Water is life
in a life without water
A case study on heterogeneous water access
and everyday practices in Lilongwe, Malawi
A kiosk in Mtandire, area 56 of Lilongwe. Source: author
Research Master Thesis in International Development Studies
Linda Velzeboer
Supervisor: Dr. M. A. Hordijk
6067387
Second reader: Dr. K. Schwartz
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT……… III ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ……….. IV LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, MAPS AND PICTURES ……….. V
1. INTRODUCTION ………... 1
1.1 Political ecology ……….. 1
1.2 Urban political ecology and water ……….. 2
1.3 Gender in political ecology ……….. 4
1.4 Research gaps in urban political ecology ……….. 5
2.4.1 Heterogeneity within areas and everyday practices ……….. 5
2.4.2 Power as layered and diffuse ………. 5
2.4.3 Infrastructure at the neighborhood level ……….. 5
1.5 Research questions ……… 6
2. METHODOLOGY ………. 7
2.1 Epistemology and ontology ……….. 7
2.2 Mixed methods and triangulation ……… 8
2.3 Sampling and methods ………. 8
2.3.1 Sampling ……… 8 2.3.2 Methods ……… 9 2.4 Data analysis ……… 10 2.4.1 Qualitative data ……….. 10 2.4.2 Quantitative data ……….. 10 2.4.3 Spatial data ………. 10 2.5 Ethical considerations ……… 10
2.6 Critical reflection on research process ……….. 11
2.7 Research context ………. 12
2.7.1 The country of Malawi ………. 12
2.7.2 Water provision in Lilongwe ……… 12
2.7.3 Water problems and inequality ………. 14
2.7.4 Research area ………. 15
3. HETEROGENEOUS WATER ACCESS ……… 18
3.1 Theoretical framework ……….. 18
3.1.1 Inequalities within area ……….. 18
3.1.2 Everyday practices ……….. 19
3.1.3 Assumption of agency of residents ………. 19
3.1.4 Chapter layout ……… 20
3.2 Perceptions and experiences at the micro-level ………. 21
3.2.1 Kiosks ……… 21
3.2.2 Wells ………. 25
3.2.3 Boreholes ……….. 26
3.2.4 Rivers and streams ………. 28
3.2.5 Other areas ……….. 29
3.2.6 Rainwater ………. 31
3.2.7 Individual connections ………. 32
3.2.8 Summary ……… 33
3.3.1 Inequalities within the area ………. 34
3.3.2 Inequalities between areas ……….. 34
3.4 Dimensions influencing access to water at the neighborhood level ……… 36
4.4.1 Geographical location ……… 38
4.4.2 Social relations ………. 41
4.4.3 Financial resources ………. 42
3.5 Conclusion ………. 43
4. THE ROLE OF SOCIAL POWER IN CREATING HETEROGENEITY ……….. 44
4.1 Theoretical framework ………. 44
4.1.1 Power as diffuse and layered ……….. 44
4.1.2 Bundles of power ………. 45
4.1.3 Contestation and protest ……….. 46
4.2 Kiosks ……… 47
4.2.1 Who controls the kiosk system? ……….. 47
4.2.2 The fluid position of kiosk attendants ………. 50
4.2.3 The limited role of residents ……… 53
4.3 Individual connections ……… 57
4.3.1 The difficulties of getting connected ………. 57
4.3.2 Enjoying the benefits of the private tap ………. 58
4.4 Wells ………. 59
4.4.1 Independence from LWB ……….. 59
4.4.2 The importance of social relations ……… 60
4.5 Conclusion ………. 60
5. THE INFLUENCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND EVERYDAY DECISIONS ………. 63
5.1 Infrastructure in urban political ecology ……….. 63
5.2 Heterogeneous water access as historical process ……….. 63
5.3 Small pipes, little water ……… 65
5.4 Social decisions about infrastructure ………. 67
5.4.1 Kiosks as infrastructure ………... 68
5.4.2 Wells and individual connections as infrastructure ……… 69
5.4.3 Humans as infrastructure ………. 70
5.5 Conclusion ………. 70
6. CONCLUSION ……… 72
7. REFERENCES ………. 74
ANNEXES ……….. 77
Annex 1 Overview of respondents per method ……….. 77
Annex 2 Interview guide residents ……… 81
Annex 3 Interview guide kiosk attendants ……….. 82
ABSTRACT
The field of urban political ecology focuses on inequalities in urban resource flows, and explains those in terms of unequal social and technological power relations. But while it convincingly shows how these processes work between different areas of cities, inequalities within areas are largely ignored. This research explains the heterogeneous water access within low-income areas of Lilongwe, Malawi, through an analysis of everyday practices. It argues that power should be conceptualized as layered and diffuse, to be able to capture the subtle social and technological power flows between actors. The goal of the research is to show how heterogeneous water access in low-income areas in Lilongwe is created and reproduced. The study uses a mixed-methods case study design to analyze in detail the practices of different actors. Methods include semi-structured interviews, (participatory) observation, surveys and spatial mapping exercises. It is found that residents in low-income areas of Lilongwe use multiple sources simultaneously, and that they use their financial and social resources in strategic ways in their search for water. Inequality is explained by social as well as infrastructural power processes. Different actors control different bundles of power. While there are clearly more and less powerful actors, no actor is completely powerless. Access to technology and access to authority are two especially influential bundles of power that give actors the possibility to control important aspects of the water supply. This study contributes to the field of urban political ecology by showing that
heterogeneity does not only exist between, but also within areas. It creates a more detailed and nuanced understanding of how power flows in low-income areas in cities in the global South, and how inequalities in water access are created and reproduced at the
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
BoT Board of Trustees EC Executive Committee FPE Feminist Political Ecology KMU Kiosk Management Unit LIAs Low-Income Areas LWB Lilongwe Water Board
MDGs Millennium Development Goals NGOs Non-Governmental Organisations PE Political ecology
UPE Urban Political Ecology WUAs Water Users Associations
LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, MAPS AND PICTURES
Tables Page
Table 1: Perceptions of residents about kiosks 21 Table 2: Perceptions of residents about wells 25 Table 3: Perceptions of residents about boreholes 26 Table 4: Perceptions of residents about rivers and streams 28 Table 5: Perceptions of residents about other areas 29 Table 6: Perceptions of residents about rain water 31 Table 7: Perceptions of residents about individual connections 32 Table 8: Bundles of power, explanation and strand of power 45
Table 9: Power bundles per actor 60
Figures Page
Figure 1: Lilongwe city 16
Figure 2: Indication of problem areas in area 56 by LWB 40 Figure 3: Indication of problem areas in area 56 by residents 41 Figure 4: Storage capacity proportional to population per zone 65 Figure 5: Area 56 and area 47 infrastructure 67
Maps Page
Map 1: Research area 17
Map 2: Customers from a kiosk in Mtsilidza 24
Map 3: Spatial case study in Mtandire 37
Map 4: Spatial case study in Mtsilidza 38
Pictures Page
Picture 1: Kiosk in Mtandire: only one tap is working 22
Picture 2: Broken kiosk in Mtandire 23
Picture 3: Well in Mtsilidza 26
Picture 4:Well in Mtsilidza 26
Picture 5: Borehole in Mtsilidza 27
Picture 6: Lingadzi river 28
Picture 7: Pollution in Lingadzi river 28 Picture 8: Typical street in area 47 30 Picture 9: View on the new-built stadium from Mtsilidza 30
1. INTRODUCTION
The website of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s) proudly states that the target of halving the proportion of people without access to an improved water source was met in 2010, five years ahead of schedule (UN, 2014). Presented like this, the water story seems successful. However, an improved water source mainly indicates
theoretical access to water, but says nothing about inequalities. For example, someone can technically live close to a well, but can still be excluded from its use by the owner. It is this subtle inequality that I try to capture in this study. The aim is to show how people access water in low-income areas (LIAs) of Lilongwe, Malawi. People interact with each other, but also with the technology and nature around them in their search for water. Access to water is not neutral, but is full of power relations, leading to heterogeneous water access. That heterogeneous water access, and its reproduction, are the focus of this study. The study uses a urban political ecology (UPE) perspective, as will be explained below.
As mentioned before, this research took place in Lilongwe, Malawi. It is part of the UNHIDE research project of UNESCO-IHE in Delft, that explores how urban waterscapes are formed and transformed through the interaction of technological, ecological and social processes. In my research, I contribute to this goal by looking at the daily interactions of people with water and with each other, and how these interactions reproduce inequalities in the
waterscape. The rest of this thesis continues as follows. In the remainder of this chapter, the theoretical foundations are laid out, indicating the gaps in literature that this study aims to fill. Chapter two explains the methodology in detail, as well as the research context. Chapter three focuses on the heterogeneous access in the research area. Chapter four explains this heterogeneity in terms of social power relations, while chapter five looks at it from a technological, infrastructural perspective. The thesis ends with the conclusion.
1.1 Political ecology
The cross-disciplinary field of political ecology (PE) is concerned with the politics
surrounding the use and control of natural resources, and environmental change and its representations (Goldman & Turner, 2011: p. 6). Put simply, its aim is to ‘unravel the
political forces at work in environmental access, management and transformation’ (Robbins, 2011). Initially, it developed as a critique on the neutral way in which environmental
problems in developing countries were conceptualized. According to Bryant (1997), PE helped in starting to ask ‘difficult questions about the ways in which the Third World’s environmental problems are linked to elite interests and activities that perpetuate the political and economic status quo’ (p. 7). An example of a well-known, early PE study that did just this is Blaikie’s analysis of soil erosion in developing countries. He stated that his book was not neutral, because he was convinced that soil erosion is a political-economic issue (Forsyth, 2008).
By analyzing such issues, PE aims to develop an ‘integrated understanding of how environmental and political forces interact to mediate social and environmental change’ (Bryant, 1992: p. 12). Early work that focused on this dialectical relationship between environmental and social change particularly emphasized connections between
environmental mismanagement and poverty in developing countries. PE research shares a focus on power relations and on ‘political-economic processes mediating knowledge about,
and access to, natural resources’ (Goldman & Turner, 2011: p. 6). It believes that
environmental problems in developing countries are not just the result of policy failures, but of broader economic and political forces (Bryant & Bailey, 1997).
What sets PE apart from other fields addressing some form of environmental politics, is the combination of three features in its analysis. The first is ‘a commitment to incorporating understandings of the biophysical processes that underlie environmental change and the availability of natural resources’ (Goldman & Turner, 2011: p. 7). Nature is not simply seen as the context in which social conflict arise, but biophysical processes are considered part of the analysis. To understand society-nature relationships, analyzing ecological dynamics is crucial. The second feature is ‘an emphasis on understanding environmental politics as geographically and historically situated’ (Goldman & Turner, 2011: p. 7). This means using a case study approach to make explicit connections between ecological and social change in particular places. Also, political ecologists try to connect local processes to regional or global changes. The third feature is a strong commitment to social justice (Goldman & Turner, 2011). Local as well as regional and global changes in political-economic processes are needed to transform the often highly unequal relationships of power that are present in current systems (Bryant & Bailey, 1997)
So the field of PE aims to understand how social and environmental changes are influenced by environmental and political forces. Environment and politics are seen as mutually
constitutive of the social environment. This study follows some of the general characteristics of PE that are outlined above, like a focus on conflict over water access and a case study approach. However, it uses more of the concepts that are developed in the UPE literature that focuses specifically on the unequal distribution of water in cities in the global South. While PE initially developed focusing on rural, agrarian issues, the perspective is now
applied in a broader range of settings, and sub fields have emerged. UPE is one of these sub fields, and is discussed in the next section. The concepts of hydro-social cycle, urban
waterscape and socio-techno nature are also introduced.
1.2 Urban political ecology and water
UPE studies the (conflicts over) resource flows through cities. Cities are seen as sites with frequent power struggles over resources. Rather than seeing the urban as an ‘unnatural’ environment, cities are conceptualized as ‘dense networks of interwoven socio-spatial processes that are simultaneously human, material, natural…‘ (Swyngedouw, 2004: p. 9). Cities are produced environments, constantly transformed by social processes. Rapid urbanization in the global South increases struggles concerning the distribution of capital, resources and space. Swyngedouw (2009) argues that urbanization is a typical political ecological process in its transformation of space and the environment, but also of human ideas and social interactions. The process of urbanization is not only simultaneously social and natural, but is also highly uneven, with inequitable outcomes for different social groups (Bakker, 2010).
Water is seen as a metaphor for larger political, economic, social and cultural struggles in society. Water conflicts lead to fierce reactions from society, since water is essential for life and in principle non-substitutable (Bakker, 2010: p 3). Water flows are determined by a combination of hydrological processes and interventions by humans. As water scarcity in
many cities in the global South results not from an absolute lack of water (Swyngedouw, 2004), UPE sheds light on the relative distribution and power imbalances. Unequal water distribution can then be understood in terms of power relations, with some people
benefiting and others suffering. Water flows are politicized by human interventions. These interventions are led by an unequal distribution of power, from which some groups benefit and that excludes other.
As a result of both public and private utilities failing to address challenges in urban water supply in the global South, formal utilities in most countries only serve between forty and seventy percent of the urban population (Ahlers, Cleaver, Rusca & Schwartz, 2014). In parts of the city where formal utilities are not present, different agents are active to provide the residents with water. These providers are highly diverse, using different service modalities. Cities in the global South can be characterized as heterogeneous urban landscapes (Ahlers et al., 2014). Bakker uses the metaphor of ‘archipelagos’ to describe the ‘spatially separated but linked ‘islands’ of networked supply in the urban fabric’ (2003: p 337). She describes the inequality in water supply between the urban elite and the poor. For elites, water is often abundant and cheap, while the poor face scarcity every day. While elites are connected to the piped network, the poor are mostly dependent on, often informal, sources. Most households use a mix of water supply strategies (Bakker, 2003).
The three central features of PE can be recognized in the specific application of the
perspective on urban water distributions. Swyngedouw (2004) emphasizes the importance of understanding hydrological processes to explain the availability of natural resources. Also, the geographic and historic context is crucial to understand how a certain water distribution has materialized and is kept in place. Finally, Swyngedouw and Heynen (2003) stress the uneven and unjust situation in many cities concerning water. While UPE on water thus shares the general features of the broader approach, it also uses concepts that are more specific to this particular sub field. These concepts of hydro-social cycle, urban waterscape and socio-techno nature are discussed in turn.
Hydro-social cycle – The concept of hydrological cycle is used to discuss water flows across
the earth. However, Linton (2011) argues that talking about the hydrological cycle does not do justice to the political, economic, social and cultural processes surrounding water. Instead, he talks of the hydro-social cycle. Bakker (2003) mentions that institutions and practices are as important as the hydrological cycle in determining water circulation. Swyngedouw (2009) emphasizes that biophysical water changes and social changes co-determine each other. He states that ‘… hydraulic environments are socio-physical
constructions that are actively and historically produced, both in terms of social content and physical-environmental qualities’ (2009: p. 56). Social power relations that determine hydro-social transformations are crucial in understanding who has access to water and who is excluded on which basis. For Swyngedouw, it is ‘vital to examine how hydro-social transformations are embedded in and infused by class, gender, ethnic or other power struggles’ (2009: p. 57). So by using the concept of the hydro-social cycle, the inherent social nature of this resource is stressed.
Urban waterscape – While the hydro-social is a broad and general concept to describe the
to a particular place and time (Hadzovic Pihljak, 2014). Apart from this spatial and temporal dimension, it also emphasizes how political, economic and social processes interact on different scales. The waterscape concept is helpful to explore ‘the ways in which flows of water, power and capital converge to produce uneven socioecological arrangements over space and time, the particular characteristics of which reflect the power relations that shaped their production’ (Budds & Hinojosa, 2012). In this way, social power relations are both productive of, and produced by, the waterscape. Waterscapes are not just water flows, but also consist of all the institutions, water-related artifacts and imaginaries that express and embody power.
Socio-techno nature – Several authors stress the socio-techno nature of urban waterscapes.
Water providers, users, governments and policy makers interact in social and material processes in the provision of water. The context in which they do this is structured by bio-physical features, and the water flows through material technologies like pipes and pumps (Ahlers et al., 2014: p. 5). The actors involved have multiple identities, which they employ in different situations. Although these actors have a certain level of agency in interacting with service modalities, they are also constrained by technology and infrastructure, as well as by social relations of class, gender and others. What is important in understanding the socio-techno nature of the waterscape is ‘how a hybrid landscape is produced through the articulation of the bio-geophysical (water, land, topography, etc.) with the social and the technological’ (Ahlers et al., 2014: p. 8).
1.3 Gender in political ecology
In most cultures, fetching and managing water at the household level is a female responsibility (Khosla & Pearl, 2003). Collecting water is often a time-consuming and physically tiring activity for women and girls, and it prevents them from undertaking other activities like engaging in paid work in the case of women, and going to school in the case of girls (Brewster, Herrmann, Bleisch & Pearl, 2006). The practices of women concerning water are often reduced to reproductive activities, so collecting water on the household level for the family. It is less recognized that women also use water for productive purposes, like growing food. And when these activities are recognized, they are seen as informal economic activities, still not placing them in the productive sphere (Ahlers, 2005). The same holds true for the water management sector. As long as this is part of the unpaid and informal
economy, which is governed by traditional norms between male and female, women are responsible. But when it enters the paid and public domain, hierarchical rules take over, which state that men are the managers and women carry out the decisions made by men (World Water Council, 1999).
Feminist political ecology (FPE) is another PE subfield that focuses not only on power struggles, but pays specific attention to the gender dimensions in this (Elmhirst, 2011: p. 129). It calls for inclusion of gender roles in the analysis of resources and power. The role of gender is important to consider in the broader spectrum of social power relations that together determine how resources are distributed. Since water is a resource that everybody interacts with on a daily basis and that comes with gendered labour divisions, including the notion of gender in the analysis is crucial. Sultana (2009) shows that differentiated water practices of women and men can reproduce the inequalities that already exist between
them. Lilongwe is no exception in that women are almost solely responsible for fetching water for the household, so it is important to consider the notion of gender here as well.
It has to be noted, though, that gender should not be simplified to just mean women. This study takes on the definition of Ahlers, who defines gender as “the social, political and economic dimensions that socialize men and women into reproducing difference based on biological sex” (2005: p5). Important in this is that gender is produced throughout
socialization. Gender is constantly reproduced and challenged, rather than a static state.
1.4 Research gaps in urban political ecology
UPE is a useful concept to study inequalities in water distribution in cities. It acknowledges the importance of power relations in water provision, and shows how water flows to the elites rather than to the urban poor. However, there are also some elements that have not been given sufficient attention yet in PE literature. This section addresses three elements that have been under-researched so far, and that will become the focus of subsequent chapters.
1.4.1 Heterogeneity within areas and everyday practices
UPE emphasizes the differentiated water access between rich and poor residents of the city. It focuses on heterogeneous water access on the city level, between rich residents that are connected to the official supply network and the poor residents that are not. This creates archipelagos, or islands of networked supply, in cities where a majority of the population has no official access to water from the public network (Bakker, 2003). Differences in water access between different parts of the city are analyzed in terms of power relations. While this is an interesting analysis that sheds light on the power dynamics at the city level, there is less attention for heterogeneity at the neighborhood level. The distinction is often made between the rich who are connected and the poor who are not, but there are also more subtle heterogeneities within areas that are officially connected to the network (Alda Vidal, 2015). This type of heterogeneity, within one area, is the main focus of this study. To capture these inequalities at the neighborhood level, it is crucial to look at the everyday practices of actors. These practices have been largely overlooked in the UPE literature so far (Anand, 2011). The concept of everyday practices will be further explained in chapter three.
1.4.2 Power as layered and diffuse
As mentioned above, UPE often distinguishes two groups of people: those who are rich and have water in abundance, and those who are poor and have no water at all. Simply put, they distinguish between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ (Anand, 2011). So generally there is one powerful actor, or group of actors, on the one hand, and a large group of helpless poor residents on the other. All the power seems to be concentrated with this powerful actor. This binary perspective is not fit to analyze the complex and diffuse power flows that are actually at play at the neighborhood level. As will be shown in chapter four, different actors can draw on different ‘bundles’ of power at different times, and no actor is completely powerless. It is therefore crucial to see power as diffuse and layered.
1.4.3 Infrastructure at the neighborhood level
Connected to the lack of attention for heterogeneity at the neighborhood level, there is also little focus on the influence of infrastructure on that level. While the role of infrastructure in
producing and reproducing inequalities at the city level is recognized (Swyngedouw, 2006), the subtle ways in which this works within one neighborhood are unknown. Also, there seems to be a bias towards the analysis of ‘official’ types of infrastructure, that are provided by the water utility. However, as will become clear in chapter five, alternative sources are just as important in the creation and reproduction of inequalities, especially because the official sources do not function well. So in this study, the power of infrastructure is analyzed from the city level down to the neighborhood level, taking all relevant water sources and infrastructures into account. In this way, a more detailed understanding can be developed about how infrastructure produces and reproduces heterogeneity within neighborhoods. To do this, it is necessary to not only look at the material characteristics of the infrastructure, but also at the decisions that actors make about it. This shows the importance of the socio-techno nature of the waterscape.
1.5 Research questions
Following the theoretical foundations and the identified gaps in current UPE literature, the main research question is as follows:
How is heterogeneous water access in low-income areas of Lilongwe created and reproduced through everyday practices?
The main question will be answered using three sub questions:
1. How heterogeneous is the water access in Lilongwe’s low-income areas?
2. How is the heterogeneous water access created and reproduced by the social power dynamics in the everyday practices between different actors?
3. How is the heterogeneous water access created and reproduced by the infrastructure?
Each sub question will be addressed in a separate empirical chapter. Chapter three answers sub question one, chapter four sub question two, and chapter five sub question three. After these empirical chapters, the complete answer to the research question will be given in the conclusion. First, the next chapter will explain the methodology.
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Epistemology and ontology
The core argument in UPE is that nature and society are inseparable, that one cannot be studied without the other. Ontologically1, this is defensible. Even though water is
increasingly seen as separated from its social context, Linton (2010) convincingly argues that water always reflects the state of the society. Epistemologically2, however, it is important to
study these processes separately. When it concerns water quality, for example, the process of gathering knowledge needs to take place in a more positivistic way than when it concerns social relations between actors. Therefore, this study does not agree with the strong
argument of for instance Swyngedouw (2006), who argues that nature and society cannot be studied separately. Rather, it follows the more nuanced view of Forsyth (2004), who has tried to develop a PE philosophy from different paradigms.
First, he analyzes how critical realism can be combined with PE. A critical realism
perspective means that the world is conceptualized as existing independently from human thoughts of it. Much of the physical and social worlds exist regardless of whether actors observe or experience them (Fairclough, Jessop & Sayer, 2002). Social forms do not exist apart from the conceptions of agents of what they are doing, and social actions transform or reproduce social forms (Jessop, 2005: p. 44). According to Forsyth (2004), critical realism offers potential for the integration of ‘biophysically grounded explanations of environmental change with political analysis of the social framings of science’ (p. 16). So in this, it is able to combine the natural and social elements that PE aims to bring together. However, in reality the critical realism approach mainly focuses on social explanations rather than natural ones. Therefore, Forsyth (2004) believes that a critical realism approach alone is not enough to capture the philosophy behind PE.
In addition to critical realism, Forsyth (2004) draws upon insights from science and technology studies (STS). The aim of STS is to question the political neutrality and the
accuracy of representations of reality that are offered in science. It focuses on the social and political power relations that reproduce certain types of knowledge. This is similar to the goals of PE as explained in chapter two. STS also questions the boundaries between
domains, for example between society and nature. It focuses on hybridity between different types of processes that can explain certain phenomena.
Overall, Forsyth (2004) calls for a critical political ecology, in which ‘all statements about ecology have to be assessed for their political construction’ (p. 20). Critical political ecology is grounded in biophysical processes, but is also conscious of political and social
constructions of reality. Its aim is to expose the implicit political and social reasons behind seemingly neutral statements and explanations. The goal of critical political ecology
research is to increase equality in society, by generating environmental knowledge. This goal is captured in Forsyth’s (2008) words as the epistemology of social justice. This approach implies that while ontologically, nature and society are interconnected, it is also necessary to study the two domains separately.
1 Ontology is defined as the study of the underlying reality (Forsyth, 2004) 2 Epistemology is defined as the study of knowledge (Forsyth, 2004)
2.2 Mixed methods and triangulation
As Johnson and Onwuegbuzie say, ‘a key feature of mixed methods research is its methodological pluralism or eclecticism, which frequently results in superior research … (2004: p. 14). So according to them, combining different methods, both qualitative as well as quantitative, can lead to better research than when just one method is used. By
combining methods, you can use their strengths and eliminate their weaknesses, thus the overall research becomes more valid and reliable. Mixed methods is not just about the use of these different methods next to each other, but the focus lies on integrating the findings to come to a more complete understanding of the situation (Bryman, 2008). In this study, I combine qualitative interviews with a quantitative survey, and I also use participatory and spatial methods to get as complete a view as possible on the water access in Lilongwe.
Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) distinguish mixed-model and mixed-method research. The first type entails the mixing of quantitative and qualitative methods across or within the different stages of the research. My research falls in the second type, mixed-method
research, which means that qualitative and quantitative data are collected separately in the data collection process and are used to complement each other in the interpretation stage. I collected qualitative interviews as well as data from surveys and through observation and mapping, and mainly brought these different sources together when I started to interpret the data. Also, in my research I combined methods from different paradigms, but the focus lied on qualitative methods. Therefore, I would qualify my research as qualitative dominant mixed methods research (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie & Turner, 2007). I believe that qualitative methods are very suited to capture people’s experiences and opinions regarding the water provision, but other types of methods can be used to give additional or different sorts of information.
One of the purposes of mixed methods research is triangulation, meaning that different methods are combined to see if they yield similar results (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie). If results from different methods point to the same conclusions, research is generally
considered as more valid (Guion, Diehl & McDonald, 2011). In my study, I mainly triangulate my findings simultaneously, meaning that I collected qualitative and quantitative data at the same time. In the data collection phase, there was limited interaction between the different sources of data, but they complement each other in the data interpretation stage (Johnson et al., 2007). Ideally, all sources of data contribute to the same conclusions. In my research, though, I encountered some contrasting findings from my interviews and the survey. I will discuss this problem later on in the section in which I give a critical reflection on the research process.
2.3 Sampling and methods
2.3.1 Sampling
The first sampling decision made in this research was the choice for the specific research area in the city of Lilongwe. This decision was made through a combination of purposive and convenience sampling. The main criterion was that the area needed to be a LIA where most residents get their water from kiosks. I chose area 56 because the partners from
Chancellor’s College had already conducted research here, and because LWB provided me with the contact details of the WUA in this area.
Next, I used purposive sampling and snowball sampling to find the respondents in area 56. I wanted to get a good overview of the different water service modalities in the area and how they are used, so I tried to include people that use different sources. Initially, I mainly
focused on women, because they are mostly responsible for the fetching of water for their families. The most important criteria was that they were living in the area. I also asked respondents that I had spoken to if they knew somebody with a certain type of source. Later on, I also purposively interviewed men, to include their view on water provision in the research as well.
Apart from interviews with residents, I also conducted interviews with other stakeholders that are relevant for the water provision to area 56. For these interviews, I again used a combination of purposive and snowball sampling. I first defined which actors could be interesting for my research. I decided to focus on three groups of stakeholders here: staff of LWB, staff of the WUA in area 56 and the WUA network, and NGOs. I excluded government and municipality actors here, because they play a secondary role in the water provision in area 56, and because their opinions are adequately covered in other research (see Hadzovic Pihljak, 2014). The eventual conducted interviews were dependent on availability of
respondents and their willingness to speak to me. I also tried to find relevant actors through snowball sampling, so I asked respondents if they knew other actors that might be
interesting for my research.
2.3.2 Methods
As explained above, I applied a mixed methods approach in which I combined quantitative and qualitative as well as participatory and spatial methods. An overview of the number and characteristics of respondents for each method can be found in the annex (annex 1). In the first stage of my research, I walked around the research area, observed water-related practices and talked to residents. This was a good first step in understanding how residents access water, and what they think about water problems in their area.
Next, I started conducting semi-structured interviews with residents and kiosk attendants. The topic lists can be found in the annex (annex 2 and 3). In every interview, I covered these topics, but I also made sure that there was enough space for respondents to bring in topics that they found important. Apart from the interviews, I conducted participatory observation to experience the practice of fetching water and to see how this is done by residents. After I had collected the majority of the interviews, I started with participatory spatial methods, combined with semi-structured interviews. I walked to different sources with the
respondent and mapped the locations with a GPS. At every point, I asked some questions about the use of these sources and the respondent’s perceptions.
Towards the end of the research, I used another participatory mapping exercise to show where customers of two randomly chosen kiosks come from. In the semi-structured
interviews, residents told me that large differences exist in the distance that people have to walk to their main kiosk. I used this method to visualize these differences spatially. I started at the kiosk, and asked people that were fetching water there if they could show me their houses. I walked with them to their house, mapped the location with a GPS and asked them some short questions. In this stage, I also developed a survey that was conducted by two Malawian students that I hired. The survey questions can be found in the annex (annex 4).
In the last week of my fieldwork, I organized a focus group for residents and one for kiosk attendants, to discuss preliminary findings and ask about things that were unclear. I also asked the two groups to indicate on a paper map where they think the main problems are within their area, where residents go to from which parts of the area, and what possible solutions could be. Through this exercise, the problems that people spoke about became spatially visible and it was easier to connect stories and places.
The data collection from other stakeholders was done through semi-structured interviews. Towards the end of the research, I asked respondents to do the same exercise with the paper map as the residents and the kiosk attendants. In this way, the differences in
perceptions between actors become clear. Finally, I also used secondary sources to gather data, like reports, newspaper articles and census data.
2.4 Data analysis
2.4.1 Qualitative data
Most of the semi-structured interviews with residents were recorded with a voice recorder. Towards the end of the research, some interviews were conducted without the recorder, and the most important points were written down. The focus groups were also conducted without the recorder, to make sure that the respondents felt comfortable and at ease to say what they wanted. Notes were made about what was discussed. All interviews and focus groups were transcribed in full and coded in Atlas.ti. Some of the codes were already defined before the coding, while others came up during the coding process.
2.4.2 Quantitative data
The survey answers were entered in Microsoft excel. Because the analyses that were needed for the research were quite basic, they were carried out in excel as well. Initially, I planned to analyze them in SPSS, but because I encountered some problems with the survey data I chose to keep analyses limited. I doubt the reliability of my survey data, as I will explain later, so in the end they play a smaller role in the outcomes than I envisaged before.
2.4.3 Spatial data
The spatial data that I collected with a GPS device were imported on my computer and into ArcGIS. There, I created several maps that show for example the route that residents take to access water, or the locations of the houses of kiosk customers.
2.5 Ethical considerations
As with all research, I had to keep some ethical considerations in mind during data collection and analysis. First, it is crucial to have informed consent from all respondents. I ensured this by always explaining the purpose of my research, what I would use the data for and that the respondent could stop participating at any moment. Also, I respected the privacy of
respondents. Some respondents said they would prefer to not be mentioned with their real names in the research, because they were afraid that LWB would disconnect them or their neighborhood. Other respondents, though, urged me to use their real name in the final report, because they want to show their discontent with certain issues. So I respected the respondents’ choices, and mixed real names with pseudonyms.
Another issue that I had to deal with were the expectations of improvement. I noticed very early on in the fieldwork that with my presence as a white, Dutch researcher certain expectations were triggered. Residents expected me to solve the problems, because why else was I there asking questions about water? Since they also perceived me as rich, I was asked for money for water frequently. I found this very difficult in the beginning, because I could not improve the situation for them in any direct way. I tried to be very clear to every respondent that I could not help them directly, but that I was very interested in their perceptions. In the final week of my fieldwork, I presented my findings to the management of LWB, to make them aware of the perceptions of residents. However, I do feel that it is not enough to compensate the time that respondents have given to me.
2.6 Critical reflection on research process
As with every research, I had to make choices that might have impacted the quality of my work. First, I chose one area in Lilongwe to focus on. While it seemed typical for a LIA in Lilongwe, it is possible that the problems are very specific to this area. I tried to find this out by also conducting several interviews in two other LIAs. Although the exact situation
differed per area, in general all three areas experienced problems of water shortages. So in that sense, I believe my research area is typical for Lilongwe. Second, the season in which I conducted research may have influenced the results. I was in Malawi in the dry season, that lasts from April to November. Especially towards the end of the dry season, water becomes very scarce. It is therefore possible that residents perceived the problems to be very bad, while they may have perceived them differently in other periods of the year. On the other hand, doing research in this season is very interesting, because it brings out the tensions more clearly.
Another issue is the reliability of my findings. Many residents distrust LWB, because they feel they do nothing to solve the problems. Since I asked several questions about LWB, some residents thought I was working for the utility. This might have influenced their answers to my questions. To prevent this, I always explained clearly that I was doing research as a student from the University of Amsterdam. However, it remains possible that some respondents did not believe this and have not told me what they really think. Related to this are the contradictions in the findings from the interviews and the survey. For
example, one question in the survey was whether people believed that LWB was doing a good job in their area. A majority of respondents answered yes. But when I asked this same question in a semi-structured interview, almost everybody said no. It is possible that
respondents of the survey also thought that the survey was for LWB. It is also possible that they gave the answer which they thought I would like most. To deal with this, I have given more weight to the answers from the semi-structured interviews. I mainly use the survey for more numerical data.
One final consideration is the use of a translator. Although one of the official languages in Malawi is English, most people speak Chichewa as their first language, especially in the LIAs. For the interviews with other stakeholders, I did not use a translator most of the time, except for the interviews with some of the WUA staff. All interviews with residents were conducted together with a translator. This was very convenient both for me and for the respondent, but it might have influenced the results. Of course, there is more room for different interpretations if the information goes through more channels. However, I feel
that the influences from the translator have not impacted on the quality of my research. The surveys were translated from English in Chichewa by my translator as well, and after that orally conducted in Chichewa by two Malawian students that I hired. The open-ended answers in the survey were translated back again by my translator.
2.7 Research context
Before the empirical analysis starts in the three subsequent chapters, this last section
provides information on the research context. First, relevant general facts about Malawi as a country and its water policies are discussed, followed by an explanation of the current situation regarding water provision in Lilongwe. Next, the focus shifts to the problems that Lilongwe faces with regard to water, and how this influences inequality in the city. Lastly, a detailed description of the research area within Lilongwe is given.
2.7.1 The country of Malawi
The Republic of Malawi is a sub-Saharan African country neighboring Tanzania, Mozambique and Zambia. It has a population of 15.9 million, of which an estimated 700.000 to 800.000 people live in its capital city Lilongwe (World Bank, 2014). The poverty headcount ratio at the national poverty line is 50.7 percent. In the Human Development Report of 2013, Malawi is ranked as the 18th least developed country worldwide (UNDP, 2014).
Malawi gained independence from Great Britain in 1964. Following independence, the country was ruled by president Banda and his Malawi Congress Party under an absolute rule system, which was kept in place by the country’s elites (Kaspin, 1995). After popular
movements and demonstrations, the first free presidential elections were held in 1994. At the time of independence in 1964, Malawi’s capital city was Zomba, located in the south. In 1965, the government announced that Lilongwe would become the capital instead. The relocation of the capital had three main reasons: Zomba’s location was not central enough, the government wanted to create more regional equality, and president Banda came from the region of Lilongwe (Potts, 1985). Lilongwe officially became the new capital in 1975.
Following worldwide trends, Malawi started decentralizing certain responsibilities to the district level after the multiparty elections of 1994. In 1998, the country enacted the Local Government Act, which transferred authority from the national government to the district and municipality levels (Ferguson & Mulwafa, 2001). Starting from 1994, Malawi also changed its environmental legislation towards the encouragement of community
management for natural resources. Among those is the management of water resources. In the most recent National Water Policy of 2005, local participation and decentralization are mentioned as important principles, along with private sector participation (Hadzovic Pihljak, 2014). Privatization, another global water trend, has however not fully materialized yet in Malawi. Public water utilities were commercialized, but not privatized, in 1995 with the Water Works Act. The private sector now takes part in some processes of water distribution (Hadzovic Pihljak, 2014).
2.7.2 Water provision in Lilongwe
Because it was announced ten years in advance that Lilongwe would become the new capital, there was time to carefully plan the city’s layout. Very strict zoning of different land uses was adopted, also including zoning between different types of residential areas (Potts,
1986). So class differences between residents in the city were visual from where they live, right from the beginning of the city’s development. Potts (1986) predicted that this would create a city in which residents from different classes hardly interact. This prediction has come true if one looks at the current situation. Richer areas are carefully separated from poorer areas. Moreover, the large distances between areas, that are the result of the Garden City design, prevent mobility, maintaining a certain separation between different classes of residents.
Nowadays, Lilongwe is divided into 58 areas. The Lilongwe River separates the city in two main parts. In the north there is the City Center, where the ministries are located, and in the south there is Old Town, the commercial center of the city. The statement of Potts that ‘the lack of spatial integration hinders perception of the city as a cohesive whole’ (1986: p. 230) still holds true. The different areas all feel like little islands on their own, and there is little interaction between different parts of the city. The distances between areas are too far for walking, which limits the mobility of residents who cannot afford transport. Interestingly, in the planning documents of the city council, Lilongwe was projected to grow towards the north, where the international airport is located. Instead, it has been growing towards the south. The city has been growing at a rate of 4,3 percent per year in the last decade (NSO, 2008).
These conditions pose challenges to the Lilongwe Water Board (LWB), the water utility that is responsible for the water provision in the entire city. In the next section I will focus more on the city’s water problems, but first, I explain a little more about LWB and the
organization of Lilongwe’s water system. LWB was set up in 1947, and is currently mandated to supply drinking water to Lilongwe. It abstracts raw water from the Lilongwe River. Two dams have been constructed along the river. The raw water is treated in one of two Treatment Plants located in area 3 of Lilongwe, where the headquarters of LWB are also located. The plants have a combined treatment capacity of 95,000 m3 per day (LWB, 2015).
LWB does not provide universal coverage throughout the city. It says that it currently serves seventy percent of the population, either through a direct connection or through kiosks3
(LWB, 2015). So thirty percent of the residents relies on other sources for their daily water. Basically, the waterscape consists of LWB as public, commercialized utility, water kiosks run by LWB, private individuals and Water User Associations (WUAs), and boreholes and shallow wells run by individuals or organizations (Chirwa & Junge, 2007; Hadzovic Pihljak, 2014). The water supply system of the LWB has gradually developed through the city, depending on the importance of a certain area for the functioning of the city.
Most residents in LIAs of Lilongwe are not connected individually to the public network, but get their water from LWB through water kiosks. These kiosks were partly run by Kiosk Management Committees before 2006, but mismanagement of money led to large debts to LWB.4 LWB disconnected kiosks in response, which left residents without safe water source.
As a solution, the NGO WaterAid proposed a new arrangement for the management of kiosks. Six WUAs were established, and the Kiosk Management Unit (KMU) within LWB
3 According to the study of Hadzovic Pihljak (2014), LWB serves 78 percent of the population if direct and
indirect coverage are combined.
would provide oversight as well as training and facilitation in legal matters. The WUAs are in charge of 402 kiosks, individual kiosk operators own 80 kiosks and around 144 kiosks are operated by the LWB itself. WUAs consist of three bodies, which are the Board of Trustees, the Executive Committee and the Secretariat. WUAs employ meter inspectors and kiosk attendants. They work normal hours and receive salaries as well as pensions.5
Chirwa and Junge (2007) consider the WUAs as a successful model for managing the kiosk system. The formal status of the WUAs, with NGOs and the KMU involved as well, is seen by them as more effective in preventing political interference, elite capture and the misuse of money. However, the work of Hadzovic Pihljak (2014) shows that there are some
discrepancies in the goals of the WUAs and the execution. The pricing of water, for instance, is influenced in such a way that consumers of LIAs end up paying more for their water than other groups of consumers. The WUAs buy bulk water from the LWB for a subsidized price. However, the intermediate level of the WUAs adds costs to the LWB price. In principle, the WUAs cannot change prices by themselves. In practice, they are able to do this, though, by adding additional costs for salaries and honoraria (Hadzovic Pihljak, 2014).
To improve their financial situation, WUAs not only argue for kiosk water price increases to pay the attendants, but also advocate for lower bulk water prices. Interestingly, the main argument for this is to keep the prices low to benefit the poor consumers (Hadzovic Pihljak, 2014). WUAs are aware that the prices of their water are too high for some people, but they seem to find the wellbeing of their attendants more important. LWB also knows that kiosk consumers pay three times more for their water than wealthier citizens, but they argue that the WUAs are needed as intermediary because residents are not able to organize water provision themselves.6 Apart from these discrepancies between goals and execution, later
chapters will also show that WUAs suffer from elite capture and political interference.
2.7.3 Water problems and inequality
The whole city of Lilongwe experiences water problems in the form of water shortages. Since 2013, the daily demand for water from the entire city is around 75,000 m3. The two Treatment Works that are located in the premises of LWB in area 3 are capable of producing 95,000 m3 per day. However, the non-revenue water is around 35 percent, meaning that an average of 61,000 m3 is available for distribution through the system (Hadzovic Pihljak, 2014). This implies a daily deficit of 14,000 m3. The bottleneck is the capacity of the Treatment Plants, rather than the availability of water at the source. Apart from the absolute daily water shortage in the city of Lilongwe, LWB also faces other problems. They need to deal with irregular power supply, old infrastructure that breaks frequently,
vandalism of pipes and other infrastructure, and the degradation of water quality in the Lilongwe river (Hadzovic Pihljak, 2014).
So there are several problems with the water supply in Lilongwe. However, there are large differences between areas in the severity of these problems. During my stay in Lilongwe, I lived in a high-income residential area. It happened multiple times a week that the water stopped for some hours, but it almost always returned the same day. When there was a more serious shortage, that lasted for two days, LWB came with a large truck to fill our
5 Interview 92: Mr. Edward Kwezani 6 Interview 107: Mr. Edward Kwezani
buckets, so that we at least had some water. In my research area, the kiosks were dry most times I visited. The shortages often lasted three or four days in a row, and sometimes even a week. And though there was no water at the kiosks for a week, I have not seen the big trucks from LWB, and residents told me they have never seen the trucks either. This problem shows the inequality between areas in terms of water supply. These types of inequalities are well-documented in UPE literature. However, there is less attention for heterogeneity within one area. To analyze such inequalities in detail, I focused on one area of Lilongwe in particular. The characteristics of that area are laid out in the next section.
2.7.4 Research area
This research focuses on a LIA in the west of Lilongwe, area 56. Within this area, there are two smaller areas, called Mtsilidza and Mtandire. These two parts are similar in their
appearance and in the type of people that live there. 39 percent of the residents of the area owns the house they live in, while the other 61 percent rents it.7 36 percent of the
population has electricity in their homes. The average household size is five people, while sizes range from one to ten people. The average family has been living in the area for
twenty years, which shows that the area is the permanent home for many people. While the average family income is not known, the area is classified as a low-income, or high density area. When asked who is responsible for fetching water for the family, 92 percent of the residents says this is one of the women in the household. And when asked who is the main cost winner of the family, 92 percent indicates that the man in the household is responsible for this. This shows the fixed gender roles of men and women in the community.
The research area is shown in the two maps below. The city map shows that the piped water network, represented by the purple lines, is limited in this area, especially in the more remote parts. In the map of the research area, the low population density in Mtsilidza and Mtandire is remarkable, considering that it is one of the most densely populated areas of Lilongwe. The area was populated by 36,642 inhabitants in 2008 (Sarpong Boakye-Ansah), but has probably grown considerably since. In the area, a majority of the residents relies on kiosks that are managed by WUAs for most of their daily water. Apart from kiosks, they also use wells, boreholes and rivers. On the other side of the road, there is a high-income
residential area, area 47, that is also used by residents of area 56 as an additional water source when the water in their area is scarce. Residents’ perceptions and experiences regarding these different sources are discussed in detail in the next chapter.
7 Source: survey conducted under 150 residents of area 56. This survey is also the source for the other
Figure 1: Lilongwe city
Map 1: Research area
3. HETEROGENEOUS WATER ACCESS
The previous chapter has provided information on the unequal conditions in Lilongwe’s water supply on the city level. This chapter aims to show that inequalities also exist within areas. It focuses on residents’ perceptions and everyday practices to access sufficient water for their families. The chapter argues that water access in LIAs is highly heterogeneous, and that it is dependent on resources and strategies of residents. The chapter first provides the theoretical framework, and then continues with the empirical sections, structured by source.
3.1 Theoretical framework
3.1.1 Inequalities within areas
As explained in the theoretical framework, UPE focuses on the role of power in the creation and reproduction of inequalities in cities. The process of urbanization not only increases the number of people living in cities, but it also leads to unequal outcomes in water provision for different social groups in the society (Bakker, 2010). Several studies show that in many cities, water flows towards money and power (Swyngedouw, 2004; Swyngedouw & Heynen, 2003). This uneven distribution leads to some people having water in abundance, while a majority does not have enough to fulfill basic needs (Swyngedouw, 2004).
UPE is able to argue convincingly that these disparities do exist in many cities. However, it mostly focuses on the binary distinction between the one powerful actor who has it all, and the repressed poor residents. So a distinction is made between the rich who are connected to the official water supply, and the poor who are not. This creates archipelagos, or islands of networked supply, in cities (Bakker, 2003). However, in the research area of this study, people are officially connected to the network, either through kiosks or private taps. So rather than having parts of the city with supply and parts without, there are variations within one officially supplied area (Alda Vidal, 2015). That heterogeneity is the focus of this chapter. To be able to study this heterogeneity at the neighborhood level, it is crucial to look at everyday practices of residents in their daily access to water.
Some authors in UPE recognize the relevance of everyday practices for the field. For example, Ekers and Loftus (2008) argue that using the work of Gramsci and Foucault can lead to a better understanding of urban water provision and water politics. Although large differences exist between Gramsci and Foucault, they share a focus on interactions between everyday practices and larger ideologies and power. Ekers and Loftus (2008) state that both water itself and the associated water practices work to ‘distribute power through the capillaries of the water network’ (p. 710). This again shows the inseparability of nature and society. They further argue that by bringing together Gramsci’s theorization of everyday practices and Foucault’s emphasis on practices, power and knowledge, more nuanced understandings of everyday water practices can develop. However, the problem with this theoretical argument is that it does not discuss what these everyday practices are, and how they should be operationalized. Therefore, it has limited relevance for empirical research.
In FPE, there is also more attention for everyday practices. This strand of literature connects these practices specifically with social identity and gendered subjectivities. Social
differences are not fixed, but are emergent and produced through people’s everyday
practices (Nightingale, 2011). This continual production of social differences also means that subjectivities are not fixed. To understand the multiple power dimensions at play, one needs to look at the intersection of the material and the symbolic. Symbolic achievements cannot be separated from embodied performances, and social identities are inextricably connected to contexts (Nightingale, 2011). So it is through everyday practices that social differences come into being, but these social differences also influence everyday practices, depending on the context. This perspective is especially useful to understand how social differences and everyday practices are connected.
3.1.2 Everyday practices
So in UPE, there is little attention for everyday water practices to analyze inequalities within areas. However, there are some noticeable exceptions. Peloso and Morinville provide a useful definition of everyday practices of water and see them as ‘’multiple’, ‘repetitive’ actions that people engage in that enable water access to be managed and extended to those otherwise cut off from a secure supply’ (2014: p. 122). In their case study in the Greater Accra Metropolitan Area in Ghana, they explore the everyday practices of residents of informal settlements to obtain their daily water. They find that basic access to water is constructed through ‘an assemblage of coping strategies and infrastructures’ (Peloso & Morinville, 2014: p. 121).
Similarly, Zug and Graefe (2014) adopt the concept of everyday practices to explain the role of water gifts as an access strategy in peri-urban areas of Khartoum, Sudan. In a detailed analysis of the local waterscape, they show that many residents use water gifts as a strategy to reduce water costs, or simply as a way to become more water secure. Water access is highly heterogeneous in peri-urban areas, and residents use water gifts as one strategy to optimize their access on a daily basis (Zug & Graefe, 2014).
The last study discussed here that uses a micro-perspective approach similar to this study is carried out by Anand (2011). In his research on Mumbai’s water supply, he focuses on everyday practices as well, and he shows how city dwellers in informal settlements access water. He wants to move beyond the binary between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’, and claims that there are many more complexities in real life. What is particularly interesting for this study is his attention for the heterogeneity of residents, who respond in different ways depending on their social position and available resources.
The three articles discussed above have in common that they focus on everyday practices to show the heterogeneity of water access within areas. While most research in UPE explains the water inequalities on the city level, there is generally no attention for the heterogeneity on the neighborhood level. With the micro-perspective taken in the three studies above, it becomes possible to connect these city-level inequalities to the individual water struggles of poor residents.
3.1.3 Assumption of agency of residents
In this study, a lot of attention is placed on the everyday practices of residents of LIAs and their heterogeneity in terms of strategies and resources. This perspective implies using an actor-oriented approach, assuming a certain amount of agency of actors. The aim of this
approach is to get a clearer understanding of how residents of LIAs perceive, describe and experience the water provision in their areas. It is assumed that residents can use their knowledge and resources in developing strategies that optimize their water access.
The actor-oriented approach and the assumption of agency of actors are also visible in the three studies described above. In the research of Peloso and Morinville, it is clear that they see the residents in Ghana as having agency. They use the focus on everyday practices to ‘examine the actions that people take to improve their water security, by utilizing and resisting different features of the water network’ (2014: p. 122). Similarly, Zug and Graefe (2014) present water gifts as a deliberate strategy of residents to improve their water access. And Anand (2011) shows that residents react in multiple ways to the deficiencies in the formal water network, depending on their resources. All these studies assume that residents have agency in securing their access to water, similar to this study.
However, while agency of all actors is an important assumption in this research, the influence of structure cannot be ignored. There are certain conditions that determine how residents can behave. These conditions, or structures, are not fixed though, and are subject to changes. Sewell (1992) provides a workable definition of structure, that fits well in the objectives of this study. As he says, ‘those features of social existence denominated as structures tend to be reified and treated as primary, hard, and immutable, … while the events or social processes they structure tend to be seen as secondary and superficial’ (1992: p. 2). To overcome this, there should be more attention for human agency. Another problem with the concept of structure is that it is well-fitted to explain existing social
patterns, but that it cannot explain how such patterns change over time. Therefore, it is also important to not see structures as stable conditions, but as subject to change, mostly
through human agency.
To see structure in such a way implies a certain definition of agency as well, in which agency is not opposed to structure, but rather constituent of it. Sewell (1992) explains what this means for the human agent: ‘to be an agent means to be capable of exerting some degree of control over the social relations in which one is enmeshed, which in turn implies the ability to transform those social relations to some degree […] agency arises from the actor's control of resources …’ (p. 20). This implies that the agency that actors can exercise depends on their resources. Lastly, agency is both collective and individual. Every person has agency, but this personal agency is largely dependent on differences of power that are produced by society at large. For example, men in developing countries often have more collective agency stemming from their position in society as opposed to women (Sewell, 1992).
3.1.4 Chapter layout
The remainder of the chapter is built up as follows. First, perceptions and practices of residents of LIAs are described, structured by water source. Next, their perceptions regarding inequalities, both within the area and between areas, are explored. Then the chapter goes on to focus on the heterogeneity of residents, through an analysis of the resources that have an influence on personal water access. This is illustrated by several case studies. The chapter ends with a conclusion.
3.2 Perceptions and experiences at the micro-level
This section explains how and when residents of area 56 use the different sources in their area, and what their perceptions about these sources are. To structure the use and
perceptions, different dimensions of the water provision are used, which are access, costs, quality and quantity. These are described by Obeng-Odoom (2012) as ‘deep’ dimensions, meaning that they go beyond mere coverage to also include other elements that play a role in improving the general water situation. When considering access, it is important to look at things like distance to and reliability of a source. And costs do not only include financial costs, but also time and effort. The quality of a source should be good enough for drinking, and residents should be able to get as much water from it as they want. All these elements are not considered in the concept of coverage, but they are taken into account in this study. Next, the use and perceptions of each available water source will be discussed.
3.2.1 Kiosks
Table 1: Perceptions of residents about kiosks
Access 100 percent of respondents use kiosks at some moment8
47 percent reports that kiosks have no water for 6 days or more per month
Distance to kiosk varies for different parts of the area
Many kiosks are broken or disconnected Quality Quality perceived as very good
Less than 1 percent reports sickness from kiosk water Quantity On average one family uses 140 liters per day
The average family size is five, meaning that one person uses on average 28 liters per day
Difficult to fill enough buckets because of queues
Costs Kiosk water expensive: families spend 55 kwacha per day
60 percent feels that fetching water is physically heavy
Average time spent on fetching water is 112 minutes per day
Source: author’s survey and interview data collected from August to November 2014
Kiosks are the main source of water for most families in area 56. A majority says that they prefer to use kiosk water for all uses, including washing clothes and cleaning. The official opening hours of kiosks are from 6 to 10 am, and then again from 3 to 6 pm. However, the water runs out at the kiosks often. Although kiosks in some parts of the area have water more often than in other parts, in general the water stops on multiple days a week, throughout the year. As one woman says:
“On average, the kiosk runs out for three to four days a week. This is not dependent
on the season, it happens all year. At this place, it doesn’t matter which month it is, the kiosks are dry every week.”9
8 Source: survey with 150 respondents, area 56. Survey is used for all subsequent numbers in tables in chapter. 9 Interview 47: Dione Mangampa. As was also mentioned in the methodology chapter, the interviews were
