138 lines
8.8 KiB
Markdown
138 lines
8.8 KiB
Markdown
### [x] 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)
|
|
|
|
### [x] 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] Yikii2017 - food insecurity in wetlands area
|
|
|
|
* looks at prevalence and determining factors of food insecurity in wetland adjacent areas, (Isingiro)
|
|
* results:
|
|
* ~93% of HHs in wetlands area food insecure
|
|
* primary reasons: poverty,
|
|
* low labor productivity (/unemployment)
|
|
* low levels of education
|
|
* HHs with fewer adult members more food secure than with more adults
|
|
* HHs with more educated head more food secure than less education
|
|
* requires govt promotion of:
|
|
* food/nutrition education
|
|
* income generating activities
|
|
* drought resistant crop varieties
|
|
* water conservation
|
|
* or wetland degradation, malnutrition and income inequality may further rise
|
|
|
|
### [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)
|
|
|
|
### [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:
|
|
* difference in water infrastructure management effectiveness primarily down to existence/absence of organizational characteristics prescribed in design principles
|
|
* Isingiro: absence of conditions prescribed by design principles due confronted with lack of sufficient self-governance arrangements:
|
|
* unclear social boundaries
|
|
* missing collective-choice arrangements
|
|
* lack of sanctions or conflict resolution mechanisms
|
|
* Isingiro: should be regarded as 'vicious circle of institutional failures'
|
|
|
|
### [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
|
|
* results:
|
|
* 68.6% of HHs perceive food insecurity as problem
|
|
* those not seeing it as problem had higher off-farm incomes and larger farm sizes
|
|
* 'implies productive assets (e.g. land) can be easily translated into productive activies for higher income [...] while off-farm income could provide more choices in terms of food access' [9]
|
|
* access to credit for crops *increased* food security status awareness
|
|
* more likely to use credit as buffer against food insecurity
|
|
* drought widely perceived as problem contributing to food insecurity (95.6%)
|
|
* HHs believe most at-risk of drought-induced food insecurity
|
|
* 13% reported to be 'doing nothing' to respond to drought effects
|
|
|
|
### [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:
|
|
* men and women's gender roles altered during extreme dryness
|
|
* men played roles sequentially focusing on one single reproductive role
|
|
* women played roles simultaneously
|
|
* often forced to engage children in work activities to balance own workload
|
|
* Isingiro: female children more engaged with chores than male children
|
|
* in Kiruhura district migration in search of water & pasture livestick, further distorting roles
|
|
* 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
|
|
|
|
### [x] Sempewo2021a
|
|
|
|
* 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
|
|
|
|
### [x] Sempewo2021 - willingness to pay for water during emergency
|
|
|
|
* looks at willingness to pay for access to improved water during COVID-19 (lockdown)
|
|
* results:
|
|
* majority of households not willing to pay for water
|
|
* sg explanatory variables: sex of HH head, region of residence, water source, number of times hands are washed, whether household already buys/pays for water
|
|
* suggests increasing/even maintaining water revenue will be challenge in emergencies without addressing disparity in socio-economic attributes of HHs
|
|
* INT: may also show possibility of one dimension of health inequality increase due to income inequality/poverty during emergency situations (e.g. extreme climate events)
|
|
|
|
### [x] 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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
### [x] Logie2021 - Resource scarcity and sexual/gender based violence
|
|
|
|
* experiment in Bidi Bidi refugee settlement regarding gender based violence against girls/young women
|
|
* experience higher levels of viol. as food, water, firewood scarcity increases
|
|
|
|
### [ ] Calderon-Villarreal2022
|
|
|
|
* cross-sectional study analyzing water, sanitation, hygiene access (WASH) services in refugee populations in Uganda, Kenya, Bangladesh, South Sudan
|
|
* finds that most households overall had access to improved water (95%), they had low levels of access to waste disposal facility (64%), sanitation privacy (63%), very low access to basic sanitation (30%) and hand hygiene facility (24%)
|
|
* households with disabled or elderly members or fewer members had poorer access to WASH
|
|
* large inequalities between refugee sites and across countries:
|
|
* Kyangwali refugee camp only 67% of refugees have access to improved water, and 46% of improved sanitation service facilities; sanitation privacy at only 8%
|
|
* other Uganda camps fare better
|
|
* 83% (or 87? re-read!) access to improved water supply in Ugandan refugee camps - seems too high compared to average access?
|
|
|
|
### [ ] Kyozira2021 - integration of UNHCR Refugee health information system into national health management system of Uganda
|