THE EVOLUTIONARY DYNAMICS OF INDIA’S RURAL WATER SYSTEMS (PART I)
Dr. Chintan Vaishnav,, Sloan School of Management, MIT
Sydney Beasley, Tata Center for Technology and Design, MIT
Dr. Michael Bono, Department of Mechanical Engineering, MIT
Vinod Kothari, Himmotthan
Dr. Sunesh Sharma, Himmotthan
Avijit Mallik, PRADAN
ABSTRACT
Poor microbial water quality management in rural India causes numerous instances of fatal, yet
preventable, waterborne diseases. One intervention to reduce this disease is testing and sharing water quality
information to increase awareness of water quality issues and safe water practices. In order to better
understand how this particular informational intervention could be most impactful in the context of rural
India, this paper explores the evolutionary dynamics of rural water management. The focus of the first phase
of this work, presented here, is to generate insight into - not a working model of - the dynamics surrounding
water systems in the various rural terrains of India. This work, conducted using a combination of field
observations, interviews, and group model building exercises, considers water schemes in the mountainous
region of the state of Uttarakhand, and also in the plains of Jharkhand. Analysis of water schemes in these two
diverse contexts of rural India has elicited five stages of the evolutionary dynamics that contribute to water
safety in a village: the maturity of community institutions, infrastructure and usage of sanitation systems,
water quantity and availability, operation & maintenance of water distribution systems, and the dynamics of
water quality and health. This work presents a model invoked from ethnography, and is the first model to
characterize factors influencing water quality in rural India.
INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH QUESTION
Increasing access to improved microbial water quality in rural India is a critical goal moving forward.
In particular, poor microbial water quality is linked with poor hygiene and sanitation practices, and this
results in numerous fatal diseases each year. An estimated 801,000 children younger than 5 years of age die
from diarrhea each year, mostly in developing countries; this means about 2200 children are dying every day
as a result of diarrheal diseases (Liu et al. 2012). In India particularly, diarrheal disease is an enormous
problem, as diarrhea is responsible for 13% of all deaths per year in children under 5 years of age
(Lakshminarayanan and Jayalakshmy 2015) Additionally, diarrhea is the third leading cause of child
mortality in India (Lakshminarayanan and Jayalakshmy 2015)
What makes these statistics so remarkable is that the vast majority of deaths from diarrhea are easily
preventable: “Unsafe drinking water, inadequate availability of water for hygiene, and lack of access to
sanitation together contribute to about 88% of deaths from diarrheal diseases (Priiss-Ustiin et al. 2008).
Thus, there are several efforts to improve water and sanitation practices, which often use a combination of
“software” and “hardware” approaches. There have been massive resources invested in installing water and
sanitation “hardware”, which includes physical drinking water disinfection technologies, improved toilets,
and hand-washing stands (Peal, Evans, and van der Voorden 2010). However, the effectiveness of such
technologies is dependent on the degree of compliance (Mosler 2011). If used improperly or not at all, the
hardware is ineffective. Thus, this “hardware” must be accompanied by “software” such as behavior change
programs or persuasive and informational messaging (Peal, Evans, and van der Voorden 2010)
In this context, our research, a collaboration between System Scientists, Mechanical Engineers, and
two NGOs (Himmotthan and PRADAN), is focused on designing a solution that combines the “hardware” and
“software” side to improve microbial water safety in rural India. On the “hardware” side, we are designing a
sensor to detect microbial contamination in 2-4 hours in a point-of-use setting. This technology would
provide a significant improvement over current lab tests that take 24-48 hours for incubation, and require
transporting water samples over 50-100 km from poorly connected villages (Bono et al. 2017). The focus of
this research is the “software” side, which is aimed at developing the package of practice to insert and act upon
the information generated by the sensor technology in the rural settings effectively. The package of practice side
of this work is as critical as the sensor technology side, as in rural areas where the water is scarce; simply
detecting problems with water quality without making communities capable of dealing with this new
information creates a panic. We have planned the package of practice side of the investigation in two parts:
(I) understanding the current state of water systems, communities’ interactions with them, and the resulting
water safety scenarios in rural India to arrive at a conceptual model; and (II) creating a working model,
analyzing it for identifying policy for inserting microbial contamination insertion, and developing a package
of practice for NGOs and communities managing water safety. Presented here is the Part I of this research.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. We start with describing the field setting to familiarize
the reader with the terrains and water sources where we are working. We then lay out the methodology
followed. The large majority of this paper is spent on the following section that discusses the findings in
terms of the evolutionary dynamics of water systems in rural India. These findings are then synthesized into a
conceptual model. We finally lay out the conclusions and next steps for this research.
FIELD SETTINGS
Since the summer of 2016, we have partnered with two nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that
are both involved in implementing water and sanitation projects: Himmotthan, which is based in
Uttarakhand, a northern state located in the Himalayan region of India; and PRADAN, based in Jharkhand, a
largely tribal state located in the eastern plains of India. The purpose behind these partnerships is to study a
mutually exclusive but collectively exhaustive sample of rural water systems as drawn from mountain as well as
plain areas.
Himmotthan in Uttarakhand
The Himmotthan Society was registered in 2007 and works among rural mountain communities in
the Central Himalayan region. Himmotthan focuses on livelihoods related to livestock
and agriculture, and focuses on intervening in communities to: improve their access to education, water,
sanitation, and energy. It is primarily funded by the Sir Rata Tata Trust, one of the oldest philanthropic
institutions in India (Himmotthan.in, 2014). While Himmotthan has made progress in a variety of areas, their
accomplishments in water and sanitation infrastructure are notable. Their water and sanitation program,
ongoing since 2004 under the broader organization “Himmotthan Pariyojana”, has assisted 176 villages to
have access to drinking water delivered to their doorstep. They have assisted with the implementation of
sanitation facilities for over 4,160 households. (Himmotthan Annual Report 2014-2015, 2015) Currently,
Himmotthan is working with 313 villages. There are 53 people in total working for Himmotthan, 17 of which
work specifically in an office dedicated specifically to water. Himmotthan works in Uttarakhand and Himachal
Pradesh, but for the purpose of this investigation their experience working in Uttarakhand is considered.
Figure 1: Uttarakhand Landscape where Gravity-fed Piped Water Infrastructure is prominent
Uttarakhand has a total area of 53,483 km2, of which 86% is mountainous and 65% is covered by
forest. The terrain in Uttarakhand lies among the lower Himalayas and is rough and hilly. Uttarakhand was
carved out of northern Uttar Pradesh in 2000 to form the 27* state of India. (Uttarakhand: State Profile, n.d.)
It has a population of approximately 10,086,000 people, of which 7,037,000 live in rural areas, or
approximately 70% (Government of Uttarakhand, 2014). Himmotthan works in 26 blocks across 9 districts in
Uttarakhand (Himmotthan Annual Report 2014-2015, 2015). According to Vinod Kothari, member of
Himmotthan, 94% of drinking water is coming through the springs. Figure 1 above depicts piped water
running through a pipe from a spring to the village of Kudiyal Gaon. Below, Figure 2 depicts a group model
building session held in Uttarakhand; you can see the hilly terrain in the background.
Figure 2: Group Building Session in i i, Uttar
Pradan in Jharkhand
PRADAN was founded in 1983 with the lity that ed d pr ionals could work in
communities to help poor people improve their lives. (Eradan: Building a World Where Everyone Can Live
With Dignity, 2017) PRADAN stands for Pr i i for Devel Action and is inspired by
the mentality that removing poverty requires empathy and a helping motivation (“The Origin: PRADAN,”
2016). PRADAN is funded by numerous organizations including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Tata
Trusts, and various banks (Pradan: Building a World Where Everyone Can Live With Dignity, 2017). Their
mission statement is “to enable the most marginalized people, especially rural women, to earn a decent living
and take charge of their own lives” (PRADAN: Building a World Where Everyone Can Live With Dignity, 2017).
In order to accomplish this, they focus on developing women’s collectives, or self help groups, that in turn will
be able to develop their own skills and initiatives. As of March 2015, PRADAN worked with 28,592 Self Help
Groups across 7 states, which represents a total membership of 367,871 rural poor women (PROMOTION OF
SHG’S, n.d.). They work in states across the central region of India; Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh,
Bihar, Orissa, West Bengal and Jharkhand. PRADAN has made notable advances on installing piped water
systems for villages, though across the country water seems to be a newer portfolio for them.
Figure 3: Jharkhand Landscape, a picture outside Jolha Karma, Jharkhand
For the purposes of this study PRADAN’s experience in selected villages in Jharkhand is considered.
Jharkhand became the 28" state of India in November of 2000 (Government of Jharkhand, 2013). Ina stark
contrast to Uttarakhand, most of the state lies on the Chota Nagpur Plateau, and approximately 29% of the
state is covered in woodlands. (Government of Jharkhand, 2013) Jharkhand has a population of
approximately 32,988,000 people, of which 25,055,000 live in rural areas, or approximately 75%. (Jharkhand
Population Census data 2011, 2015). In Jharkhand, PRADAN works in 11% of the villages. (“The Origin:
PRADAN,” 2016) Much of the state is still covered by forest, and its largely tribal population coexists with a
population of tigers and Asian elephants. Figure 3 above shows the flat landscape of Jharkhand. Figure 4
below shows a Group Model Building session conducted in Ronhe, a village served by Pradan in rural
Jharkhand.
Figure 4: Group Model Building Session in Ronhe, Jharkhand with the NGO PRADAN
METHODOLOGY
In each state, we spent one full day talking to the NGO about their perceptions of water quality. Our
discussion was loosely based off of the Hines modeling process; in which one elicits important variables and
then investigates the behavior of such variables. We asked about the flow of water, and then asked how
contaminants entered the water at each stage. Members of the NGO listed variables that caused
contamination to increase and decrease, and then we plotted how those variables changed over time. From
these reference modes, we were able to elicit some preliminary structural insights. These insights helped
guide our subsequent focus group sessions throughout the week.
In each location we led 4 focus group discussions that centered around topics of water flow, water
contamination, water borne diseases, institutions that interact with water management (including Self Help
Groups), and what important channels of information flow there were in the city. Each focus group had
approximately 8 - 20 people, and were usually members of a local women’s collective called a Self Help Group.
Additionally, we complemented the information we got through our group model building sessions with in-
depth interviews of various staff members. Ultimately, the information that we gathered will be used directly
to inform our comprehensive model of how various stakeholders can impact microbial water quality in rural
India
The overall methodology followed can be understood as three interconnected blocks depicted in
Figure 5. Additionally, the detailed questionnaire used for unstructured interview and the protocol used for
Group Model Building can be found in Appendix I.
In-depth Unstructured Interviews to
supplement the understanding gained
from field observations andGMBs ©
Group Model Building (GMB) Sessions
with NGOs, and Self Help Groups in
Control and Treatment Villages
Field Observations to trace and
understand the Rural Water Systems
Figure 5: Research Methodologies
To achieve a reasonable sampling of water sources serving India’s rural areas we used the following
criteria: (a) we chose to work with NGOs in mountain and plain regions to represent a cover a large majority
ofrural water scenarios; (b) within the regions served by the two NGO partners, we sampled two types of
villages, one where the water systems are mature and others where they are not. It is important to bear in
mind that a completely random sampling is difficult in such remote regions as one is necessarily dependent
upon the trust NGOs have built, and the access one has through these NGOs. Table 1 shows the villages where
we chose to conduct the GMB sessions. We believe this sample is a very good approximation for a reasonably
mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive sample.
Date Treatment Village Control Village
(Relatively Mature Water Systems) (Relatively Poor Water Systems)
in Region (with Hi han)
Jan 11, 2017 Kudial Gaon (Group 1)
Jan 12, 2017 Kudial Gaon (Group 2)
Jan 13, 2017 Chureddhar
Jan 14, 2017 Jadipani
Plains Region (with PRADAN)
Jan 17, 2017 Ronhe
Jan 18, 2017 Gopla Pakhertoli
Jan 19, 2017 Belkhara
Jan 20, 2017 Jolha Karma
Table 1: Village Sampling for Group Model Building
FINDINGS: EVOLUTIONARY STAGES OF RURAL WATER SYSTEMS
Through analysis of these 2 diverse contexts, 5 stages of dynamics emerged that are crucial to
understanding the evolution through which water systems in rural India mature; Community Maturity
Dynamics, Water Sufficiency, Operations and Maintenance, Sanitation Infrastructure, and Water Quality &
Health. Described below is each stage of this maturation process.
Stage I: Community Maturity Dynamics
Required Critical Mass
for Representing +
Women's Issues cartes.
Need for ‘Women's Priorities
Women’s Collectivizing Women
n +
Representation Gap DEMAND FOR
WATER
rf B INFRASTRUCTURE
+
Inception of @
Actual Women's Women's Collective se Surfacing of
representation * Women's Priorities
Sea _ as oe
ic Women's Collective so,
+
+
‘+ RI NGO effort to
Savings of the ieuaie'ds collectivize women
Women's Collective strengthening of Participate in
Women's Collective Women's Collective
+
Loans Available to
Collective Members +
‘a R2
Experience with
Women's Collective ‘Trust in Women's
Scaling ofa Collective
Women's Collective +
+ Positive Word of
Mouth
Figure 6 Stage I: Community Maturity Dynamics
Figure 6 shows the dynamics that lead to the maturing of community institutions. Based on our
fieldwork, we found that the maturity of community institutions truly shapes the demand for sufficient and
safe water. (Thus, the “Demand for Water Infrastructure” variable above is highlighted in all capitals). Self
Help Groups, a form of women’s collectives, became a powerful force in moving the community forward in
areas of livelihood creation, financial stability, and water management. Self Help Groups exist in Uttarakhand,
Jharkhand, and throughout India, and can serve slightly different purposes depending on the context of the
community. However, the common thread throughout any Self Help Groups was that they are able to
highlight the needs the community and catalyze taking action to tackle problems.
Inception of a Women’s Collective
In order for a Self Help Group (SHG) or women collective to begin emphasizing their needs, there
must be enough people involved. Thus, there is a gap that needs to be overcome between the “required
critical mass for representing women’s issues” and “actual women’s representation”. When an NGO like
Pradan interacts with a village, women in the village are able to visualize their problems more clearly
(inequality between genders, insufficient income, etc) and the “need for collectivizing women” increases. The
need to collectivize women, coupled with the “NGO effort to collectivize women” directly contributes to
increasing participation in the Women’s Collective. Thus, participation in the women’s collective goes up,
actual women’s representation goes up, and the women’s representation gap narrows.
Strengthening of a Women’s Collective
A women’s Self Help Group has several benefits. As participation goes up, financial savings go up. As
the savings go up, more loans are made available, and thus the incentive to participate in the women’s
collective increases, furthering the actual participation in the women’s collective.
Scaling of a Women’s Collective
Furthermore, as more loans are made available, people have a more positive experience with the Self
Help Group, and positive Word of Mouth (WOM) will increase surrounding membership. Trust grows, and
incentive to participate grows, thus again increasing participation.
Ultimately, as self help groups become stronger and have more women participants, the women
begin to get a voice in the community governance. Their needs “surface” and are able to be discussed across
the village. One such demand that women begin to make is improved water management strategies. Water
management is typically a task women are expected to handle; they collect water for their families from far
away sources. However, the male dominated community governance did not recognize the hardship women
faced in gathering water, as men themselves had no issue. For example, according to Pradan, it was the
women in the Self Help Group that actually brought to their attention the need for closer and safer water. It
was only then that PRADAN was able to begin investigating ways to assist the community. Overall, the
strengthening of women’s collectives directly contributed to the demand for water infrastructure that would
provide them with a safer and closer water source.
Stage II: Water Sufficiency Dynamics
ripeness
Minimum Water
Needed for a
+ Community x.
+
55 LPCD s%
sufficiency Gap DEMAND FOR isan
‘WATER. Capability
INFRASTRUCTURE
i) .
_-—_RCTUALUSABLE
WATER Spring Catchment
Water
Infrastructure Construction of
Water Infrastructure
Naturally
Available Water
Usable Water from -
Spring Catchment Spring Catchment
+ Infrastructure
Construction
Unharvested
Spring Water Ba
Rainwater Rainwater Harvesting
Harvesting Infrastructure a
Usable Water from _ infrastructure Construction
Rainwater
Piped Water
Infrastructure
+ Harvesting
Usable Water to
Piped Water
wiped Water Infrastructure
+ ~__— Construction
Unharvested ©
Ground Water
Figure 7: Stage Ill Water Sufficiency Dynamics
Figure 8 shows the dynamics we uncovered that lead to water sufficiency in rural areas. Several communities
throughout rural India face challenges of water quantity. There is a gap between the actual usable amount of
water and the desired amount of water to meet the minimum need that communities have. This usable
amount of water comes in two ways: water that is naturally available, and water that has been harvested
through infrastructure. The difference between the usable amount of water and the needed amount of water
can be referred to as the water sufficiency gap. If the water sufficiency gap is large enough, there will bea
“demand for water infrastructure”, which we have already seen is largely driven by community institutions
like self-help groups. However, demand alone does not lead to the construction of water infrastructure; the
village must have the financial capability to pay for any new schemes. Through our fieldwork, we discovered
instances when villages would opt for only part of a water improvement plan due to financial constraints. For
example, one village in Uttarakhand decided only to invest in rainwater harvesting and not a piped water-
pumping scheme.
In our fieldwork, we saw three main styles of water infrastructure; spring catchment systems, rainwater
harvesting systems, and piped water infrastructure from ground water. In Uttarakhand, a common strategy
was the management of natural springs and Rainwater harvesting infrastructure. In Jharkhand, piped water
infrastructure using gr d was a popular ism. All three methods have been represented above
as variables. Each style of infrastructure will increase the “usable water” from its respective water source, and
in turn will increase the actual usable water. Thus, the water sufficiency gap also decreases, balancing the
demand for more water infrastructure, thus creating a balancing loop.
Stage III: Operation and Maintenance Dynamics
Built Water Labor Required
Infrastructure for O&M
Required
Maintenance
+ Labor Pressure on
tion and ' Sustaining O&M
Maintenance Gap
- + Cost of Operation and
Maintenance per
Functionality of oNGoING Household
Water Infrastructure OPERATION AND
BI MAINTENANCE
Improved Quality
e Cost Pressure on
Incentive for Sustaining O&M
Operation and
‘Water Quality Malaraaaare Free-Riders on
+
—— ~~
Bz
Improved Water
‘Quantity
ACT
USABLE WATER
‘Available Time
‘Time Saved
+
Figure 8 Stage IV: Operations and Maintenance Dynamics
Figure 9 shows the operations and maintenance dynamics our fieldwork revealed. Once a water structure
system is up and running, operation and maintenance are key to keep it going to prevent slip back. Successful
operation and maintenance will result in the chlorination and cleaning of the community water source; this
could be an overhead tank in the case of Pradan, or a tank collecting spring water in the case of Himmotthan.
To understand this system we can think of there being a difference between the needed operation and
maintenance, and the actual amount of ongoing operation and maintenance. The more operation and
maintenance there is, the greater the “functionality” of the water infrastructure. This functionality leads to
numerous benefits; it increases and maintains the amount of usable water, it increases water quality, and it
increases the amount of time women can save by having a closer water source.
The amount of water that the system produces has a direct impact on the incentive of the community to keep
maintaining their system; if it is producing enough water then they will want to keep it going. Additionally,
Pipes won't be leaking, hand pumps won't be rusting, and chlorine will be added regularly to water storage.
The increased water quality (and resulting health impacts) will create an incentive to continue operation and
maintenance.
However, typically the more operation and maintenance that is required, the more labor is required, and the
more the system costs to upkeep. As the costs rise to maintain the system, the greater chance there is for
“free-riders”, individuals who take advantage of the common access to water without paying their fair share
or helping clean the tank when needed. This problem of the commons, or increasing free riders, actually
decreases the incentive to continue operation and maintenance practices; people don’t want to pay or work
for others unfairly.
Stage IV: Sanitation Infrastructure Dynamics
Social Pressure
7 to Use Toilets
R2
+ Toilet Use Social
AcTUAL EE TOWETUSE Pressure
USABLE WATER t Sanitation Infrastructure
if Survey (e.g. Healthy Home
Survey by IHHT)
+ Sanitation
Required 7 Infrastructure Gap
Sanitation Identification
Infrastructure ‘Sanitation
Infrastructure Gap +
: Door to Door
+ Advocacy by NGO
potas Mee for Building Toilets
Community Pride in urrent Sanitation Bt
Having and Using Infrastructure
Adoption via _
RI Financial Incentive dicareieae ol
mechanisms to pay for
Adoption via Setf- personal toilets +
Shaming Consensus Building to
Provide Space for Toilet
—— pascacemg of Construction
2 t+ Toilet Construction
+ Pressure to Adoption via Making
Construct Toilets for Financial Space Available
lours holds Incentive
Resisting Tollet
onstruction
Availability of Space 5
for Toilet Construction
Figure 9 Stage Il: Sanitation Infrastructure Dynamics
Figure 9 shows the process by which sanitation infrastructure gets adopted and used. Because of the
close linkage between sanitation and water quality, it is important to capture the nature of the sanitation
dynamics in a village to get a complete picture of water quality. In rural India, a common practice has been
open defecation. However, the effort to install sanitation units has been growing; a recent initiative by the
government called Swachh Bharat Abihyan (“Clean India”) has set aside funding for the implementation of
millions of toilets in the coming years. Given this push for sanitation by the government, both Himmotthan
and Pradan have had extensive involvement in working with communities to address their sanitation needs.
From their experiences, we were able to elicit some important factors that lead to increased toilet
construction. There are two kinds of challenges that these NGOs face concerning sanitation; installation of
toilets and actual use of toilets.
We consider that every village has a gap between the required sanitation infrastructure and the
current sanitation infrastructure; the “Sanitation Infrastructure Gap”. The larger the gap is, the easier it is to
be identified by NGOs like those in Uttarakhand, who survey communities through use of a “Healthy Home
Survey”. If there are a lot of people who need sanitation units, door-to-door advocacy for toilets increases. As
this door-to-door advocacy by NGOs increases, the awareness of funds and mechanisms to pay for toilets also
increases, and toilet construction will also increase. The door-to-door advocacy also eventually results in
consensus from community members to provide space for toilet construction. Often times, people do not own
enough land to create a toilet; they must rely on the generosity and understanding of those around them to
allocate them space for a unit. All of these factors increase the amount of toilets constructed by households,
increase the current infrastructure, and reduce the sanitation gap. As there are more and more toilets; the
sanitation infrastructure in a community eventually reaches its saturation point and less and less toilets are
constructed.
There are also other important dynamics to consider that impact people’s desire for toilets. As more
and more toilets are installed, people begin to see toilets as a status symbol and they take pride in having
their own. The more pride there is associated with having a toilet, the more people feel pressured into
constructing a toilet of their own. This reinforcing structure helps to increase the number of toilets installed
in a community. However, installing toilets is only part of the sanitation picture. There are other factors that
influence toilet use. The amount of water available impacts people's ability to use toilets; they need water to
clean and flush. Also, people often are accustomed to open defecation and resist using toilets, even if they are
available to them. Eventually, increasing social pressure will push community members to use toilets for
themselves.
Stage V: Water Quality and Health Dynamics
TOILET USE
SS
ear le
——> total Contaminants +
in Storage Water Total Contaminants
in Ingested Water
Aor)
Animal C ACTUAL Incidents of
OPERATION AND Safe water and Safe Water Practices rborne disease
MAINTENANCE hygiene practices
Ingestion of Water
from Uncontrolled
Sources
% Runoffs
Need to Work in
nae NGO Advocacy
Figure 10 Stage V: Water Quality and Health Dynamics
Figure 10 shows the water quality and health dynamics our fieldwork revealed, and synthesizes some factors
from earlier dynamics we explored. When water quality flows through a village, it generally goes from source
water, to community storage, to ingested water in the home.
Source Water
As you can see above, toilet use (which we have already elaborated on the dynamics of) directly
impacts the total contaminants in a source. We heard from both NGOs that toilet use is important because it
reduces the amount of contaminants in the water source. However, animal waste and other particles can still
enter the water source. This phenomena is highest during monsoon or rainy season; the water washes
contamination into the source.
Storage Water
Actual ongoing operation and maintenance, as described in earlier dynamics, directly impacts the
total contaminants in the community storage water. This maintenance includes chlorination, cleaning, and
maintaining a hygienic environment around the storage space. Naturally, the contaminants in the source
water will influence the number of contaminants in the storage water.
Ingested Water & Health
The storage water directly impacts the ingested water (which is stored locally in the home). Personal
safe water and hygiene practices influence the quality of this water. These practices can include boiling, hand-
washing, correct disposal of children’s waste, and more. We saw that the more contamination there was, the
more waterborne disease there was. The increase of diseases led people to practice more safe water habits
(Le. boiling) which then in turn decreased the amount of water borne diseases. NGOs also play a huge role in
encouraging safe water practices through behavior change and other means. Other factors that influence
ingested water quality are drinking water from multiple sources (which is often due to the fact they must
leave their homes and regulated water supply to work far away where it is inconvenient to bring water). .
Villagers in Rohne for instance say that their sickness rises when they are drinking water from everywhere.
TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED MODEL
The large majority of our research effort so far has been focused on uncovering the stages I-V of evolution of
rural water system described above. The next phase of our research will begin to turn this causal structure
into a working model. Figure 11 shows a conceptual stock-flow model that depicts how the five
evolutionary stages may affect water infrastructure (and hence quantity) and water quality in rural areas.
The idea here is to model the coflow of water quantity and quality that covers the flow of water and the
contamination, respectively, from water source to water ingestion, and how the various evolutionary stages
affect the system.
Infrastructure in
Disrepair
Infrastructure
‘Quality of Water
Storage
‘Quality oF
Quality of
Groundwater
-<Operation
Maintenance
Dynamics
Water ‘Quality of Water
from Community
Ti
Quality oF"
in Overhe
Tank
Figure 11 A Conceptual Stock and Flow Formulation (Evolutionary Stages as Orange Circles)
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS
In this paper, we discover the dynamics by which water systems evolve in two very different rural regions of
India. Figure 12 shows the stages of this maturation process. As a result of this research, we have come to
understand rural water systems as having different levels of maturity, thereby requiring different
interventions. In the context of our quest to create a package of practice that will determine the information
generated by the microbial ination sensor we are developing, our most important lesson is that only
those villages that are at the top of the pyramid will be able to accommodate and utilize water quality
information (i.e., where ity institutions are mature, ad itation and ient water are
present). In other places, one must first work on securing lower stages of maturity.
A
rs
a
——a
———ah
ae
Figure 12 The Evolutionary Stages for Maturation of Rural Water Systems in India
Underpinning these stages of maturity is the total potential available water in a community; water that has
the potential to be harvested from the sky, ground, or springs. We view this as an exogenous factor and thus
do not delve into dynamics governing it. Mature community institution is the underpinning required for
demanding and sustaining water system in a rural area. It is the seasoned community institution that helps
achieve the functioning water infrastructure, and is able to ensures regular and effective operations and
maintenance of water systems. Functional Infrastructure increases the amount of water available ina
community. This available water contributes to the ability of villagers to effectively use toilets. Ultimately, all
these practices (sanitation, operation and maintenance, and community institutions) form the basis for good
water quality and resulting improved health.
Strengthening some dynamics and weakening other dynamics could influence each stage of evolution.
Strategic information insertion could play a role in this. The role of what information to insert and where -
the question this research is interested in - will be answered as we further model and test the level of
influence each loop has. This is the next step in our research. Overall, this work presents a model invoked
from ethnography, and is the first model to characterize factors influencing water quality in rural India.
REFERENCES
Bono, Michael, Sydney Beasley, Emily Hanhauser, John Hart, Rohit Karnik, and Chintan Vaishnav. 2017.
“Fieldwork Determination of Design Priorities for Point-of-Use Water Sensors for Use in Resource-
Limited Environments.” presented at the Pittcon, Chicago, IL.
“Himmotthan Annual Report 2014-2015.” 2015.
“Himmotthan.in.” 2014.
“Jharkhand ata Glance.” 2013. Government of Jharkhand. http://www.jharkhand.gov.in/at-a-glance.
‘Jharkhand Population Census Data 2011.” 2015.
http://www.census2011.co.in/census/state/jharkhand.html.
Lakshminarayanan, Subitha, and Ramakrishanan Jayalakshmy. 2015. “Diarrheal Diseases among Children in
India: Current Scenario and Future Perspectives.” Journal of Natural Science, Biology and Medicine
6(1): 24 - 28.
Liu, Li, Hope Johnson, Simon Cousens, Jamie Perin, Susana Scott, Joy Lawn, Igor Rudan, et al. 2012. “Global,
Regional, and National Causes of Child Mortality: An Updated Systematic Analysis for 2010 with Time
Trends since 2000.” Lancet.
Mosler, Hans-Joachim. 2011. “A Systematic Approach to Behavior Change Interventions for the Water and
Sanitation Sector in Developing Countries: A Conceptual Model, a Review, and a Guideline.”
International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 1-19.
Peal, Andy, Barbara Evans, and Carolien van der Voorden. 2010. “Hygiene and Sanitation Software, An
Overview of Approaches.” Water Supply & Sanitation Collaborative Council, Geneva, Switzerland.
“Pradan: Building a World Where Everyone Can Live With Dignity.” 2017. www.pradan.net.
“PROMOTION OF SHG'S.” n.d. http://sirsyedtrust.com/promotion-of-shgs/.
Priiss-Ustiin, Annette, Robert Bos, Fiona Gore, and Jamie Bartram. 2008. “Safer Water, Better Health: Costs,
Benefits and Sustainability of Interentions to Protect and Promote Health.” World Health
Organization.
“The Origin: PRADAN.” 2016. Powerpoint, PRADAN office, Jharkhand, January.
“Uttarakhand at a Glance (2013 - 2014).” 2014. Government of Uttarakhand.
“Uttarakhand: State Profile.” n.d. http://uk.gov.in/pages/display/115-about-us.
APPENDIX | - FIELD RESEARCH MATERIAL
Unstructured Interview Questions
1. Can you generally describe the main ways you interact with communities regarding water and sanitation?
2. In your interactions with communities, what kind of information do you share with the community
concerning water quality? Why?
3. How detailed of a message do you think is best to share?
4. Who do you talk to in the community specifically? Why?
5. Are you expecting what you share/teach them to flow the community?
6. Is there information that you choose not to share with a community regarding water quality?
7. Can you give some specific examples of times you shared information with a communities about WASH?
8. What were the (social/economic/geographic) characteristics of each community?
9. What were some of the ways that communities responded to you sharing information with them?
10. Did they respond differently or the similarly? Why do you think this happened?
11. Did you change the message based on the community you worked in?
12. What is the most effective way to distribute information to a community? Why?
13. What are some other ways that you could spread information to a community?
14. What have been your more successful interventions? What is a project that has worked?
Can you give an example of a time that a project didn’t work?
15. What is already being told to end users?
16, Who do you think it is most beneficial to distribute water quality information to?
What interventions have been most successful? Why? Who was the major driver of that intervention?
17. How do you usually engage with a community about other topics that are important to a community? Why
do you do that? What factors have contributed to their success?
Group Model Building Protocol
Introd ions (LECTURE, 5 min)
Who weare, why are we here Participant Intro
Consent Forms (DIALOGUE, 10 min)
Description Verbal Consent
‘ater System (INDV. EXERCISE, 20 min)
i Which other sources do you What is your domestic water
‘water source? How do you use during the year? Why? ‘source?
Water Quality Perceptions (SURVEY, 5 min)
How would you rate your water quality (Low, Medium, High)
Waterborne Diseases (INDV.EXERCISE, FGD, 20 min)
‘When do waterborne diseases
GRAPH
- ee Why does the incidence go
Why does the incidence go up? dana
Contamination (FGD, 30 min)
Currently, nee does the water get Currently, what do you do for water safety?
contaminated?
°Why at sources?
°Why at homes?
fe there challenges to complying with safe practices?
SHG Involvement in Water Management (FGD, 10 min)
When was this SHG formed? Does it play a role in water management?
Inserting Water Information (SURVEY & RANK, 15 min)
