Add water and climate change sections to script
This commit is contained in:
parent
d505da0e0d
commit
2ba0e74563
3 changed files with 46 additions and 14 deletions
|
@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
|
|||
* rural households make up 94.3% of chronically poor HHs
|
||||
* transient poverty more common than chronic poverty (25.6% HHs slipped into or out of poverty)
|
||||
|
||||
### [ ] Lwanga-Ntale2014
|
||||
### [x] Lwanga-Ntale2014
|
||||
|
||||
* looks at inequality numbers in Uganda long-term (1992-2013)
|
||||
* degree of inequality somewhat variable, mostly on increase
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
|
|||
### [ ] Naiga2015
|
||||
### [x] Naiga2015
|
||||
|
||||
* looks at effects of major policy shift from supply-driven to demand-driven approach in rural water provision (in 1990)
|
||||
* results:
|
||||
|
@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
|
|||
* 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
|
||||
### [x] Cooper2016
|
||||
|
||||
* looks at vulnerability of rural farmers to climate events
|
||||
* results:
|
||||
|
@ -32,7 +32,7 @@
|
|||
* 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
|
||||
|
||||
### [ ] Yikii2017 - food insecurity in wetlands area
|
||||
### [x] Yikii2017 - food insecurity in wetlands area
|
||||
|
||||
* looks at prevalence and determining factors of food insecurity in wetland adjacent areas, (Isingiro)
|
||||
* results:
|
||||
|
@ -58,7 +58,7 @@
|
|||
* results:
|
||||
* of 282 health care facilities, 94% had improved sources (but some no improved source, some no source on the premises)
|
||||
|
||||
### [ ] Naiga2018 - community-based water management
|
||||
### [x] Naiga2018 - community-based water management
|
||||
|
||||
* looks at relevant design principles in creating successful collective self-managed water management institutions, at Isingiro vs Sheema district
|
||||
* results:
|
||||
|
@ -69,7 +69,7 @@
|
|||
* lack of sanctions or conflict resolution mechanisms
|
||||
* Isingiro: should be regarded as 'vicious circle of institutional failures'
|
||||
|
||||
### [ ] Twongyirwe2019 - Perceived Food insecurity
|
||||
### [x] Twongyirwe2019 - Perceived Food insecurity
|
||||
|
||||
* looks at perception of drought and food insecurity in Isingiro district
|
||||
* questionnaire for farmers in Isingiro district whose livelihood is predominantly dependent on crop production
|
||||
|
@ -83,7 +83,7 @@
|
|||
* HHs believe most at-risk of drought-induced food insecurity
|
||||
* 13% reported to be 'doing nothing' to respond to drought effects
|
||||
|
||||
### [ ] Nagasha2019 - effect of droughts on gender roles
|
||||
### [x] Nagasha2019 - effect of droughts on gender roles
|
||||
|
||||
* looks at effect of climate change (more sever droughts) on gender roles around Lake Mburo National Park (Isingiro, Kiruhura districts)
|
||||
* results:
|
||||
|
@ -96,14 +96,14 @@
|
|||
* Isingiro: men became more actively engaged in firewood collection (62.8%) and fetching water (45.9%)
|
||||
* women's exclusion from land ownership brings them further in state of dependence, thus more vulnerable to climate change effects
|
||||
|
||||
### [ ] Sempewo2021a
|
||||
### [x] Sempewo2021a
|
||||
|
||||
* looks at changes in water suuply use (quantity) in Ugandan HHs (due to COVID-19)
|
||||
* looks at changes in water supply 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
|
||||
|
||||
### [ ] Sempewo2021 - willingness to pay for water during emergency
|
||||
### [x] Sempewo2021 - willingness to pay for water during emergency
|
||||
|
||||
* looks at willingness to pay for access to improved water during COVID-19 (lockdown)
|
||||
* results:
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -72,13 +72,45 @@ improved rural safe water coverage slightly but also made operation and maintena
|
|||
In the country, access to improved water sources rose from 44% in 1990 to 60% in 2004 and 66% in 2010 [@Naiga2015].
|
||||
In 2019, access to improved sources of drinking water in the country is at a level of 87% in urban areas and 74% in rural areas, with relatively little inequality in rural regions between poor and non-poor households [@Atamanov2022].
|
||||
Health care facilities in rural areas are generally well connected to improved sources with 94% of facilities having access to public stand posts, protected spring technology, deep boreholes and some to rain harvesting tanks, gravity flow schemes or groundwater-based pumped piped water supplies [@Mulogo2018].
|
||||
Households, on the other hand are generally less well connected.
|
||||
Thus, individual households are generally less well connected than health care facilities,
|
||||
and rural households in turn less well than urban households.
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- Isingiro district -->
|
||||
--here goes Naiga2015 Isingiro numbers--
|
||||
and Mulogo2018 - isingiro?
|
||||
The same study found for the Isingiro district in Western Uganda on the other hand, in 2010,
|
||||
only 28% of households had access to improved water [@Mulogo2018].
|
||||
<!-- TODO check validity -->
|
||||
Naiga et al. [-@Naiga2015] investigated the characteristics of improved water access in the Isingiro district, finding that whereas the national average distance to travel for a water source is 0.2km in urban and 0.8km in rural locations, in Isingiro it is 1.5km,
|
||||
and of the fewer existing improved water sources, only 53% were fully functional,
|
||||
with 24% being only partly functional (having only low or intermittent yield) and 18% not being functional at all.
|
||||
Additionally, they found blocked drainage channels in some of the sources which could in turn lead to a possible health risk due to contamination of the source.
|
||||
Naiga [-@Naiga2018] sees some reasons for the low access to working improved water sources in the absence of many of the organizational characteristics prescribed by the design principles of its community-managed water infrastructure management ---
|
||||
unclear social boundaries, missing collective-choice arrangements and a lack of sanctions or conflict resolution mechanisms ---
|
||||
in other words, a policy failure resulting in lack of sufficient self-governance arrangements.
|
||||
|
||||
Such inequalities in water access often stand in direct relationship with other inequalities such as along gender, geographic or income dimensions,
|
||||
with fetching water traditionally being a female care role, the cost of user fees to gain access to improved water being prohibitive to poorer households, while the remoteness of many households' location makes the trekk to the source more time-consuming and replacement parts for repairs difficult to source in an adequate time [@Naiga2015].
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- water access during extreme events -->
|
||||
(climate events - Cooper2016 -> increase during emergencies - Sempewo2021)
|
||||
Looking into the effects of climate change and its accompanying increase in climate shock events, especially droughts, on such gender roles,
|
||||
Nagasha et al. [-Nagasha2019] find that it gender roles adapt while gender inequalities tend to increase,
|
||||
with men participating more in firewood collection but generally focusing on assuming a single reproductive role while women played multiple roles simultaneously.
|
||||
Two effects they found of this exacerbation were the women often being forced to engage their children in work activities to manage the simultaneous workload, and women, due to their exclusion from landownership in the region, being brought further into a state of dependence and thus made even more vulnerable to future climate change effects.
|
||||
Water supply use seems to experience little change during emergency situations, and people's willingness (or ability) to pay for water is also too small to maintain water revenue without addressing the disparity in socio-economic attributes of households [@Sempewo2021; @Sempewo2021a].
|
||||
Taken together, this hints at one possibility of subsequent health disparity increases due to prior income inequalities and poverty during emergency situations such as climate shocks.
|
||||
|
||||
Access to water is also one of the primary reasons for both real and perceived food insecurity vulnerabilities, even more so during climate shocks.
|
||||
In Uganda, Cooper and Wheeler [-@Cooper2016] investigate the vulnerability of rural farmers to climate events and find that, while most farmers implement anticipatory and livelihood coping responses (54.7%),
|
||||
many responses only protect against very specific events (45.4%) and most had no response at all to coping with rainfall variability:
|
||||
while farmers with more land, education, access to government extensions and non-farm livelihoods have more capacity to buffer the shock,
|
||||
both wealthier farmers (droughts as highest perceived risk) and poor farmers (extreme rainfall as highest) perceive themselves most vulnerable to rainfall-based events.
|
||||
In the Isingiro district, Twongyirwe et al. [-@Twongyirwe2019] find that most farmers (68.6%) perceive food insecurity as a problem with the overwhelming majority seeing droughts as the major contributory issue to this food insecurity (95.6%).
|
||||
They also find that mainly higher-income and larger farms see it as less of a problem,
|
||||
while 13% of all farmers report that they did not, or could not, do anything to respond to the drought effects.
|
||||
Lastly, even for inhabitants of wetland areas, droughts can pose problems.
|
||||
Yikii et al. [-@Yikii2017], looking at the prevalence and determining factors of food insecurity in wetland adjacent areas in the district, find that 93% of households within wetlands are already food insecure due to poverty, low levels of labor productivity and low levels of education,
|
||||
which they argue would worsen in droughts unless the government finds ways of promoting food and nutrition education, alternative income generating activities, drought resistant crop varieties and ways of water conservation.
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- conclusion -->
|
||||
|
||||
\pagebreak
|
||||
## References
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue