Stage D : Individual Case Interviews (ICI), Main Study Results and Analysis

This section presents the main study findings of Individual Case Interviews, from 39 end-user respondents. These findings are analysed using scores of maintenance categories on likert- type of scales.

4.5.2.1 Scoring Maintenance Categories

Stage D, using singular case interviews, was the second set of data collection/ analysis and sought to understand more of the category developed in Stage C. Stage D section presents a profile of each category from individual case interviews carried out in 9 hand-pumps of Nkhoma, and Bvumbwe projects areas. Though 4 main categories were identified in Stage C through CI, 8 questions were devised to allow some categories to be asked from different angles and generate as much information as possible. Stage D involved reporting on scoring relating to these three areas.

179 1. The level of categories

2. The impact the category had on hand-pump maintenance or 3. The influence of the categories on the pump maintenance.

In ICIs (Stage D) we understood or cross checked more of end-users views about the pump maintenance categories, developed during CI (Stage C). This second set of respondents asked if end -users identified or accepted the category to have operational maintenance impact on hand-pumps or perceived something differently. To explore and understand data, this section will be presented in a form of charts or graphs to help in identifying the mode- thus the most frequent item in each category. Categories were grouped according to objectives: whether they enabled or hindered hand-pump maintenance.

180

4.5.2.2 Factors that Drive Maintenance of Hand-pumps

Results from the CI category (Stage C) show that one of the categories which drive pump-maintenance was end-user cash and labour contributions and tracing of defaulters. The next section presents the extent to which respondents in ICIs ranked this category to influence hand-pump maintenance.

4.5.2.3 End-user Cash & Labour Contributions Drive Hand-pump Maintenance

Figure 15 ranks household contributions for the maintenance of hand-pumps between the case study areas.

Figure 15: End-user Cash and Labour Contributions

4.5.2.4 Monthly Household Cash as a Maintenance Category

The researcher investigated end-user knowledge and perceptions of labour and financial contributions. Findings show that 26 respondents in Bvumbwe (see appendix 5 page 294) and 20 respondents in Nkhoma ranked monthly cash contributions as the highest factor to

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Monthly Cash Contributions

Labour Contributions No Cash/Labour Contributions

Nkhoma Bvumbwe

181

influence hand-pump maintenance. When asked to make a comment why they ranked household monetary contributions as a main issue, respondents EU1, 2, 13, 14, 26, 40, 6, 19, 31, 47, 7, 20, 32 and 48 stated that they had seen that contributed funds were used to repair the hand-pump after respondents had participated in the required economic contributions of £0.3 to £1 each household per month. This information was also verified by EU 45,47 and 49 who were local government/NGO workers at the village level. Total contributions for each village or group village at the time of the study ranged from K3100 (£15) – K30 000 (£120). £120 in such areas is a monthly wage of a junior government official in Malawi. End-user financial contributions were encouraged because both Nkhoma and Bvumbwe areas had NGOs which required local people to contribute funds for servicing, repairing, rehabilitation or replacement of hand-pumps. Respondents commented that some parts of the hand-pump failed within 6 months of hand-pump installation hence end-users were required to have funds ready for maintenance before the asset was even installed. The above figure demonstrates that respondents in Stage D strongly agreed or ranked that end-user casual financial contribution was a factor enabling hand-pump maintenance as initially suggested by respondents in CI section. The next section explains views of ranking end-user labour provision.

4.5.2.5 Labour Contributions as a Maintenance Category

Labour contribution was ranked as the second most important factor contributing to pump maintenance as perceived by 8 respondents in Nkhoma (EU 13,14,15,16,26,27,28 and 29) and 11 in Bvumbwe ( EU 5,7,8,18,19,30,7,21,20,46,&49). EU 5, 18, 30,46,16,29 and 45 further commented that labour contribution was in a form of fund raising through communal gardening. In the Bvumbwe case group of end-users were hired for labour in the farms, and the farmers made payment straight to the water committee, as this was an arrangement with water committees. Respondents (41,44,16,29,45,5,18,30 and 46 ) commented that they did

182

not afford to pay a monthly subscription fee instead were involved in ‘ganyu’ or casual labour with farmers who paid for such money directly to the water account after harvest of soya, ground nuts or maize. Labour contributions also involved clearing the hand-pump area in a form of cutting trees/grass, moulding of bricks, supplying sand and gravel for constructing the hand-pump.

End-users (EU 5, 18, 30,46,16,29 and 45) commented, ‘ labour is sometimes in a form sand,

stones, quarry and clearing the ground to construct the hand-pump’. Ground clearing was

also reported to involve cutting the trees and clearing the grass. Once the hand-pump was installed labour also involved creating the soak way, drainage, daily sweeping the premises, creating the platform for laundry of clothes and fencing the area with bricks or straw to protect the hand-pump from being vandalised by animals. When asked to comment about labour provision, respondents (5, 18,30,16,29 and 47) stated of their willingness in both Nkhoma and Bvumbwe because they described a working hand-pump to have saved them from of cholera during the rainy season.Willingness to contribute showed that end-users had personal motivation for hand-pump maintenance. This section suggests end-user provision of labour ranked as a second item in comparison to finances, in contributing to hand-pumps. Though labour is willingly done, there was still a small proportion that did not contribute.

Figure 15 also shows that 5 respondents in (EU) 42,44,45 and 46) in Kapsyepsye and 3 respondents (EU 23,25 and 26) in Kamjeda neither ranked cash/labour as a factor of pump maintenance nor did they participate in a contribution to hand-pump repairs. When asked why they did not contribute respondents (EU42, 44, 45 and 46) commented that their unwilling was conditioned of their perception of feeling they were forced, or they thought the water committee would embezzle the money. Unwillingness or failure to contribute was mainly because of discouragement after failure to maintain hand-pumps or vandalism (as seen from Kapsyepsye 2 villages). End-users who did not contribute were particularly seen in