (2003). Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey Report. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, Nairobi, Kenya.
Ministry of Planning and National Development (2006). Millennium Development Goal Needs Assessment Report. Ministry of Planning and National Development, Nairobi, Republic of Kenya.
Ministry of Water and Irrigation (2005).Strategic Plan for 2005–2009. Ministry of Water and Irrigation, Republic of Kenya, Kenya.
Oudshoorn, H. M. (1997).The pending‘water crisis’.GeoJournal 42(1), 27–38.
Postel, S. (1992).Last Oasis: Facing Water Scarcity.W.W. Norton, New York.
Postel, S. (2000).Entering an era of water scarcity: the challenges ahead.Ecological Applications 10(4), 941–948.
Showers, K. B. (2002).Water scarcity and urban Africa: an overview of urban–rural water linkages.World Development 30(4), 621–648.
United Nations (UN) (2000).United Nations Millennium Declaration. UN General Assembly, A/RES/55/2, UN, New York.
Wagner, E. G. & Lanoix, J. N. (1959).Water Supply for Rural Areas and Small Communities. World Health Organization (WHO). Monograph Series No. 42. WHO, Geneva.
Whittington, D., Briscoe, J. & Mu, X. (1987).Willingness to Pay for Water in Rural Areas: Methodological Approaches and an Application in Haiti. Field report, pp. 213, 93, Water and Sanitation for Health Project, US Agency for International Devel- opment, Washington, DC, September 1987.
Whittington, D., Mu, X. & Roche, R. (1990).Calculating the value of time spent collecting water: some estimates for Ukunda, Kenya.World Development 18(2), 269–280.
World Bank (WB) (1996). African water resources: Challenges and opportunities for sustainable development. World Bank Technical Paper No. 331. World Bank, Washington, DC.
World Health Organization (WHO) (2004).Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, 3rd edition, Volume 1: Recommendations.
WHO, Geneva.
Received 1 January 2013; accepted in revised form 4 March 2013. Available online 21 March 2013
