Content uploaded by Magunda Hilary
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Magunda Hilary on Jan 20, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of English Language, Education and
Literature Studies (IJEEL)
ISSN: 2583-3812 Journal Home Page: https://ijeel.org/
Vol-1, Issue-2, May-Jun 2022 Journal DOI: 10.22161/ijeel
Article DOI: 10.22161/ijeel.1.2.4
©International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies (IJEEL) 36
Community Participation and Water Projects
Sustainability in Rwamwanja Settlement,
Kamwenge District, Uganda
Amani Joseline, Magunda Hilary*, Mutekanga David R
School of Graduate Studies, Bugema University, Kampala, Uganda
Article Detail:
Abstract
Received: 18 May 2022;
Received in revised form: 12 Jun
2022;
Accepted: 20 Jun 2022;
Available online: 30 Jun 2022
Keywords— Community
participation, water projects
sustainability, mixed methods
sequential explanatory design,
Refugee settlement.
Community participation is believed to be central to ensuring project
sustainability in the development realm. Project developers, implementers,
development partners, government officials and communities need to be
aware of the role a community plays in making projects in their
environments work better from both the theoretical and practical
perspectives. The purpose of the study was to investigate the influence of
community participation on water projects sustainability in Rwamwanja
Refugee Settlement Camp, Kamwenge District, Uganda. Using a mixed
methods sequential explanatory method, the study revealed that the level
of community participation in water projects in the studied settlement was
low. In addition, water projects sustainability was also low. It was noted
that community participation has a weak but positive significant influence
on water projects sustainability. Initiating action was the main aspect of
community participation that influenced water projects sustainability
significantly. Non community participation aspects such as inadequate
external funding, use of poor quality materials and corruption affected
water projects sustainability. It was recommended that governments,
development partners and firms contracted to develop water projects
should have a clear water project development protocol that stipulates the
steps, structures and processes that build and sustain effective community
participation.
1. Introduction
A reliable, affordable and easily accessible water
source is essential for any community including
refugee settlements. However, lack of water project
sustainability has become one of the greatest
challenges facing the global community currently
with rural communities being the worst hit (van der
Helm et al, 2017. Several authors Cronin et al
(2008); WHO (2012) UNHCR (2019) have reported
that in recent years, water issues in refugee
settlements have become a worrying situation among
the top challenges facing refugees globally, and more
than one billion people, most of whom live in refugee
settlements, do not have access to safe drinking
water. According to Okoth-Oboth (2019), globally 65
percent of the 25 million refugees do not have access
to functional drinking water supplies within their
home while only 35% of water supply systems in
refugee homes are functional. Refugees are at the risk
of being left behind in the reforms aimed at ensuring
access to safe water by all. Community participation
has been reported (World Bank, 2016) as being one of
the important conditions essential for the
implementation of projects and largely contributes to
the sustainability of water sources by resolving
problems related to willingness and ability to pay
user fee and take good care of the water points, hence
ensuring the sustainability of water. However, despite
all the efforts to ensure sustainable water supply
systems it is proving difficult in many parts of the
world.
Joseline et al., International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies, 2022, 1(2)
May-Jun 2022
Article DOI: 10.22161/ijeel.1.2.4
©International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies (IJEEL) 37
According to Boinet (2020), Africa has about 135
million people who do not have access to safe
drinking water. UNHCR (2017) suggests that the
average safe water coverage is estimated at 62% while
in refugee settlements it is at 47%. The community
participation in water projects includes, contribution
of labor and materials and or collection of user fee
and participation in project planning, design,
construction and management systems. This has
been reported (Ananga, 2017) to create a sense of
ownership to the community which may result into
the sustainability of the water projects. Arslan et al.
(2014) and UNHCR (2019) reported that the
challenge facing the water projects in refugee
settlements is limited community participation to
increase the maintenance of the water services and
estimated that 70% of camps and settlement water
projects in Africa are not functional at any given time.
Community provision of resources is an accepted
practice in the East African Region for small –scale
development projects, such as collection of user fees,
labor and materials. This helps in developing a sense
of community ownership of the projects, hence local
responsibility for accessibility, reliability and
maintenance of water projects (Bassi et al., 2018). It
has been further reported (Ching’oro, 2017) that
community participation in decision making
accomplishes several collaborative management
goals. These include increase in community capacity
and social capital, while complying with legislation
that requires the community to be informed on issues
and decisions that affect water source functionality.
This in turn increases support in decision planning
and implementation which contributes to successful
sustainability of the water systems. According to
Nyarko et al. (2013), involving those affected by a
given challenge increases their cooperative ability to
find solutions, and provides opportunities to initiate
actions, facilitating community members’ ability to
develop trust and confidence in their project and
leadership. This also helps in building community
goodwill and active participation in sustaining their
development projects (Abdullahi & Ahmed, 2014). A
survey conducted in Dadaab Refugee Camp, Kenya by
Kim Bode (2016) shows that many refugees are
suffering from gaps caused by lack of water projects
sustainability, and only 55% of the water projects
remain functional at any given time after successful
implementation. This is affected to a large extent by
low community participation in terms of decision
making, provision of resources, lack of initiating
actions which results into poor sanitation and water
borne diseases (Otieno & Mumo, 2017).
Whereas Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6
requires that by 2030, there should be universal and
equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water
for all, this seems elusive more especially in the
refugee camps in Uganda. According to Water
Barometer (2020), and Water. Org (2020), by close
of 2020, Uganda targets 90 percent of her population
to have access to adequate clean and safe water.
However, only 51 percent (22 million people) of the
population reportedly has access to adequate clean
and safe water. In Rwamwanja Settlement, UNHCR
(2019) indicates that current access to clean water
per person is 17.5 liters per day against the WHO
recommended minimum of 50 to 100 liters to ensure
that most basic needs are met and few health
concerns arise. Studies suggest that sustainable
availability of water depends, among others, on
responsible consumption and proper management of
water projects and participation of communities is
crucial in ensuring water supply sustainability
(Muhwezi, 2018; UNHCR, 2019). Although
community participation is one of the recommended
principles of project development in UNHCR
supported programmes (UNHCR, 1992), it is not
empirically ascertained whether this is the practice in
developing and implementing water projects in
Rwamwanja Settlement.
2. Rationale
In Rwamwanja Refugee Settlement, despite efforts by
the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) the UN High
Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and government
of Uganda through establishing water points in the
camp and creating water committees, access to clean
and sufficient water continues to be very low
(UNHCR, 2019). Moreover, Maonga (2017) claims
that only 58% of the water projects in Rwamwanja
remain functional after being implemented and 22%
of the water sources get broken down within a period
of only 3 months while 20% of the water projects are
not functioning at any given time (Kumudu et al.,
2016).
Several studies have been undertaken about
sustainability of water projects in Uganda. Nyende
(2007) examined the sustainability of granatised
aquifer systems of the Kyoga catchment area and
focused on ground water quality and sustainability.
From a different perspective, Mugisha and Borisova
(2010) using linear programming model analyzed the
affordability of basic water project implemented by
Uganda’s National Water and Sewerage Corporation
(NW&SC) system to ascertain financial sustainability
and pro-poor water services. While Foster (2013)
Joseline et al., International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies, 2022, 1(2)
May-Jun 2022
Article DOI: 10.22161/ijeel.1.2.4
©International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies (IJEEL) 38
using logistic regression analysis focused on
identifying operational, technical, institutional and
environmental predictors of functionality of water
systems. In contrast, Mugumya (2013) in a single
case and mixed methods design examined the key
governance dynamics in Uganda’s safe water supply
service delivery systems and unravelled contextual
issues that undermine effectiveness of the current
dominant community-based management model of
water supply and sustainability. Meanwhile,
Nayebare et al. (2014) aimed at identifying and
prioritizing possible actions on how sustainable high
quality water in Uganda’s water supply systems could
be achieved. However, the cited studies are dated and
do not, specifically, in context, content and
methodology answer the researchers’ quest to
understand the contribution of community
participation in sustainability of water supply
projects. Our point of departure is the need to
examine whether community participation in water
supply projects influences the level of sustainability
of water supply points as alluded to in the literature
(see Maonga, 2017) in Rwamwanja Refugees
Settlement camp. Examining the challenge from the
refugees stand point offers a rare opportunity to
appreciate whether what works in the general
communities could be replicated in the refugee
communities with equal success. In order to do so,
this study answered one main question; ‘what is the
influence of community participation on water
project sustainability in Rwamwanja Settlement
Camp?’ Two sub-questions were attempted to answer
the above question namely what is the level of
community participation in water projects? And what
is the status of water project sustainability? The
findings and recommendations of this study are
expected to contribute to updating the current body
of knowledge about community participation and
sustainability of water projects. Moreover, water
policy makers, community leaders, project designers
and implementers could pick helpful insights on how
to effectively design and implement water supply
projects.
3. Theoretical and Conceptual Reflections
The essence of theoretical reflections in a study like
this is to examine the interrelated concepts,
definitions, and propositions that explain or predict
events or situations by specifying relations among
variables with the purpose of understanding the
problem (Fox & Bayat, 2009; Green, 2014).
Meanwhile, the substance of conceptual reflections
(Chinn & Kramer, 1999) is to provide ideas, thoughts
and devolution of abstract system of thought by
which one can scientifically investigate, interpret and
understand specific strands of social reality. The
researchers peeped into the theoretical and
conceptual reflections of community participation
and sustainability of water projects to be able to
relate the study to existing body of knowledge. In the
context of this study, a community is a group of
people living in the same place, linked by social ties,
shared common perspectives and may have similar or
diverse characteristics (Bhatnagar, 1992). Several
explanations have been put forward by scholars and
practitioners to give meaning to the concepts of
community participation and sustainability. On the
one hand, Mushtaq (2004), defines community
participation as a process by which people from all
sectors of the community influence or control
decisions that affect their lives. From another angle,
Putnam (2000), looks at community participation as
peoples’ engagement in community activities that
promotes quality of life’. Community participation
could be initiated by the authorities or the people
themselves whose welfare is at stake. On the other
hand, Sebastian, Eduard and Cristian (2018) suggest
that sustainability refers to “whether or not
something continues to work over time” as intended.
While Musaana (2018) claims that sustainability is
the ability of the project to continue providing those
benefits for as long as necessary. Further, a
sustainable project should produce resources that can
be used in its ongoing operation, making the project
worth the time and effort to continue. Therefore,
project sustainability requires compliance with
current standards besides providing a viable means of
allowing the project to generate benefits on an
ongoing basis. In a nutshell, sustainability is related
to ensuring that an undertaking such as a project
continues to generate the desired benefits to the
community overtime while community participation
is the involvement of the people in form of the
community taking decisions and actions that
influence their welfare. Community participation in
relation to project sustainability may be construed as
a state where the target beneficiaries are able to take
responsibility for ensuring that those in the current
and future generation are able to benefit from the
project by maintaining the inputs, processes, outputs
and outcomes of the project (Christiana, 2009; ILO,
2012; Gitonga, 2015).
Several studies suggest that there are numerous
theories related to community participation and
project sustainability, including community asset
based model of development, systems theory,
Joseline et al., International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies, 2022, 1(2)
May-Jun 2022
Article DOI: 10.22161/ijeel.1.2.4
©International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies (IJEEL) 39
sustainability theory, and community participation
theory, among others (Guy, 1983; McKnight &
Kretzman, 1993; White, 1996; WCED, 1987; Midgley,
2003; Kerzner, 2006). The four aforementioned
theories seem most relevant to investigating,
interpreting and understanding the influence of
community participation on sustainability of water
projects. The Asset-based Community Development
Model (ABCD) or Asset-based community
development (ABCD), or asset-based community-
driven development postulates that communities
should be developed based on their internal strengths
and assets rather than their deficits and problems
(Kretzman et al., 2005; Syarifuddin & Amir, 2017).
The central argument of the model is that every
community and its environment has resource
potential and capacity to manage its own affairs
without depending on the external support. However,
project development may either focus on the positive
side (assets) or negative side (deficits) of the model.
The positive side looks at the assets and capacity
within for the development and sustainable
implementation of development activities. In so
doing, capacity of the community should be
identified, assets mapped into human resources,
organization and association, physical and natural
resources and economic and cultural resources
(Haines, 2009; Cunningham, Mathie & Peters, 2012).
Basing on the resources within, the project would be
designed and implemented employing community
structures to address social needs and empower
groups of people to take challenges affecting their
welfare (Mendes, 2008). This model provides
opportunities for community capacity building to
implement the projects effectively. Positive
relationships with the community are built making
members active partners in the project management
process. However, in instances where community
deficit side of the model is adopted, capacity
development of the community is passive, with
limited participation and inability of the community
on its own to maintain the projects overtime without
external influence (Adhiambo Shikuku, 2012;
Gitonga, 2015). From the foregoing, the reasoning
behind the treatment of the community in the project
process matters. Building on their strengths and
assets creates trust and invites the community to
participate in various ways including involvement in
decision making, initiating relevant actions, provision
of resources, and maintenance of the project (Haq,
Hassan, Ahmad, 2014; Olajuyigbe, 2016; Culbertson,
Oliker, Baruch & Blum, 2016; UNHCR, 2017). These
community participation practices enhance the
chances of project sustainability.
System theory has gained recognition as a general
descriptive set of ideas, thoughts and abstract aspects
that are applicable to issues related to community
participation and sustainability of projects (Midgley,
2003; Kerzner, 2006; Gitonga, 2015). Systems theory
as related to project sustainability implies that for
sustainability to occur, consideration must be given
to the interplay between the different elements of the
project in its complex form. The theory prescribes a
multidisciplinary approach to investigating and
understanding a phenomenon. The theory notes that
projects as living entities are subject to influence
from a number of factors both internal and external
(Kerzner, 2006), including community structures,
community participation, and human capital to
manage the project, among others. Designing,
implementing and operating projects involves
systematic logical processes where various project
elements interact (Midgley, 2003; Gitonga, 2015).
System, theory notes that projects, individuals,
groups, organisations and institutions do not exist in
a vacuum but in a context of interactive components
forming complex sets of interrelationships (Kerzner,
2006). Related to study of community participation
and sustainability of water projects, systems theory
contributes to the analytical framework that depicts
the relationship between community capacity,
participation, structures, resources and ability of the
project to continue generating the planned benefits to
the community overtime (Gitonga, 2015).
Community participation in project processes by way
of taking part in decision making, sharing resources,
project maintenance, among others, promotes
sustainability of the project. Understanding how the
various elements of the project context interact to
deliver project results is critical in designing and
implementing water projects. Systems theory
provides an array of terms and concepts that enhance
project developers’ appreciation of how some
elements of project design and implementation such
as community participation and sustainability may be
identified, analysed and optimised to ensure that the
project meets its desired objectives.
The concept of sustainability is founded on the theory
of environmental limitation (Gitonga, 2015). The
sustainability theory stipulates that environmental
resources are finite and should be optimised to meet
the needs of the present and future generations
(WCED, 1987). In relation to project management,
sustainability denotes the project’s ability to maintain
Joseline et al., International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies, 2022, 1(2)
May-Jun 2022
Article DOI: 10.22161/ijeel.1.2.4
©International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies (IJEEL) 40
and sustain the planned outcomes by their own
resources (International Labour Organisation, 2012).
In the context of this study, the concept of
sustainability construed to mean where a project
remains functional, accessible to the beneficiaries
and reliable in delivering project benefits (Inter-
American Development Bank, 2016). In line with ILO
(2012), a water project that remains functional,
accessible to users and reliable in delivering project
benefits is in position to meet the needs of the
present and future generations. As noted by Gitonga
(2015), in order for the project designers,
implementers and other stakeholders to have
sustainable projects, knowledge of what a sustainable
project is and what is likely to influence it is critical.
In conceptualising and actualising project
sustainability, local actions of communities play a
central role. Knowledge of contextual competence of
the community to undertake right actions related to
the success of projects is one of the issues
underpinned by sustainability theory. Sustainability
theorists inform us that in order to develop and
implement successful projects, it is necessary to
identify community needs and priorities, determine
their preferences, and gauge the role the community
is likely to play in the success of the project (Gitonga,
2015). Moreover, lasting project benefits emanate
from local involvement. This study borrows from
sustainable development theorists’ postulation that
elements such as community participation influence
project sustainability outcomes. Arising from the
aforementioned, community participation and
sustainability of water projects in terms of
functionality, accessibility and reliability were
selected as explanatory and response variables
respectively for this study.
So close to the conceptualisation of this study is the
community participation theory. As noted by the
Danish Refugee Council (DRC), participation is
crucial in any humanitarian or development
intervention, both from a value-based and an
effectiveness-based perspective (DRC, 2018).
According to Guy (1983), community participation
theory postulates that people can and should play a
key role in development and implementation of
development projects in their localities. Community
participation provides a clear understanding of the
local conditions which eventually results into project
success. It helps circumvent bureaucratic
organizations and closes the gap between the
beneficiaries and project designers and
implementers. In support of Guy (1983), Paul (1987)
provides a hierarchy of levels of intensity in project
participation. Paul (1987) differentiates community
participation into four levels from the simplest to the
most complex. These include: (i) information sharing
where project designers and implementers just share
information with the community without members
taking any action besides providing information. This
although at the lowest point of community
participation, facilitates understanding of the
contextual aspects that could influence the success of
the project. (ii) Consultation where the community is
both informed and consulted on salient issues
regarding the design and implementation of the
project. At this level, the community is invited to
share local knowledge and their experience about the
project. (iii) Decision making where the community is
informed, consulted and allowed an opportunity to
make choices on what solutions will serve the
community best. This level permits the community to
include their needs and priorities and select options
that suit their needs during the project design and
implementation process. (iv) Initiating action is the
highest level of participation where besides making
choices, the community has the latitude to introduce
actions aimed at serving their interests better. To
optimise community participation, more especially,
among the disadvantage groups such as refugees,
empowerment or capacity strengthening is necessary.
According to Paul (1987), the first two present ways
to exercise project influence while the latter two offer
ways to exercise control. For more effective
community participation, both influence on and
control of projects processes is essential. In a
nutshell, community participation underpins the
centrality of beneficiary involvement in the design,
development and implementation of projects and as
postulated, influences their success and
sustainability.
The conceptualization of this study was informed by
the aforementioned theoretical claims and empirical
literature on the influence of community
participation on sustainability of water projects.
Several studies undertaken on aspects related to
community participation and sustainability of water
projects were reviewed, including Ofuoku (2011),
Mukunga (2012), IRC (2012), Kamau (2015),
Waithaka, Kisovi and Obando, (2016), Wanyera
(2016), and Otieno and Mumo (2017) to ascertain
how the explanatory and response variables have
been constructed. Using thematic analysis, the
researchers discerned three key dimensions that may
be applied to measure community participation
namely, community provision of resources,
participation in decision making, and initiating
Joseline et al., International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies, 2022, 1(2)
May-Jun 2022
Article DOI: 10.22161/ijeel.1.2.4
©International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies (IJEEL) 41
actions. Meanwhile, continuous functionality of the
water supply system, accessibility to water points and
reliability of water service overtime applied to
measuring sustainability of water projects. Moreover,
the studies revealed that community participation
and sustainability of water projects were researchable
variables with established causal relationship. From
the conceptual reflections, the conceptual model
below was devised for the study.
Fig.1. Conceptual Model
The interplay in Figure 1 assumes that when the
community provides project resources, takes part in
decision making, and initiates actions related to the
project influences the ability of the project to provide
benefits to the community over a period of time by
remaining functional, accessible and reliable. This
conceptual framework provides the analytical
framework for investigating the influence of
community participation on sustainability of water
projects in Rwamwanja Settlement.
4. Methods and Materials
This study employed mixed methods sequential
explanatory design utilizing both qualitative and
quantitative research approaches (Creswell, 2011).
The data were collected in two phases with phase one
collecting quantitative data while phase two collected
qualitative data. The study was carried out in
Rwamwanja Settlement, a refugee camp located in
Nkoma Sub-county in Kamwenge District of South-
western Uganda. Currently, Rwamwanja hosts 72,666
refugees most of whom are from the Democratic
Republic of Congo (DRC) and Burundi (UNHCR,
2020). This settlement was a candidate of this study
due to low levels of per capita water consumption, a
reported high level of non-functional water points
and low water project sustainability in spite of the
existence of efforts to provide water points and
establish community based structures to manage the
water points. The study involved 353 primary
respondents and 15 key informants. The sample of
353 respondents was proportionately drawn from 4
centers that make up the settlement camp. Stratified
and random sampling approaches were used to select
the respondents. Purposive and convenient sampling
procedures were applied to select the key informants.
The researchers administered survey questionnaire to
collect quantitative data and key informant interview
guide for the qualitative data. Quantitative data were
collected and analyzed first. The quantitative data
were analyzed using SPSS version 2.0 utilizing
descriptive and inferential statistics to describe the
status of the phenomenon and answer the main
research question that sought to ascertain the
influence of community participation on
sustainability of water projects respectively. The
salient predictors in the quantitative findings
informed the design of the key informant interview
guide that was used to probe further and dig out the
explanations of the observed quantitative results.
Qualitative data were used to provide a deeper
explanation of the observed behavior of the
explanatory and response variables from the lived
experiences of the community (Kothari, 2004).
5. Findings and Discussion
Respondent’s Profile
Respondents were profiled along three characteristics
namely sex, age and period in the settlement. The
respondent’s profile is as provided in Table 1.
Table 1: Respondent’s Profile
Variable Frequency (N-
353)
Percent
Sex
Male
187
53.0
Female
166
47.0
Age
Below 25 years
63
17.8
26 – 32 years
136
39.1
33 – 43 years
103
29.2
Community Participation
• Provision of resources
• Decision making
• Initiating actions
Sustainability of Water Projects
• Functionality
• Accessibility
• Stability
Joseline et al., International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies, 2022, 1(2)
May-Jun 2022
Article DOI: 10.22161/ijeel.1.2.4
©International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies (IJEEL) 42
Period in the Settlement
Less than 2 years
71
20.1
2 – 4 years
113
32.0
5 – 6 years
98
27.8
Above 6 years
71
20.1
Source: Field data
Respondent’s Sex
The results in Table 1 show that slightly more than
half (53%) of the respondents who participated in the
study were male. As most household heads are male,
this is consistent with the norms of society.
Respondent’s Age
Most (78.3%) of the respondents were between 26
and 43 years old which is generally a youth-full
population.
Period of staying in the settlement
Results further show that, only 20.1% of the
respondents had stayed in the settlement for less
than 2 years and the majority 79.9% had stayed for a
period exceeding two years. This could be due to
fewer arrivals of refugees in recent.
Level of Community Participation in Water
Projects
The findings reflected in Table 2 indicated that
community participation in water projects in
Rwamwanja Settlement is low as depicted by the
results regarding the different aspects deemed to be
associated with community participation.
Table 2: Level of Community Participation in Water Projects
Item
Mean
SD
Interpretati
on
Decision Making
My ideas regarding our water sources are always valued
1.6
0.72
Very Low
Our water project is done basing on the selected priorities
1.79
0.72
Low
Decisions related to our water projects are made by us
2.08
0.09
Low
I participate in choosing the implementation methods
1.49
0.67
Very Low
Aggregate Mean
1.75
0.73
Low
Provision of Resources
I always provide some of the construction materials when
requested
1.700
0.695
Very Low
I contribute to the cost of operating the water point
1.892
0.7648
Low
I contribute water user fee regularly to our water committee.
2.006
0.7906
Low
Aggregate Mean
1.870
0.750
Low
Initiating Action
I always participate in the construction of the water projects
1.69
0.71
Very Low
I always participate in mobilizing physical / financial resources
1.79
0.74
Low
I always participate in trench digging
1.83
0.92
Low
I always participate in cleaning our water source
2.09
0.96
Low
I regularly participate in establishing bye laws
1.89
0.82
Low
Aggregate Mean
1.86
0.83
Low
Grand Mean and SD
1.82
0.77
Low
Source: Field Data
International Journal of English Language, Education and
Literature Studies (IJEEL)
ISSN: 2583-3812 Journal Home Page: https://ijeel.org/
Vol-1, Issue-2, May-Jun 2022 Journal DOI: 10.22161/ijeel
Article DOI: 10.22161/ijeel.1.2.4
©International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies (IJEEL) 43
6. Decision Marking
The findings show a low level of decision making
mean (1.87). The community ranking of regard for
their ideas, influence on selecting priorities, making
related decisions and choice of implementation
methods was low. Refugees need a voice where it
matters most, their welfare (DRC, 2018). Not
effectively participating in decision making makes the
refugees more voiceless and more reluctant to
participate in matters that affect their welfare.
Contrary to the recommendations of the UNHCR
(1992) and DRC (2018) that communities should
fully participate in decision making, in this case, the
community is not highly involved. Community
participation in the settlement is at the lowest level
drawing from the taxonomy of community
participation (Paul, 1987). This argument is informed
by the key informant interviews which revealed that
water project developers just inform the community
that a water project would be implemented without
inviting them to fully participate in activities such as
site selection, design, choice of infrastructure,
appointment of water committees or other decisions
related to the implementation of the project. This
approach does not enable local voices to travel from
the fringes of the system to the center as expected
(DRC, 2018). Further, it does not help identify
community capacity (Haines, 2009; Cunningham et
al., 2012) or build on internal strength (Kretzman et
al., 2005; Syrafuddin & Amir, 2017). This situation
does not motivate the refugee communities to
participate meaningfully in the development and
implementation of the project. Further, it was
revealed that there is limited effort to empower the
community to take a meaningful part in the
development process of the water projects in the
settlement. Though water officials in the area
interviewed claimed to invite the community to
participate, consistent with the claims of Paul (1987),
Gitonga (2015), Otieno and Muno (2017), when the
community does not feel genuinely invited to
participate, they will withdraw their participation and
have a low regard of such a project.
Provision of Resources
Findings in Table 2 depict a low level of participation
by way of not providing resources for the water
projects in the settlement (mean 1.87). Respondents
regard their contribution to construction materials,
operating costs and user fees to be low. This finding
should not be considered in isolation of the aspect of
decision making because participation in decision
making clarifies the roles of the project stakeholders
that, among others, include provision of resources to
support the project as claimed by Gitonga (2015). The
two may be considered to affect each other as noted
by Paul (1987) and UNHCR (1992). When the
community is not genuinely involved in decision
making, they do not feel the sense of commitment to
contribute their resources to the project. This seems
to complement the arguments of ILO (2012), Kamau
(2015), Waithaka et al. (2016), and Gitonga (2015) on
reluctance of communities to contribute to
community development projects. Key informant
interviews revealed that community members
consider supply of water to the settlement a
responsibility of the government and development
partners who introduce these projects without their
much input. This claim ties in with the observed
result on decision making. During the key informant
interviews, one of the water service providers at the
settlement indicated that the community is not
willing to contribute to cost of trucked water that is
delivered to supplement the water supply from the
community water points because they claim they did
not ask for that service.
Initiating Action
Our results (Table 2 above) reveal a low level of
action initiation (mean 1.86). Specifically,
respondents rank themselves low on participation in
construction of water projects, mobilization of
physical and financial resources, trench digging,
cleaning the water sources and establishing the bye
laws to manage the water source. Drawing from the
postulations of Paul (1987) in his seminal work,
initiating actions is the highest level in the hierarchy
of community participation after decision making.
Noting that decision making is deemed low, it would
be theoretically contradictory (Paul, 1987) to find the
community having a high regard of initiating actions
related to the community. This argument
complements the claims of Kerzner (2006) and
Gitonga (2015) that communities that participate in
decision making take the initiative to ensure that
their decisions are successful. This may include
mobilization of the necessary resources and getting
engaged in the actual activities of the project. Key
informant interviews revealed that the community is
reluctant to initiate even simple actions such as
Joseline et al., International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies, 2022, 1(2)
May-Jun 2022
Article DOI: 10.22161/ijeel.1.2.4
©International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies (IJEEL) 44
securing the water point or ensuring that it is clean
all the time. They do not care much about the status
of the water points within their proximity. Due to this
attitude toward the projects, some of them have been
vandalized by the members of the community. The
UNHCR (1992) guidelines on community
participation aimed at full involvement of the
refugees and building their capacity to ensure that
they take charge of activities that influence their
welfare to enable success of the UNHCR supported
interventions. In addition, project developers should
be cognizant of the fact that refugee participation in
their welfare is highly contextual (DRC, 2018). It was
noted during the key informant interviews that
community members would be willing to take a more
visible and active role in the affairs of their water
projects. However, they are not much involved at the
beginning through sensitization and elicitation of
their views or clarification of their roles in project
development and implementation. This changes the
context of the project and limits community
participation. Refugees need empowerment that is
felt through actions (DRC, 2018). When they are not
empowered through initiatives such as training, they
will not ably perform some of the roles they are
expected to perform to optimize their participation.
Adopting a bureaucratic top-bottom approach to
introduction of water projects is one major hindrance
to effective community participation in the
settlement. As postulated by Guy (1983), Paul (1987),
Kerzner (2006), Gitonga (2015), and DRC (2018), the
approach to water project development is contrary to
the best practices on ensuring optimum community
participation.
Status of Water Project Sustainability in
Rwamwanja Settlement
The findings in Table 3 indicated that the status of
water sustainability in Rwamwanja Settlement is low
characterized by low functionality, accessibility and
reliability.
Functionality
The results (Table 3) show a low functionality of
water projects in this Settlement (mean 1.86). This is
characterized by low functioning rate of the water
points, more leakages and worn out parts and low
water flow. This suggests low level of sustainability as
postulated by Sebastian et al. (2018) and Musaana
(2018) that sustainable projects are those that
continue to function and offer benefits to the
community over time. It was revealed during the key
informant interviews that some water points such as
boreholes dried up during dry season due to
depression of the water table while in others,
inadequate maintenance left the water points without
key parts such as handles to pump the water
rendering them unusable. This revelation is contrary
to the principles of sustainability (Christiana, 2009;
ILO, 2012; Gitonga, 2015) that require inputs,
processes, outputs and outcomes of the project to
remain flowing overtime for the benefit of the
community.
Table 3: Status of Water Project Sustainability in Rwamwanja Settlement
Item
Mean
SD
Interpretation
Functionality
Our water sources are fitted with pumps/ function properly
1.83
0.724
Low
There are no leakages or worn out parts in our water source
1.85
1.29
Low
The water source flow is always high
1.92
1.46
Low
Aggregate Mean
1.86
1.16
Low
Accessibility
Water is always available from the nearest water point
1.77
0.69
Low
I always have enough water for home use
2.01
2.28
Low
I spend less time while collecting water from the water source
1.77
0.68
Low
In my household, I always store water
1.96
1.81
Low
Aggregate Mean
1.79
1.36
Low
Reliability
Our water sources provides clean water all the time
1.80
0.68
Low
Joseline et al., International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies, 2022, 1(2)
May-Jun 2022
Article DOI: 10.22161/ijeel.1.2.4
©International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies (IJEEL) 45
I am always satisfied by the water from our water source
1.76
0.68
Low
In this village water is always available
1.88
0.29
Low
Our water source does not break down frequently
1.63
0.68
Low
Aggregate Mean
1.77
0.83
Low
Grand Mean and SD
1.807
1.117
Low
Source: Field data
Accessibility
The findings (Table 3) also show a low accessibility to
water points by the community (mean 1.79). Water is
less available at the nearest water points, there isn’t
enough water for domestic use, it is time consuming
to collet water and households do not store water for
their use. These findings confirm the UNHCR (2019)
about the low water accessibility at 17.5 liters per
person per day against the WHO minimum of 50-100
liters a day. During the key informant interviews, it
was revealed that low water accessibility is
compounded by high breakdown rate, poor
maintenance culture, inadequate water points, and
nonfunctional water points due to a number of
reasons. Projects which are not accessible to the
beneficiaries are not sustainable (Kamau, 2015; and
Waithaka et al., 2016). Since the essence of the water
projects in the community is to provide accessible
safe water, low level of accessibility is contrary to the
best principles and practices of projects sustainability
for the welfare of the beneficiaries (ILO, 2012; DRC,
2018; Musaana, 2018). This challenge seems to be
compounded by the low level of functionality of the
water points. It would defeat logic to argue that less
functional water projects enable high accessibility to
water resources. This ties in with the arguments by
the systems theorists (Midgley, 2003; Kerzner, 2006;
Gitonga, 2015) who advocate for consideration of the
interplay of all the elements of the project in ensuring
that they remain functional in their interplay for the
project as system to continue providing its planned
benefits.
Reliability
This study reveals that water sources in Rwamwanja
Settlement are less reliable (mean 1.77). This is
characterized by low ranking of the cleanliness of the
water, dissatisfaction with the water sources, low
availability of water, and frequent breakdown of the
water sources. This is in line with the UNHCR (2019).
Applying systems thinking to this finding (Midgley,
2003; Kerzner, 2006; Gitonga, 2015), water projects
that have a low functionality and accessibility rating
would be more likely to have a low reliability rating as
there is an interplay between the three elements of
sustainability where low sustainability of one would
cause low sustainability of the other. The key
informant interviews further confirm both the
empirical revelation from the quantitative results and
the theoretical postulation that water projects with
the aforesaid features suffer dysfunctionality
problems. This as evidenced in Rwamwanja
Settlement may include producing water that is not
good for human health−which is hard with weird
taste, the quantity of water harvested from the water
points and that trucked remains below the needs of
the community. Therefore, low water project
sustainability in Rwamwanja may be construed as a
sum of the interplay between the level of
functionality, accessibility and reliability.
Influence of Community Participation on
Water Project Sustainability
The study established that community participation
has a significant (P-value=0.000) but weak influence
(r2=0.055) on water project sustainability in
Rwamwanja Settlement as indicated in Table 4. This
is associated with a significant but weak relationship
between community participation and water project
sustainability (r=.0235, P-value=.000). The finding
supplements claims by Ofuoko (2011), Kamau (2015),
Waithaka, Kisovi and Obando, (2016), Wanyera
(2016), and Otieno and Mumo (2017) which
concluded that a significant and positive relationship
exists between the community participation and
water project sustainability and promotion of
community participation significantly influences the
level of water project sustainability in the community.
However, unlike findings by (Ofuoko, 2011;
Waithaka, Kisovi & Obando, 2016; Wanyera, 2016;
and Otieno & Mumo, 2017) that reveal high influence
of community participation on water project
sustainability, this study reveals a weak influence. As
noted by DRC (2019) the influence of community
participation on projects that impact on the lives of
the refugees is context specific which could partly
explain the low level as derived from the perceptions
of the respondents. The project being in a refugee
Joseline et al., International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies, 2022, 1(2)
May-Jun 2022
Article DOI: 10.22161/ijeel.1.2.4
©International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies (IJEEL) 46
settlement, certain factors that either limit
community participation or water project
sustainability independent of community
participation could exist. Key informant interviews
revealed that inadequate funding from the
development partners and government, use of poor
quality materials, and corruption were factors beyond
community participation that affected the water
project sustainability in the settlement.
Table 4: Relationship between Community Participation and Water Projects Sustainability in Rwamwanja
Settlement
Items
Sustainability of Water Projects
Pearson Correlation (r)
0.235***
P-value
0.000
Coeffifience of determination
(R2)
0.055
N
353
{Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)}
A further analysis of the findings (Table 5) reveals
that initiating action is the only significant
community participation construct (β=.0188, P-
value=0.001) that influences water project
sustainability in the settlement. This suggests that
initiating actions by the community in Rwamwanja
Settlement influences up to 18 percent of the level of
water project sustainability. The finding suggests that
in the settlement, higher water project sustainability
could be realized when the communities are allowed
to initiate actions regarding water projects. However,
as argued by Paul (1987), it is imperative that to get
to the highest level of participation, that is, initiating
actions, the community should participate by
appreciating what is being done for them through
information and consultation, and taking part in
decision making, then, they will be empowered
enough to initiate appropriate actions. This doesn’t
seem to be the practice in the settlement as witnessed
in the findings in Table 2 above.
Table 5: Influence of Community Participation on Water Projects Sustainability
Coefficients
Model 1
Non Standardized Coefficients
Standardized Sig. Coefficients
B
Standard Error
Beta
(β)
(P)
(Constant)
1.197
0.149
0.000
Decision Making
0.084
0.065
0.068
0.198
Provision of Resources
0.079
0.052
0.082
0.130
Initiating Action
0.175
0.050
0.188
0.001
Dependent variable: sustainability of water projects: R squared: 0.055; Adjusted R squared:
0.05345
7. Conclusion and Recommendation
The study revealed that community participation in
water projects in Rwamwanja Settlement was low in
terms of decision making, provision of materials for
the projects and initiating actions related to the
projects. The community does not feel genuinely
invited to participate in the water projects as would
be expected in an environment that promotes
community participation. In addition, there was low
water project sustainability with low levels of
functionality, accessibility, and reliability. A
significant but weak positive relationship between
community participation and water project
sustainability exists. Consistent with the existing
literature, community participation significantly and
positively influences water project sustainability
though, in this study, the influence is weak. Non
community participation factors such as inadequate
funding from government and development partners,
use of poor quality materials and corruption were
voiced by the community as aspects that affected
water project sustainability in the settlement.
Joseline et al., International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies, 2022, 1(2)
May-Jun 2022
Article DOI: 10.22161/ijeel.1.2.4
©International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies (IJEEL) 47
From the findings, the researchers recommend that
government at both central and local levels,
development partners and firms contracted to
develop water projects should establish a water
project development protocol that stipulates the
steps, structures and processes that build and sustain
effective community participation. This should,
among others, specify who should participate, how,
when and where. Issues of community empowerment
to enable more constructive engagement with the
other project development stakeholders should be
clarified and emphasized in the protocol.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge and thank Bugema
University Graduate School for the support and
facilities given to undertake this study and write up.
They are also grateful for the financial support
through one of the authors (Amani Joseline) and
Bugema University for final publication of this
research paper.
References
[1] Abdullahi, M. B., & Ahmed, A. (2014). Community
Participation and Project Sustainability in Rural
Nigeria: A Study of Bauchi State Local Empowerment
and Environmental Management Project. African
Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 4 No. 1
(2014).
[2] Adhiambo, B. (2012). Factors affecting effectiveness
of donor funded projects in promoting development
in Kibera. University of Nairobi. Kenya.
[3] Ananga, E, O. (2017). The Role of Community
Participation in Water Production and Management:
Lessons from Sustainable Aid in Africa International
Sponsored Water Schemes in Kisumu, Kenya.
Accessed from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29299599
2_The_Role_of_Community_Participation_in_Wate
r_Production_and_Management_Lessons_From_Su
stainable_Aid_in_Africa_International_Sponsored_
Water_Schemes_in_Kisumu_Kenya.
[4] Arslan, S. Yazicigil, H. Stute, M., & Smithe, W. M.
(2014). Analysis of groundwater dynamics in the
complex aquifer system of Kazan Trona, Turkey,
using environmental tracers and noble gases.
September 2014, Hydrogeology Journal 23(1). Article
– Water Online, September 9, 2014.
[5] Bassi, S, A. Tange, I, Holm, B. Boldrin, A., & Rygaard,
M. (2018). A Multi-Criteria Assessment of Water
Supply in Ugandan Refugee Settlements. Published:
22 October 2018. Accessed from:
file:///C:/Users/DRM/Downloads/water-10-01493-
v2.pdf.
[6] Bhatnagar, B. (1992). Participatory development and
World Bank: Opportunities and Concerns. In
Participatory Development and the World Bank.
Bhatnagar, B. & Williams, A. C. (eds). World Bank
Discussion Paper No. 183. The World Bank
Washington DC: 13-30.
[7] Boniek, A. (2020). 2020 water and hygiene
barometer, solidarities international 6th Edition,
March 2020.
[8] Ching’oro. E. (2017) Involving the private sector in
rural water services: Lessons from Sangara Village –
Tanzania. Posted by Priya Sippy and Emma Williams
on 12 August 2019 in Monitoring, accountability and
governance Water Technology and innovation
Partnership. WaterAid Tanzania. Accessed from:
https://washmatters.wateraid.org/blog/involving-
the-private-sector-in-rural-water-services-lessons-
from-sangara-village-tanzania
[9] Chinn, P. L. & Kramer, M. K. 1999. Theory and
Nursing: A Systematic Approach. 5th Edition. St
Louis, USA: Mosby.
[10] Christina. G. & Claudia, (2009). How to develop
business and fight poverty. Inclusive Business Guide.
.Endeva-Germany Knoblochwww.endeva.org.
[11] Creswell, J. W. (2011). Controversies in Mixed
Methods Research. In N. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research
(4th ed., pp. 269-283). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
[12] Cronin A. A. Shrestha D. Cornier N. Abdalla F. Ezard
N., & Arambura C. (2008). A review of Water and
Sanitation provision in refugee camps in association
with selected health and nutrition indicators – the
need for integrated service provision. Journal of
Water & Health 6 (1): 1-13
[13] Culbertson, S. Oliker, O., Baruch, B., & Blum, I.
(2016). Rethinking Coordination of Services to
Refugees in Urban Areas: Managing the Crisis in
Jordan and Lebanon, Randon Corporation.
[14] Cunningham, G. G. Mathie, A., & Peters, B. (2012).
Mobilizing assets for community
[15] Danish Refugee Council. (2018). Listen To Our
Voices’ What Does It Take To Improve Refugee
Participation In Durable Solutions Processes? July
2018, Geneva.
[16] Development, edited by R. Phillips and R. H. Pittman,
Routledge, in the USA and Canada pp. 38–48.
[17] Driven Development, Participant Manual, Coady
International Institute, St. Francis Xavier University,
Canada.
[18] Foster, T. Predictors of sustainability for community-
managed handpumps in Sub-Saharan Africa:
evidence from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and
Uganda. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 12037–12046.
[19] Fox, W. & Bayat, M. S. 2007. A Guide to Managing
Research. Cape Town: JUTA and Co Ltd. Shredding.
[20] Gitonga, B. A. (2015). Factors Influencing Project
Sustainability: A Case of Saint Franciscan Sisters
Programme in Otiende Sub County in Nairobi
County. Unpublished MA Dissertation, University of
Nairobi.
Joseline et al., International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies, 2022, 1(2)
May-Jun 2022
Article DOI: 10.22161/ijeel.1.2.4
©International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies (IJEEL) 48
[21] Green, H. E. 2014. Use of theoretical and conceptual
frameworks in qualitative research. Nurse Res., 2014
July 21(6): 34-8.
[22] Guy, G. (1983). Development by People. New York:
Praeger.
[23] Haines, A. (2009). Asset-based community
development, An Introduction to Community
[24] Haq, M. A., Hassan, S. M., & Ahmad, K. (2014).
Community participation and sustainability of water
supply program in district Faisalabad, Pakistan.
Journal of Quality and Technology Management, X
(II), pp.125 – 137.
[25] International labour organization (ILO). (2012).
Sustainability and Resource Mobilization Strategy:
Creating the enabling environment to establish
models for child labour free areas in Kenya: Support
to the implementation of the National Action Plan for
the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour
with special focus on agriculture and older children;
SNAP Project guide Kenya).
[26] IRC. (2012).Community Water, Community
Management: From system to Service in Rural Areas.
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, ITDG
Publishing 103-105 Southampton Row, London
WC1B 4HL, UK.
[27] Kamau, F. M. (2015). Factors influencing
sustainability of water sanitation and health projects
implemented by sustainable development and peace
building initiatives at Fafi constituency, Garissa
county Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Nairobi).
[28] Kerzner. H. (2006). Project Management: A System
Approach to Planning, Scheduling and Controlling.
9th Ed. John Willy & Sons. UK.
[29] Kim, B. (2016). A water wall, aims to solve food waste
in Kenyan refugee camp. By News Deeply: Refugees
Deeply, April 2017. Accessed from:
https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/
2017/04/21/a-water-wall-aims-to-solve-food-waste-
in-kenyan-refugee-camp.
[30] Kothari C. R. (2004). Research Methodology:
methods and techniques. 2nd Revised Edition, 2004,
1990, 1985. Published by New Age International (P)
Ltd., Publishers
[31] Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology:
Methods and Techniques, New Age International
Publishers, New Delhi, 12-98.
[32] Kretzmann, J. P. McKnight, J. L. Dobrowolski, S., &
Puntenney, D. (2005). Discovering community
power: A guide to mobilizing local assets and your
organization’s capacity, A Community-Building
Workbook, School of Education & Social Policy,
Northwestern University.
[33] Kumudu, R. Hector, M., & Malano, M. A. (2016).
Assessment of Sustainability of Urban Water Supply
and Demand Management Options: A Comprehensive
Approach, December 2016. Water 8 (12).
[34] Maonga, J. (2017). Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
Assessment (WASH) in Ajumani, Arua, Hoima,
Singiro, Kamwenge, Kyenjojo, Kiyando and Lombo:
WASH in Uganda Refugee Settlements: Next Phase.
UNHCR Uganda. September 2017. Accessed from:
https://www.mwe.go.ug/sites/default/files/library/9.
2%20WASH_Next%20Phase_Uganda_28092017.pdf
[35] McKnight, M, J., & Kretzmanm, J. (2003). Building
the Community from Outside Out. A Path toward
Finding and Mobilixing Community Assets.
Routeledge-Nee York-USA.
[36] Mendes, P. (2008) Integrating Social Work and
Community Development Practice in Victoria,
Australia, Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and
Development, 18(1), 14-25.
[37] Midgley, G. (2003). System Thinking. Sage
publishers-London.
[38] Mugisha, S., & Borisova, T. (2010). Balancing
Coverage and Financial Sustainability in Pro-Poor
Water Service Initiatives: A Case of a Uganda
Project, The Engineering Economist, 55:4, 305-
327, DOI: 10.1080/0013791X.2010.524280.
[39] Mugumya, F. (2013). Enabling community-based
water management systems: governance and
sustainability of rural point-water facilities in
Uganda. Unpublished PhD thesis, Dublin City
University.
[40] Muhwezi, M. (2018). Safe water for all! NWSC to
serve over 120,000 people in Rwamwanja Settlement
Camp. National Water Sewerage Corporation (NWSC)
Uganda, Annual Report 2018. Accessed from:
https://www.pmldaily.com/news/2018/08/safe-
water-for-all-nwsc-to-serve-over-120000-people-in-
rwamwanja-settlement.html
[41] Mukunga F. M. (2012). Influence of community
participation on the performance of water projects.
[42] Musaana, E. J. (2018). Community Participation as a
Determinant of Project Sustainbility Beyond Donor
Support. The Case of Zambia. GRIN Verlag, 2019.
[43] Mushtaq.A.M. (2004). Community participation in
water supply and sanitation schemes around
Hyderabad, Pakistan.
[44] Nayebare, S. R. Wilson, L. R. Carpenter, D. O.
Dziewulski, D. M., & Kannan, K. (2014). “A review of
potable water accessibility and sustainability issues in
developing countries - case study of Uganda,”
Reviews on Environmental Health, vol. 29, no. 4, pp.
363–378.
[45] Nyarko K. B. Dwumfour-Asare, B. Appiah-Effah, E., &
Moriarty, P. (2013). Community participation and
Sustainable water services in refugee settlements and
small towns. IRC Symposium 2010. Pumps, Pipes and
Promises. Cost of delivering water services in rural
areas and small towns in Ghana. Ghana Safe Water
Network. Accessed from:
https://www.safewaternetwork.org/sites/default/file
s/Ghana_Market_Review-2013.pdf
[46] Nyende, J. (2007). Ground water quality and
sustainability in granitised-fractured aquifers, Pallisa
District, Eastern Uganda. In Brebbia, C. A., &
Kungolos, A. [eds]. Water resources IV. Wit
Joseline et al., International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies, 2022, 1(2)
May-Jun 2022
Article DOI: 10.22161/ijeel.1.2.4
©International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies (IJEEL) 49
Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol
103: 263-272, WIT Press (on-line).
[47] Ofuoku, A. U. (2011). Effect of community
participation on sustainability of rural water projects
in Delta Central agricultural zone of Delta State,
Nigeria Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural
Development Vol. 3(7): 130-136.
[48] Okoth-Oboth, G. (2019). Remarks on the Launch of
UN water development and commeration of world
water day under the theme “leaving no one behond,
19th March 2019. Geneva.
[49] Olajuyigbe, A. E. (2016) Community Participation
and Sustainability Issue: An Evaluation of a Donor-
Driven Water Sector in Ikaram Millennium Village
Project, Nigeria. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 4,
90-103.
[50] Otieno, D. A., & Mumo, M. (2017). Influence of
Community Participation on sustainabilioty of water
and sanitation projects in Rhonda Slum in nakuru
County, Kenya. Journal of Humanities and Social
Science. Vol. 22, Issue 10, Ver 10, pp 31-38. October
2017.
[51] Otieno, D. A., & Mumo, M. (2017). Influence of
Community Participation on Sustainability of Water
and Sanitation Projects in Rhonda Slum in Nakuru
County, Kenya. IOSR Journal of Humanities and
Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) Volume 22, Issue 10(10):
31-38.
[52] Paul, S. (1987). ‘Community Participation in
Development Projects: the World Bank Experience’,
World Bank Discussion Papers, no. 6, Washington,
D.C.: The World Bank.
[53] Putnam, R. D. (2000). ‘Bowling alone: the collapse
and revival of American community.’ (Simon &
Schuster: New York).
[54] Sebastian, I. C. Ceptureanu, E. G. Cristian, E. L., &
Iuliana, L. (2018). "Community Based Programs
Sustainability. A Multidimensional Analysis of
Sustainability Factors," Sustainability, MDPI, Open
Access Journal, vol. 10(3), pages 1-15.
[55] Syarifuddin, N., & Amir, N. (2017). Asset-Based
Community Development (ABCD) Model: An
Approach for Improving Environmental and
Behavioural Health. Advanced Science Letters, Vol.
23: 3364–3366.
[56] UNHCR (2020). World water development report
2020. Water and climate change March 2020.
[57] UNHCR. (2016) access to water in refugee situations
survival, health and dignity for refugees. Technical
Support Section, Division of Operational Support.
UNHCR, Geneva,
Switzerland.Accessed:https://www.un.org/waterforlif
edecade/pdf/unhcr_water_brochure.pdf.
[58] UNHCR. (2018). Uganda Refugee Response
Monitoring, Settlement Fact Sheet: Rwamwanja.
UNHCR Uganda Country office, January 2018.
Accessed from:
https://data2.unhcr.org/en/documents/details/6328
0
[59] UNHCR. (1992). Water Manual for Refugee
Situations, Program and Technical Support Section,
Geneva, November 1992.
[60] UNHCR. (2018). Multi-Sector Needs Assessment:
Rwamwanja Settlement - Settlement Factsheet,
Kamwenge District, Uganda (August 2018). Sources
REACH UNHCR Posted 11 Sep 2018 originally
published 31 Aug 2018. Accessed:
https://reliefweb.int/report/uganda/multi-sector-
needs-assessment-rwamwanja-settlement-
settlement-factsheet-kamwenge.
[61] UNHCR. (2019). Assessment of water delivery in
refugee settlements in Uganda: analysis and
recommendations, October 2019, Kampala.
[62] Van der Helm, A. W. C.; Bhai, A.; Coloni, F.; Koning,
W. J. G. & de Bakker, P. T. (2017). Developing water
and sanitation services in refugee settings from
emergency to sustainability – the case of Zaatari
Camp in Jordan. Journal of Water, Sanitation and
Hygiene for Development (2017) 7 (3): 521–527.
[63] Waithaka, A. Kisovi, L. M., & Obando, J. (2016). The
Impact of Community Participation in Rural Water
Management in Ndarugu-Thiririka Sub- Catchment,
Athi Basin, Kenya. Ethiopian Journal of
Environmental Studies & Management 9 (2): 245 –
254.
[64] Wanyera, L. A. (2016). Influence of Community
Participation on Sustainability of Community Based
Projects: A Case of Kiambiu Water and Sanitation
Slum Project, Nairobi County, Kenya, Unpublished
MA Dissertation, University of Nairobi.
[65] Water Barometer. (2020). Water in Crisis (es),
Inventory of access to vital resource; challenges and
solutions, Solidarites.org.
[66] Water.org. (2020). Uganda’s water and sanitation
crisis.
[67] WCED. (1987). Economic and social development
that meets the need of the current and future
generation.
[68] White, L. (1996). The historical roots of our ecological
crisis. Routledge, New York-USA.
[69] WHO. (2012). UN-Water Global Analysis and
Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking water (GlAAS)
2012 report: the challenge of extending and
sustaining services. WHO Gland, Switzerland.
[70] World Bank. (1986). The role of community
participation in development planning and project
management. Report of a Workshop on Community
Participation held in Washington D.C. Economic
Development Institute.
