58 lines
3.6 KiB
Markdown
58 lines
3.6 KiB
Markdown
|
### [ ] Naiga2015
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
* looks at effects of major policy shift from supply-driven to demand-driven approach in rural water provision (in 1990)
|
||
|
|
* results:
|
||
|
|
* rural safe water coverage improved slightly
|
||
|
|
* operation and maintenance of water sources pose great challenge, impeding long-term access to safe water
|
||
|
|
* abrupt and top-down imposed policy created competing signals from old and new policies
|
||
|
|
* lead to uncertainty and ambiguity about responsibilities, rules, incentives
|
||
|
|
* challenge is not only water provision approach but provision of consistent multi-actor and -level governance structure tying to past institutions and providing long-term motivation for local water users to contribute to water provision
|
||
|
|
* Isingiro results:
|
||
|
|
* Uganda: access to improved water source 44% (1990), 60% (2004), 66% (2010)
|
||
|
|
* Uganda: urban household travels 0.2km, rural 0.8km to source (avg waiting time half an hour)
|
||
|
|
* Isingiro: average distance to source 1.5km
|
||
|
|
* Isingiro: only 53% of water sources surveyed were functional
|
||
|
|
* 24% partly functional (low/intermittent yield)
|
||
|
|
* 18% non-functional
|
||
|
|
* blocked drainage channels for some of them leading to possible contamination
|
||
|
|
* qualitative:
|
||
|
|
* water generally responsibility of women
|
||
|
|
* cost of user fees prohibite for some to participate
|
||
|
|
* technology and ability to repair were expensive and usually far away (spare parts, resulted in delayed repairs)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### [ ] Cooper2016
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
* looks at vulnerability of rural farmers to climate events
|
||
|
|
* results:
|
||
|
|
* wealthier farmers perceive drought as highest risk, poorer farmers extreme heavy rainfall
|
||
|
|
* generally implemented many anticipatory and livelihood coping responses (54.7%), like food storage, livestock maintenance, planting drought-resistant varieties
|
||
|
|
* some responses (45.4%) specific to individual climatic events
|
||
|
|
* had no response to cope with rainfall variability
|
||
|
|
* environmental degradation additional driver of vulnerability: soil infertility, pests, diseases; economic instability
|
||
|
|
* farmers with more land, education, access to gov extension, non-farm livelihood, larger households, older age more capacity to buffer shock (through increased assets and entitlements)
|
||
|
|
* inequality arises due to different abilities to be resilient toward climatic shock events
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### [x] Mulogo2018
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
* looks at access to water, sanitation, hygiene at health care facilities
|
||
|
|
* 2010, Isingiro had 28% access to safe water
|
||
|
|
* main supply technologies are public stand posts, protected spring technology, deep boreholes
|
||
|
|
* rain harvesting tanks, gravity flow schemes, in some cases groundwater-based pubped piped water supply system present
|
||
|
|
* results:
|
||
|
|
* of 282 health care facilities, 94% had improved sources (but some no improved source, some no source on the premises)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### [ ] Sempewo2021
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
* looks at changes in water suuply use (quantity) in Ugandan HHs (due to COVID-19)
|
||
|
|
* most HHs had increase in water quantity usage
|
||
|
|
* associated HH characteristics age, sex, education, main occupation of HH head, household size, region of residence
|
||
|
|
* results can be used for equitable water supply during emergencies
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### [ ] Atamanov2022 - see poverty for main part
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
* water access
|
||
|
|
* general access to improved drinking water 87% urban, 74% rural (19/20);
|
||
|
|
with only small amounts of inequality (75/74 rural poor/nonpoor; 76/90 poor/nonpoor)
|
||
|
|
* but very little access to improved sanitation 39% urban, 25% urban; 19% rural poor, 29% nonpoor; 22% urban poor, 43% urban nonpoor (19/20)
|