Coping with poor water supply in peri-urban Band- Band-ung, Indonesia: towards a framework for
3.8 Towards a Framework of Risk Assessment and Aversion Behaviours Based on the results of the study, we developed a framework that explains how
households in Ujungberung District assess risks and respond in order to avert risks (Figure 3.5).
Figure 3.5 Framework of risk assessment and aversion behaviours among households in Ujungberung District, Bandung City
43
3.7.3 Perceptions and attitudes towards piped water connections
We examined the perceptions of piped water connections held by: a) connected households (currently using the MWC service); b) past connected households (serviced by the MWC in the past); and c) never connected households.
Connected and past connected households have had first-hand experience of the service quality of the MWC. Households currently connected to piped water had a positive perception of the MWC service with regard to pressure level and quantity.
However, negative perceptions of the MWC predominate, regardless of households’
experience of the MWC service, and relate mainly to continuity, affordability, and water quality issues. The main concerns of connected households related to the contamination risks stemming from septic tank leakage, the poor taste and smell of piped water, and daily and seasonal continuity. Households also questioned the accuracy of water meters, which they believed led to unreasonably high bills. There were also concerns that demands for service improvements would remain unheard.
One respondent elaborated, “The water from the piped network is not available every day, perhaps once every two days, at night. Should we stay awake every night? It’s tiring. I feel that the water that we use does not fit with the numbers on our water meter. But there is nothing that can be done, they say that I still have to pay. So I paid, I don’t want any trouble.” Another householder stated, “I got tired reporting it, but at least I tried. Many others also report the problems, but the officer said that we should just accept it because there was no water there (at the source).”
Some previously connected households decided to cut off their piped water connection because the unpredictable service interrupted their daily schedules, and they had to “stay awake at night waiting for water to come”. They also believed that piped water was a potential source of conflict among neighbours: “We also fought over water with our neighbours. So we use water from the well instead.” Expense was a further reason for disconnection. MWC customers are required to pay a fixed service fee of IDR 10,000 (US$ 0.8) per month, and the monthly water bill depends on the volume of water used. Failure to pay bills resulted in network disconnection by the MWC. In these cases, reconnection requires all outstanding bills to be paid, and is charged at 15 per cent of new installation charges. The MWC Tariff Adjustment Plan explicitly states: “As part of its service improvement plan, the MWC had to shut down connections that could not be supplied and/or that did not pay the bills.”(USAID, 2006). According to the United Nations (UN), disconnections as a result of non-payment should not result in an individual being denied access to a minimum amount of safe drinking water if that individual can prove that he or she is unable to pay (United Nations, 2007b). MWC appears not to adhere to these UN principles, and access to the minimum amount to meet basic needs is not guaranteed.
We classified households based not only on their piped water connection, but also on their attitude towards this service. Figure 3.4 shows the attitudes of connected households, ranging from strong rejection to strong acceptance (see Appendix 3.1).
Almost half of the surveyed households strongly rejected piped water connections.
Figure 3.4 Households’ attitudes towards piped water connections
The interviews revealed the issues underlying this rejection. Connection charges are the primary barrier (see Banerjee et al., 2008; Kayaga & Franceys, 2007). However, this is only one among several issues that keep households from connecting to the piped water supply. Households are unlikely to install a connection if they have access to an adequate supply of non-piped water. Participants also did not believe that the MWC piped water was an improvement over their existing water sources, and believed that switching to piped water might in fact leave them “worse off”. Poor reliability mainly drove this reluctance. The MWC service is characterized by supply interruptions. As one respondent put it, “I see my neighbours, they have piped water and the water often doesn’t arrive.” This perception is supported by statistics suggesting that only 39 per cent of 129 villages in Bandung served by the MWC have a consistent, uninterrupted water supply (Bandung MWC, 2015). Households also choose to avoid monthly subscription fees and the time spent waiting for water during periods of interruption.
3.8 Towards a Framework of Risk Assessment and Aversion Behaviours Based on the results of the study, we developed a framework that explains how households in Ujungberung District assess risks and respond in order to avert risks (Figure 3.5).
Figure 3.5 Framework of risk assessment and aversion behaviours among households in Ujungberung District, Bandung City
43
“In the absence of water quality information, actual risks do not directly shape households’ perceptions of risks, nor do these risks promptly lead to the
adoption of aversion behaviours.”
Section a of Figure 3.5 relates access to water and risk exposure; for example, poor quality and poor continuity of water will expose households to risks of illness and economic losses. With regard to water quality, there is no conclusive evidence as to health risks, as indicated by two studies conducted in Ujungberung District in 2015.
Iqbal et al. measured the total coliform and faecal coliform bacteria in 77 households’
water samples (Iqbal et al., 2015). They found that refill water is not necessarily safer than piped water after boiling, and that piped water users who turn to refill water are exposed to the same level of risk. Putri et al. (2015) performed a quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) focused on the consumption of refill water and piped water. Their results demonstrated, by contrast, that piped water carries a higher probability of infection risk than refill water. Thus, based on these studies, refill water may or may not provide a higher level of protection to public health than piped water samples.
This inconsistency may be a function of the variable quality of water. Although MP Cipanjalu is able to fully eliminate the coliform present in water, for instance, recontamination may occur through the distribution line. Thus, in the absence of better water quality information, householders that did not drink piped water rationally avoided health risks stemming from microbial water contaminants. The level of risk would be easier to assess if water quality were monitored regularly by state health offices or water entrepreneurs, ensuring that it consistently complies with human usage standards, and thus providing information for household decisions. In the absence of this information, the study results indicated that actual risks do not directly shape households’ perceptions of risks, nor do they promptly lead to the adoption of aversion behaviours.
Section b in Figure 3.5 shows the interactions of experience and social networks in shaping households’ perceptions of risks. Perceptions of risk may develop via different pathways: personal experiences, shared experiences, the experiences of others, or combinations thereof. Households based their assessments of risk on their own experiences relating to the dimensions of access to water, e.g. their own exposure to poor-quality water or experiences relating to supply interruption.x Personal experience may be mediated by the socioeconomic backgrounds of individual households. We examined exactly how the socioeconomic characteristics of households affected risk beliefs among participants in Ujungberung, but the data do not reveal a clear pattern in this relationship.
Beliefs surrounding risk may also be based on a shared experience of challenges in the neighbourhood. For example, a previously connected participant decided to cut off his connection when he and his neighbours experienced similar reliability problems. “It’s not only me, almost the entire neighbourhood experiences this”, he said. The perceived risks and further adoption of aversion behaviours are not only derived from first-hand (personal and shared) experiences. Social networks also play a role in the dissemination of information about risks, and households’ behaviours were often based on this information. For example, a respondent from a household that drank water obtained from vendors stated, “Everybody says that the water that I buy is fit for drinking.”
An aversion to piped water in households never previously connected to the network is based, among other reasons, on allegations from neighbours concerning the unreliability and high cost of the MWC service. Spring water is highly regarded, partly due to local word of mouth about the results of the water quality testing performed by water entrepreneurs, rather than by individual households purchasing the water.xi According to one respondent, “People say that the spring owners take their water to the lab every three months. They have a permit. It’s very clean, people here dare to drink it directly.” The fact that some spring water entrepreneurs and refill kiosk owners test their water, and that this information is spread by locals, results in a lasting positive reputation for these sellers. Piped water originating from the MWC also undergoes regular quality testing at the point of distribution. Yet households do not appreciate the quality of piped water in the same way: “Water from the MWC is not fit for drinking, it’s filthy.” Despite the fact that the MWC’s water is tested regularly, people worry about the recontamination risk that results from the vulnerable distribution network.xii Some households also suggested that unreliable septic tank facilities may jeopardize the safety of piped water at the point of consumption.
Water origin clearly affects the perceptions of water safety. While it is taken for granted that spring water is of high quality, river water, used by MWC, is expected to be unsafe, no matter how effectively it is treated. Even an officer of the MWC responsible for quality testing in the MP Cipanjalu revealed in an interview a reluctance to drink piped water. “I saw where it comes from,” he stated.
To sum up, water-related risks are embedded in personal and shared experiences, and are disseminated by social networks. The interaction of personal experience and information on actual risk, circulated through social networks, explains households’
perceptions of risk. However, this does not explain how perceived risks lead to certain behaviours. Our findings are consonant with the classic theory of planned behaviour, in which behavioural achievement depends on both motivation and the availability of requisite opportunities and resources (Ajzen, 1991) (as illustrated in Section d of Figure 3.5). Section 3.7 of this article identified health protection and economic loss as motivators that lead to varying degrees of action. Certain strategies are selected based on an inherent expectation that risk relating to poor water supply will be reduced (Section e of Figure 3.5).
The socioeconomic capacity of households may determine their ability to adopt certain strategies, and to what degree. A recent Nepali study suggests that poverty restrains households from adopting home treatment strategies (Katuwal et al., 2015).
This supplements the findings of an older study, suggesting that years of schooling and a higher level of knowledge may lead to the adoption of filtering treatments and bottled water (Whitehead et al., 1998). Contrary to these findings, our survey found that 74 per cent of participants with an income lower than the minimum regional income boil their water, while only half of the participants in the higher-income group choose to do so. Likewise, 76 per cent of households with primary/lower secondary education treat their water, while only half of the respondents with secondary/post-secondary education do so. However, these numbers should be approached with care, since households with more income or education may be more likely to purchase bottled water, thus eliminating the need to boil. The study findings indicate that this is the case for branded bottled water, which predominates in richer households – participants with household income higher than the minimum regional
“In the absence of water quality information, actual risks do not directly shape households’ perceptions of risks, nor do these risks promptly lead to the
adoption of aversion behaviours.”
Section a of Figure 3.5 relates access to water and risk exposure; for example, poor quality and poor continuity of water will expose households to risks of illness and economic losses. With regard to water quality, there is no conclusive evidence as to health risks, as indicated by two studies conducted in Ujungberung District in 2015.
Iqbal et al. measured the total coliform and faecal coliform bacteria in 77 households’
water samples (Iqbal et al., 2015). They found that refill water is not necessarily safer than piped water after boiling, and that piped water users who turn to refill water are exposed to the same level of risk. Putri et al. (2015) performed a quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) focused on the consumption of refill water and piped water. Their results demonstrated, by contrast, that piped water carries a higher probability of infection risk than refill water. Thus, based on these studies, refill water may or may not provide a higher level of protection to public health than piped water samples.
This inconsistency may be a function of the variable quality of water. Although MP Cipanjalu is able to fully eliminate the coliform present in water, for instance, recontamination may occur through the distribution line. Thus, in the absence of better water quality information, householders that did not drink piped water rationally avoided health risks stemming from microbial water contaminants. The level of risk would be easier to assess if water quality were monitored regularly by state health offices or water entrepreneurs, ensuring that it consistently complies with human usage standards, and thus providing information for household decisions. In the absence of this information, the study results indicated that actual risks do not directly shape households’ perceptions of risks, nor do they promptly lead to the adoption of aversion behaviours.
Section b in Figure 3.5 shows the interactions of experience and social networks in shaping households’ perceptions of risks. Perceptions of risk may develop via different pathways: personal experiences, shared experiences, the experiences of others, or combinations thereof. Households based their assessments of risk on their own experiences relating to the dimensions of access to water, e.g. their own exposure to poor-quality water or experiences relating to supply interruption.x Personal experience may be mediated by the socioeconomic backgrounds of individual households. We examined exactly how the socioeconomic characteristics of households affected risk beliefs among participants in Ujungberung, but the data do not reveal a clear pattern in this relationship.
Beliefs surrounding risk may also be based on a shared experience of challenges in the neighbourhood. For example, a previously connected participant decided to cut off his connection when he and his neighbours experienced similar reliability problems. “It’s not only me, almost the entire neighbourhood experiences this”, he said. The perceived risks and further adoption of aversion behaviours are not only derived from first-hand (personal and shared) experiences. Social networks also play a role in the dissemination of information about risks, and households’ behaviours were often based on this information. For example, a respondent from a household that drank water obtained from vendors stated, “Everybody says that the water that I buy is fit for drinking.”
An aversion to piped water in households never previously connected to the network is based, among other reasons, on allegations from neighbours concerning the unreliability and high cost of the MWC service. Spring water is highly regarded, partly due to local word of mouth about the results of the water quality testing performed by water entrepreneurs, rather than by individual households purchasing the water.xi According to one respondent, “People say that the spring owners take their water to the lab every three months. They have a permit. It’s very clean, people here dare to drink it directly.” The fact that some spring water entrepreneurs and refill kiosk owners test their water, and that this information is spread by locals, results in a lasting positive reputation for these sellers. Piped water originating from the MWC also undergoes regular quality testing at the point of distribution. Yet households do not appreciate the quality of piped water in the same way: “Water from the MWC is not fit for drinking, it’s filthy.” Despite the fact that the MWC’s water is tested regularly, people worry about the recontamination risk that results from the vulnerable distribution network.xii Some households also suggested that unreliable septic tank facilities may jeopardize the safety of piped water at the point of consumption.
Water origin clearly affects the perceptions of water safety. While it is taken for granted that spring water is of high quality, river water, used by MWC, is expected to be unsafe, no matter how effectively it is treated. Even an officer of the MWC responsible for quality testing in the MP Cipanjalu revealed in an interview a reluctance to drink piped water. “I saw where it comes from,” he stated.
To sum up, water-related risks are embedded in personal and shared experiences, and are disseminated by social networks. The interaction of personal experience and information on actual risk, circulated through social networks, explains households’
perceptions of risk. However, this does not explain how perceived risks lead to certain behaviours. Our findings are consonant with the classic theory of planned behaviour, in which behavioural achievement depends on both motivation and the availability of requisite opportunities and resources (Ajzen, 1991) (as illustrated in Section d of Figure 3.5). Section 3.7 of this article identified health protection and economic loss as motivators that lead to varying degrees of action. Certain strategies are selected based on an inherent expectation that risk relating to poor water supply will be reduced (Section e of Figure 3.5).
The socioeconomic capacity of households may determine their ability to adopt certain strategies, and to what degree. A recent Nepali study suggests that poverty restrains households from adopting home treatment strategies (Katuwal et al., 2015).
This supplements the findings of an older study, suggesting that years of schooling and a higher level of knowledge may lead to the adoption of filtering treatments and bottled water (Whitehead et al., 1998). Contrary to these findings, our survey found that 74 per cent of participants with an income lower than the minimum regional income boil their water, while only half of the participants in the higher-income group choose to do so. Likewise, 76 per cent of households with primary/lower secondary education treat their water, while only half of the respondents with secondary/post-secondary education do so. However, these numbers should be approached with care, since households with more income or education may be more likely to purchase bottled water, thus eliminating the need to boil. The study findings indicate that this is the case for branded bottled water, which predominates in richer households – participants with household income higher than the minimum regional
income are five times more likely to purchase branded bottled water than those whose income is lower than the minimum regional income.
However, similar proportions of participants with income both lower and higher than
However, similar proportions of participants with income both lower and higher than