Rural Domestic Water Consumption Behavior

(1)

Available at www.sciencedirect.com Available at www.sciencedirect.com

jo

joururnanal l hohomemepapagege: : wwwww.w.elelsesevivierer.com.com/l/lococatate/e/wawatrtreses

Rural domestic water consumption behavior: A case study

in Ramjerd area, Fars province, I.R. Iran

A.R.

A.R. Keshavarzi

Keshavarzi

a,a,ÃÃ

, M. Sharifzadeh

bb

, A.A. Kamgar Haghighi

aa

, S. Amin

aa

,,

Sh. Keshtkar

aa

, A. Bamdad

aa

a a

Water Department, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, I.R. Iran Water Department, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, I.R. Iran

b b

Agricultural Extension and Education, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, I.R. Iran Agricultural Extension and Education, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, I.R. Iran

a r t i c a r t i c l e l e i n f oi n f o Article history: Article history: Received 6 May 2005 Received 6 May 2005 Received in revised form Received in revised form 28 December 2005 28 December 2005 Accepte

Accepted d 16 16 JanuJanuary 2006ary 2006

Keywords: Keywords:

Domestic water use Domestic water use Rural households Rural households

Rural water consumption Rural water consumption Ramjerd Ramjerd Iran Iran A B S T R A C T A B S T R A C T Iden

Identiftifyinying g the the factfactors ors thathat t affeaffect ct domdomestiestic c watwater er demdemand and and and conconsumsumptiption on is is ververyy important in management of available regional water resources. In this study, relationships important in management of available regional water resources. In this study, relationships between water consumption and rural household activities are determined by comparing a between water consumption and rural household activities are determined by comparing a snapsho

snapshot t of water of water consumconsumption with rural ption with rural househhousehold behavior of old behavior of lowlow, , medium and medium and highhigh water consumers. In addition, the factors affecting water consumption in rural households water consumers. In addition, the factors affecting water consumption in rural households are also determined. The data for this study were collected from a survey of 653 rural are also determined. The data for this study were collected from a survey of 653 rural house

households in holds in 33 villages of 33 villages of RamjeRamjerd area, rd area, Fars ProviFars Province, in nce, in southesouthern Iran, using a rn Iran, using a simplesimple ran

random dom samsamplipling ng tectechnihniqueque. . The The daidaily ly watwater er conconsumsumptiption on data data for for a a 5-ye5-year ar periperiodod (19

(1999–299–2004) 004) werwere e useused. d. ResResultults s of of the the stustudy dy revrevealeealed d thathat t the the daidaily ly aveaveragrage e watwaterer consumption for the area was found to be 121.7l per person per capita per day (Lpcd) consumption for the area was found to be 121.7l per person per capita per day (Lpcd) (SD

(SD¼¼59.259.2). ). WWater ater conconsumsumptiption on was was alsalso o foufound nd to to be be sigsigniﬁniﬁcantcantly ly corcorrelrelated ated witwithh explanatory variables such as ‘‘household size’’ and ‘‘age of household’s head’’. Finally, explanatory variables such as ‘‘household size’’ and ‘‘age of household’s head’’. Finally, the results of discriminant function analysis showed that in rural households, garden size, the results of discriminant function analysis showed that in rural households, garden size, gree

greenhonhouse use sizsize, e, and and gargarden den watwateriering ng timtimes es per per monmonth th witwith h tap tap tretreated water areated water are associated with water consumption.

associated with water consumption.

&

1

1. .

IIn

nttrrod

odu

uccttiio

on

n

Dom

Domestestic ic frefresh sh wawater ter is is a a funfundamdamentaental l reqrequiruiremenement t forfor human welfare and economical activities. Water supply and human welfare and economical activities. Water supply and treatment for drinking and domestic use are long processes treatment for drinking and domestic use are long processes and sometimes cost 10 times more than irrigation water due and sometimes cost 10 times more than irrigation water due to limitations in available clean water resources (

to limitations in available clean water resources (FPRWWD,FPRWWD,

2004

2004).). In

In IraIran, n, moumountantains ins and and desedeserts rts witwith h low low avavailailabiabilitlity y of of suitable water account for 52% of the total 1.65 million km suitable water account for 52% of the total 1.65 million km22

.. Al

Alththouough gh ththe e lolongng-t-tererm m avavereragage e prprececipipititatatioion n is is ababououtt 250

250 mm/yrmm/yr, most of the , most of the territterritory receiory receives less than 100ves less than 100 mm/mm/ yr of rainfall and the annual withdrawal of water has already yr of rainfall and the annual withdrawal of water has already exceed

exceeded ed the the renerenewabwable le water resourcwater resources es ((FPRFPRWWDWWD, , 20042004).).

From the total water consumption in Iran, 95% is used in From the total water consumption in Iran, 95% is used in agriculture, 4% for domestic water supply and 1% in industry agriculture, 4% for domestic water supply and 1% in industry ((FAO, 1998FAO, 1998). In rural areas, especially in arid and semi-arid). In rural areas, especially in arid and semi-arid regions access to a sustainable and adequate supply of clean regions access to a sustainable and adequate supply of clean water is critical. Therefore, determining the number of people water is critical. Therefore, determining the number of people who will be served, their per capita use, and the factors that who will be served, their per capita use, and the factors that affect the water consumption is very important in affect the water consumption is very important in manage-ment of water resources appropriate as potable water. ment of water resources appropriate as potable water.

The domestic water furnished to each community can be The domestic water furnished to each community can be cla

classissiﬁed ﬁed accaccorordinding g to to its its ultiultimate use mate use sucsuch h as as domdomestestic,ic, comm

commercercialial, , indindustrustrialial, , pubpubliclic, , losloss s and and wawaste ste ((SteeSteel l andand

McGh

McGhee, ee, 19791979). ). DomDomestiestic c watwater er consconsumpumptiotion n whiwhich ch is is aa signiﬁcant component of the total water use varies according signiﬁcant component of the total water use varies according to living standards of the consumers in urban and rural areas to living standards of the consumers in urban and rural areas

0043-13

doi:10.1016/j.watres.2006.01.021

Ã

Ã_Corres_Correspondin_{ponding author}_{g author. Tel.}_{. Tel.: +98}_{: +98 711}_{711 2286278; fax: +98711}_{2286278; fax: +98711 2286130}_2286130.. E-mail address:

(2)

(Thomas, 1998). However, rural households use water for both indoor and outdoor purposes. Indoor water use includes consumption for drinking, cooking, hygiene (bathing, laundry, and cleaning), and miscellaneous purposes such as air conditioners. Outdoor activities include car washing, live-stock watering, garden and small-scale greenhouse watering, and yard cleaning.

Sobsey (2001) pointed out that the introduction of water supply and treatment technology without consideration of the socio-cultural aspects of the community is unlikely to be successful or sustainable. Sandiford et al. (1990) investigated the effect of distance from the source of water supply on domestic water consumption in rural areas of developing countries. Data analyzing from 1029 different households in Nicaragua collected between May 1986 and December 1988 showed that a decrease in the distance to the water source from 1000 to 10 m is associated with an increase in per capita water consumption of 20% (Sandiford et al., 1990). Also, there were major differences in the quantity of water used by piped and unpiped households (IIED, 2003). Results of the study conducted by Thompson et al. (2001) in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda showed that piped households used on average almost three times more water per capita than unpiped households. Hunnings (1996) showed that the quantity of water used depended on the number of people using the dwelling (household size), how water is used, level of maintenance of the water supply system, and some other factors such as level of education and age of the head of household. Also families with the mother having 6 years of elementary education used 17% more water than families where the mother had no formal education. The families with similar education for the father used 12% greater per capita water consumption (Sandiford et al., 1990).

Other factors which affect rural water use are number of households and households’ size (Sandiford et al., 1990; Schefter, 1990). Results of a study conducted in Israel, Jordan, and Syria from 1975 to 1994 revealed that in Israel the increase in domestic water use could be statistically better explained by the growth of the number of households than by population growth (Martin, 1999). The result of the above study for Jordan and Syria, where an overall increase in household size could be observed, showed that the rate of growth of the number of households statistically accounted for a smaller portion of the increase in domestic water use

Ramjerd Area Tehran Caspian Sea Study Area N Villages Fars

Fig. 1 – A general map of Iran showing the location of the

study area. T a b l e 1 – O u t d o o r w a t e r c o n s u m p t i o n p a t t e r n s A c t i v i t y H o u s e h o l d s w i t h a c t i v i t y a A r e a ( m 2 ) o r N u m b e r o f a c t i v i t y W a t e r i n g t i m e s / m o n t h W a t e r r e s o u r c e N % ¯ x S D ¯ x S D S p r i n g W e l l G h a n a t R i v e r P i p e d n ( % ) n ( % ) n ( % ) n ( % ) n ( % ) G a r d e n 3 2 6 5 3 . 1 1 9 . 4 2 3 9 . 7 1 5 . 5 7 3 . 8 3 0 1 9 ( 5 . 9 ) 0 1 ( 0 . 3 ) 3 . 1 ( 9 3 . 8 ) G r e e n h o u s e 1 2 1 1 9 . 7 4 . 4 0 5 . 8 9 8 . 8 5 5 . 3 7 0 0 0 0 1 1 9 ( 1 0 0 ) L i v e s t o c k 2 4 7 4 6 . 7 2 0 . 3 8 4 5 . 6 5 4 . 8 5 0 . 7 0 0 7 ( 3 ) 0 7 ( 3 ) 2 1 7 ( 9 3 . 9 ) Y a r d 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 9 2 . 2 5 1 7 5 . 6 3 6 . 0 2 6 . 5 2 0 1 5 ( 3 . 5 0 ) 0 1 ( 0 . 2 0 ) 4 1 5 ( 9 6 . 3 ) C a r w a s h b 2 3 2 4 3 . 9 — — 3 . 3 6 4 . 1 6 3 ( 1 . 5 ) 1 9 ( 9 . 3 ) 1 ( 0 . 5 0 ) 1 5 ( 7 . 3 ) 1 6 7 ( 8 1 . 5 ) a T h e a c t i v i t i e s a r e l i s t e d i n c o l u m n 1 . b T h e t e r m c a r w a s h r e f e r s t o s m a l l s c a l e h o m e u s e s .

(3)

than the rate of population growth. Also, a study conducted by Gazzinelli et al. (1998) revealed that certain socio-economic factors, house quality, type of water source, and a utility index were signiﬁcantly correlated with water use.

The International Drinking Water and Sanitation Decade, 1981–1990, emphasized primarily on technical aspects, while 1992 Dublin Principles, which were developed at a conference of water specialists, stressed that water development and management should be based on a participatory approach, involving users, planners, and policy-makers (including women) at all levels (Huggins, 2000).

Although water management problems are the most important issue in Iran, little study has been conducted to solve them. In the present study attempts are made to determine factors affecting water consumption patterns and to identify strategies to reduce water use in rural districts in southern Iran. Various aspects of water consumption beha-vior, are also investigated. Speciﬁcally the aims of this study are determination of

 relationships between water consumption and activities, comparing

 behavior of low, medium and high water consumers, and

identiﬁcation of

 factors affecting water consumption in rural households.

2. Materials and methods

In this study, descriptive research methods are combined with a survey research. The survey instrument was a questionnaire addressing domestic water use patterns, and individual characteristics (i.e., age, education level, and household size).

A simple random sampling was performed to rural house-holds of 33 villages of Ramjerd region, 30Km west of Marvdasht city and 60Km North of Shiraz, in the Fars Province. The region is known as center of agricultural production in Iran. Fig. 1 shows the location of the study area. Ten percent of the households in each village were selected randomly. The total number of samples selected was 653 rural households of which 522 complete responses were received. The data were collected between May 2004 and January 2005 by structural interviews. The daily water

consumption data was for a 5-year period (1999–2004). The sources of domestic water supply in the study area include piped treated water supply, which is pumped from the Karst wells.

Statistics used in this study were; frequency, percentage, means, standard deviation, one-way analysis of variance, Pearson correlation coefﬁcient and discriminant function analysis using SPSS.

2.1. Socio-economic characteristics of the study area The cultural structure of the villages in the area of the study is mostly dominated by rural and traditional attributes. A majority of the households in all villages of the study area belong to the category of small to medium farmers with intensive farming. Major agricultural products in the area are wheat, rice and corn, which are cultivated by semi-mechan-ized and/or traditionally labored methods. The agricultural water in the study area is provided by dam, river and agricultural wells. The agricultural lands are usually irrigated by lined canals, which are discharged from the Doroodzan dam and are drained by drainage networks. In addition to the agricultural activities, some of the households are keeping the livestock in their house and/or in the farm. All villages have primary school with regular classes. Some also have secondary school. Some of the villages have medical facilities with non-resident staff. The dominant religion of the people in the study area is Islam.

3. Results and discussion

The study subjects were categorized in such a way as to over-represent households with low, medium and high consumers. Tables 1 and 2 provide descriptive statistics for the sample population including sample size for each variable, mean, and standard deviation.

Table 2 – Indoor water consumption patterns

Facilities n % Times/month Water resource

¯

x SD Spring Well Ghanat River Pipe

n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%)

Bathing 492 93.2 30.85 36.31 0 0 0 0 492(100)

Air conditioner 362 68.6 — — 0 0 0 0 362(100)

Table 3 – Sample proﬁle of domestic water consumption, by the households in Ramjerd, Iran

Water consumption groups N % Level Usage (Lpcd) Low o80 129 24.7 Medium 80–150 243 46.6 High 4150 150 28.7

(4)

3.1. Basic characteristics of the study area

As previously mentioned, household activities were categor-ized into indoor and outdoor activities. Outdoor activities requiring water usage are gardening, greenhouse cultivation, and animal husbandry (Table 1). According to Table 1, 53.1% (n¼362) of sampled households had gardens, 19.7% (n¼121) had greenhouses and 46.7% (n¼247) kept livestock near their house. The most important water source for the above activities was tap treated water, providing 93.8%, 100% and 93.9% of water for the above activities, respectively.

As shown in Table 2, participant indoor activities were grouped into bathing and having air conditioners. Members of 93.2% (n¼492) of the households in this study bathed in their own house and 68.6% (n¼362) of homes had air conditioner. In this study, the mean water consumption was 121.70 l per person per capita per day (Lpcd) (SD¼59.18 Lpcd,n¼522). In

order to examine the reasons for observed differences, households were divided into three groups: low (o80Lpcd),

medium (80–150Lpcd) and high (4150Lpcd) water use, as

shown in Table 3. According to this table, the percentage of water consumption groups are classiﬁed as; 24.7%, 46.6% and 28.7%, respectively for low, medium and high consumers.

To understand relationship between water consumption in rural households and variables affecting the consumption, a correlation matrix is constructed using 15 variables (Table 4). As it can be seen from the correlation matrix, there was a signiﬁcant correlation between water consumption and such variables as size of household and age of the head of household. The most important variable affecting water consumption was household size which had a signiﬁcant negative correlation with water consumption (r¼ À0:29,

po0:05). That is, in households with larger families, average

water consumption per person is reduced. This is consistent with the assumption that some water uses are relatively independent of the size of the family (e.g., outdoor uses, uses for cooking, cleaning, etc.), so that while total water use per household rises, per capita water use falls as family size grows. Similar ﬁndings have been reported by Schefter (1990) and Martin (1999), emphasizing that domestic water con-sumption is inﬂuenced by the increase in the number of single-family homes. The association between water con-sumption and household size demonstrated that increase in water consumption can be better explained by the growth of the number of households than by population growth.

Another variable which showed a statistically signiﬁcant correlation with domestic water consumption was head of household’s age. Table 4 shows that there is a positive signiﬁcant relationship between head of household’s age and amount of domestic water consumption (r¼0:17,

po0:05). This may be the result of different attitudes toward

environmental issues, where older individuals possess less information about and give less attention to water conservation.

Table 4 also reveals that the number of livestock kept in each household had the expected positive correlation with water consumption (r¼0:11), but this relation was not

statistically signiﬁcant. This result was due to the fact that different groups of water consumers were not different in number of domestic unit kept in their own houses.

Addition- T a b l e 4 – C o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n h o u s e h o l d w a t e r c o n s u m p t i o n a n d 1 4 i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 W a t e r c o n s u m p t i o n / p e r s o n / d a y 1 G a r d e n a r e a À 0 . 0 8 1 G a r d e n w a t e r i n g t i m e s / m o n t h 0 . 0 2 À 0 . 0 6 1 G r e e n h o u s e a r e a 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 À 0 . 0 5 1 G r e e n h o u s e w a t e r i n g t i m e s / m o n t h 0 . 0 3 0 . 1 0 0 . 1 3 0 . 4 1 a 1 L i v e s t o c k n o . 0 . 1 1 À 0 . 0 1 À 0 . 0 1 0 . 1 4 0 . 2 7 b 1 L i v e s t o c k f e e d i n g 0 . 0 0 À 0 . 0 1 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 1 À 0 . 1 3 b 1 L i v e s t o c k w a s h i n g 0 . 0 8 À 0 . 2 8 0 . 3 6 b À 0 . 4 1 À 0 . 2 9 À 0 . 2 0 0 . 0 1 1 Y a r d a r e a À 0 . 0 2 0 . 1 3 b À 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 4 À 0 . 0 6 À 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 À 0 . 0 7 1 Y a r d w a s h i n g t i m e s / m o n t h À 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 2 0 . 2 5 a À 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 3 À 0 . 1 4 0 . 4 6 a À 0 . 0 8 1 C a r w a s h t i m e s / m o n t h À 0 . 0 9 À 0 . 0 1 0 . 2 5 b 0 . 2 5 0 . 1 6 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 4 0 . 1 3 1 B a t h i n g t i m e s / m o n t h À 0 . 0 3 À 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 1 5 b 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 À 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 2 1 H o u s e h o l d s i z e À 0 . 3 a 0 . 0 7 À 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 0 À 0 . 1 5 0 . 0 7 À 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 2 0 a 1 H e a d o f h o u s e h o l d a g e 0 . 1 7 a 0 . 0 2 À 0 . 1 1 b À 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 7 À 0 . 0 8 À 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 7 À 0 . 1 0 À 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 6 a 1 H e a d o f h o u s e h o l d e d u c a t i o n À 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 . 1 6 À 0 . 1 1 À 0 . 1 2 0 . 1 0 À 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 À 0 . 0 4 0 . 1 1 À 0 . 0 8 À 0 . 5 6 1 a S i g n i ﬁ c a n t a t p o 0 : 0 1 . b S i g n i ﬁ c a n t a t p o 0 : 0 5 .

(5)

ally, the major livestock were usually taken to the farm of the owner during the day; hence, most of the water is consumed by these animals during the day from the ﬁeld water resources, e.g., agricultural wells.

To better understand the relation between water consump-tion patterns and some independent variables, one-way Anova statistics was used to compare rural households’ activities with respect to three groups of users. The results, shown in Table 5, reveal that water consumption is signiﬁ-cantly different among participants of different household size (F¼20:48, po0:05). In other words, households with

higher per capita water consumption were those with smaller families ðx¯ ¼5:02Þ. This ﬁnding conﬁrms the results of

Schefter (1990) and Martin (1999). According to the ﬁndings in Table 5, per capita consumption was higher where the head of household was older ðx¯ ¼49:66Þ (F¼6:13,po0:05).

The variability of water consumption depends normally on water availability and cultural behavior or habits of water consumers (Milestone Report, 2001). But generally the range of domestic water use has been reported as 75–380Lpcd (Steel

and McGhee, 1979). While it is believed that the amount of indoor water use remains fairly constant throughout the year, outdoor residential water use varies greatly depending on geographical location and seasonal variation. Since waste-water consists primarily of efﬂuent ﬂow from indoor uses, decreased indoor water use will also result in less wastewater and fewer treatment problems. In Table 6, the average water consumption in rural area of different regions in the world is reported. Table 6 indicates that the water consumption is highly based on some behavioral and cultural aspects.

Building a predictive model of group membership based on observed characteristics of each case, a discriminant function was generated to determine variables affecting rural water consumption levels. Of 15 variables studied in this research, 3 variables were entered into the model as factors affecting and determining water use behavior. The water consum-ption model for the 3 variables is represented by following relationship.

WC¼ À0:882GAþ0:872GWTMþ1:66GHA;

Table 5 – Comparison of mean scores of characteristics among three groups of domestic water consumers

Variable Water consumption groups F p

LowÃ _MediumÃ _HighÃ

Garden area 21.25a

20.00a

15.44a

0.54 0.57

Garden watering times/month 5.31a

5.79a 5.29a 0.55 0.57 Greenhouse area 4.64a 4.02a 4.79a 0.17 0.84

Greenhouse watering times 8.65a

9.33a 8.41a 0.31 0.73 Livestock no. 19.34a 15.53a 29.82a 1.99 0.13

Livestock water use 4.85a

4.86a 4.90a 0.08 0.91 Livestock washing 2.00a 2.14a 2.24a 0.04 0.95

Car washing times/month 3.97a

3.26a 3.00a 0.54 0.58 Bathing times/month 30.39a 33.56a 27.65a 1.15 0.31 Yard area 177.50a 230.56a 186.72a 0.92 0.39

Yard washing times/month 6.65a

5.97a 5.61a 0.56 0.57 Household size 6.36b 6.16b 5.02a 20.48 0.00

Household’s head age 44.11a

46.71a

49.66b

6.13 0.00

Note: Mean scores that share common superscript in each row were not signiﬁcantly different at po0:05 level on Tukey post hoc tests.

Ã _{The dimensions are in Lpcd.}

Table 6 – Water consumption in rural communities of different regions

Proﬁles Rural communities Average water consumption

Hunnings (1996) Virginia, USA 284 Lpcd

Gazzinelli et al. (1998) Latin America 40 Lpcd

Gazzinelli et al. (1998) Rural African 1–25 Lpcd

Hartung (2001) China 89 Lpcd

Hartung (2001) Sri Lankans 36–54 Lpcd

Hartung (2001) South India 14–42 Lpcd

Hartung (2001) East African 5–23 Lpcd (from October to December)

and 6–19 Lpcd from (January to April)

Milestone report (2001) Kyenjojo, Uganda 11–23 Lpcd

FPRWWD (2004) Fars Province, Iran 250 L pcd (Shiraz city average water

consumption is 325 Lpcd)

(6)

where WC is the water consumption (Lpcd); GA the garden area (m2

), GWTM the garden watering times/month, and GHA the greenhouse area (m2

), Wilk’s Lambda¼0.30, sig.¼0.62,

w2¼1:77.

The value of the Lambda Coefﬁcient (0.30) and its signiﬁ-cance (40.05) show that statistically there is no difference

between discriminant scores and households, which grouped as low, medium and high water consumers. In other words, the model is not able to differentiate between these three groups. Therefore, additional variables need to be considered for the determination of the difference between the groups.

4. Conclusions

Water conservation is important in ensuring a sustainable future for rural households especially in arid and semi arid regions like Fars province in Iran. Investigating rural domestic water consumption pattern in the study area showed that household size and age of the household’s head affect per capita water consumption. Other descriptive and behavioral variables were not shown to be statistically signiﬁcant in explaining the pattern of water consumption. Finally, the results of discriminant function analysis showed that in rural households, three factors garden size, greenhouse size, and garden watering times per month with tap treated water are associated with water consumption.

Also, the relationship between household’s head education and water consumption was found to be negative. It is obvious that the higher the educational level of the individual, the more is the concern to use water for hygiene. Furthermore, factors such as religious obligations, average and marginal tap water price, personal and household income, and climate condition should be considered in future studies.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Professor John J. Boland from the Johns Hopkins University for reading the manuscript and his con-structive comments and suggestions. Also the authors grate-fully acknowledge the support given by Fars Province Rural Water and Wastewater Department and Water Department (FPRWWD) and staffs of Agricultural College, Shiraz University.

R E F E R E N C E S

FAO, 1998. The state of food and agriculture in Islamic Republic of Iran. FAO Agriculture Series No. 31.

Fars Province Rural Water and Wastewater Department (FPRWWD), 2004. Annual Report.

Gazzinelli, A., Souza, M.C.C., Nascimento, I.I., Sa, I.R., Cadete, M.M.M., Kloos, H., 1998. Domestic water use in a rural village in minas gerais, Brazil, with an emphasis on spatial patterns, sharing of water, and factors in water use. Pub. Med. 14 (2), 265–277.

Hartung, H., 2001. Water for Bukoro and Ndego. Water security issues in Ruwandan resettlement villages. Mimeographs Prepared for the Domestic Roof Water Harvesting Study, Component C.

Huggins, C., 2000. Rural water tenure in East Africa: A Compara-tive Study of Legal Regimes and Community Responses to Changing Tenure Patterns in Tanzania and Kenya. Research Fellow African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS), Nairobi, Kenya.

Hunnings, J., 1996. Household wastewater treatment and septic systems. Fact Sheet No.3, Publication Number 442-903,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), 2003. Domestic water use results. Available online: http:// www.iied.org/sarl/dow/pdf/uganda/chapter4.pdf .

Martin, N., 1999. Population, households and domestic water use in countries of the Mediterranean Middle East (Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, Gaza and Israel). International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Report, Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria.

Milestone Report, 2001. Domestic roof-water harvesting and water security in the humid tropics. Milestone Report D 5, Lanka Rainwater Harvesting Forum.

Sandiford, P., Gorter, A.C., Orozco, J.G., Pauw, J.P., 1990. Determi-nants of domestic water use in rural Nicaragua. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 93 (6), 383–389.

Schefter, J.E., 1990. Domestic water use in the United States,

1960–85. In: National Water Summary 1987—Hydrologic

Events and Water Supply and Use US Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2350, pp. 71–80.

Sobsey, M.D., 2001. Managing Water in the Home: Accelerated Health Gains from Improved Water Supply. University of California, Chapel Hill, USA. Available online: www.who.int. Steel, E.W., McGhee, T.G., 1979. Water Supply and Sewerage, ﬁfth

edition. McGraw-Hill book Company, New York.

Thomas, T., 1998. Deﬁnition of water security (personnel com-munication) Trivandram Planning Meeting, August 1998. Thompson, J., Porras, I.T., Tumwine, J.K., Mujwahuzi, M.R.,

Katui-Katua, M., Johnstone, N., Wood, L., 2001. 30 years of Change in Domestic Water Use & Environmental Health in East Africa. International Institute for Environment and Development. Russell Press, Nottingham.