- 1 -
Master Thesis
submitted within the UNIGIS MSc programme at the Centre for GeoInformatics (Z_GIS)
Salzburg University
Using GIS to Prioritise Rural Water Needs
by
Wilhelm Richter 420141
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of
Master of Science (Geographical Information Science & Systems) – MSc (GISc)
Advisor:
Ann Olivier
Graaff-Reinet, RSA, 21 November 2012
- ii -
Science Pledge
The results presented in this thesis are based on my own research. To the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no ideas, techniques, quotations or any other material from the work of other people unless acknowledged in the references provided. All assistance received from other individuals and organizations has been acknowledged and full reference is made to all published and unpublished sources used.
……… ……….………
Signature Date
………
Place
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the same opinion or point of view of any of the mentioned governmental organizations or individuals listed or referred to.
- iii -
Abstract
Computer-based Geographic Information Systems (GIS) has been used since the late 1960’s. Subsequently it has evolved from a mere cartographic tool until now, where spatially-enabled data can be analysed in many different ways for spatial problem solving.
Spatial decision problems typically involve large data sets where the location of spatial features plays a significant role in the analysis process, and in most instances the analysis process itself requires a Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). It is by marrying these two areas of research together in a GIS-based MCDA that the real power of GIS is revealed in a problem-solving environment.
An example of such a problem-solving environment is in South Africa, where the National Government has promised free basic services to every household. The prioritisation of these service deliveries has created an immense challenge to local government. The most basic of these services is water supply. Due to the vastness and remote characteristics of the rural areas, it is one of the most difficult aspects of service delivery that local government faces. Additional to the spatial characteristics of these areas, political influence often dictates the outcomes of service delivery planning instead of focusing on the actual water needs of rural communities.
This thesis, therefore, looks at prioritising water needs of rural areas in an objective, unbiased approach using a GIS-based methodology.
- iv -
Preface
Since my first introduction to Geographic Information Systems (GIS), I have been intrigued by the ability to analyse spatial data and using geoprocessing tools to provide answers to problems.
Municipalities are facing huge challenges with service delivery, especially in rural areas where the lack of service delivery is the highest and is the most challenging to serve.
Political influence, in many instances, dictates what should be implemented when and where. Planning meetings, where many political parties are represented within one municipality, often become volatile when service delivery needs are prioritised.
It is within this working environment that I pursued the topic of using GIS to determine the urgency of water needs on a rural community level. It is envisaged that this will assist a municipality to prioritise water supply on a community level in an objective, un- biased approach based on the communities’ actual water needs.
- v -
Acknowledgements
This thesis is dedicated to late Christo Nel, who strived towards eradicating service delivery backlogs in an objective, non-biased approach within the Zululand District Municipality, Northern KwaZulu Natal. His dedication and passion to his work inspired me to research this topic further.
I would like to thank the personnel of Zululand District Municipality with whom I have worked closely together during my research. Their support and constructive feedback was of utmost importance to the successful completion of this thesis.
To my wife, Adele, thank you for all your moral support during these past four years of studying, and many times being willing to handle the household and children alone!
Many thanks to my work colleagues, Eugene Bosch and Colin Geel, who supported and encouraged me during my studies!
To my mentor and advisor, Ann Olivier from the UNIGIS centre in Port Elizabeth, thank you for your endless patience and dedicated support throughout my studies!
- vi -
Table of Contents
Science Pledge ...ii
Disclaimer...ii
Abstract ... iii
Preface ...iv
Acknowledgements ...v
Table of Contents ...vi
List of Figures... viii
List of Tables ... viii
List of Abbreviations ...ix
1 Introduction... 1
1.1 Background... 1
1.1.1 Historical Background on Water Service Delivery in South Africa ... 1
1.1.2 Research Problem Definition... 6
1.2 Aim and Objectives ... 7
1.3 Approach and Methodology ... 7
1.4 Expected Results ... 9
1.5 Issues excluded from research ... 9
1.6 Intended Audience ... 10
1.7 Structure of the Thesis... 10
Chapter 1: Introduction... 10
Chapter 2: Literature ... 10
Chapter 3: Approach and Methodology... 10
Chapter 4: Research Implementation... 10
Chapter 5: Results... 11
Chapter 6: Analysis of Results ... 11
Chapter 7: Summary ... 11
2 Literature Review ... 13
2.1 Introduction ... 13
2.2 National Requirements on Rural Water Services Delivery... 13
2.3 Global Trends on Rural Water Services Delivery... 14
2.3.1 Global status of rural water supply ... 14
2.3.2 Global factors influencing rural water provision... 16
2.3.3 Global trends in prioritising rural water supply projects ... 17
2.4 Current Situation in South African Local Government... 22
2.4.1 Legislative Requirements ... 22
2.4.2 Existing Methods for Water Supply Prioritisation... 25
2.5 Prioritisation Methodology... 26
2.5.1 Prioritisation Defined ... 27
2.5.2 Prioritisation Methods... 28
2.5.3 Prioritisation Weighting... 30
2.5.4 Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) ... 31
2.5.5 Conclusion on Prioritisation Methodology ... 41
2.6 Relevance of a GIS-based MCDA approach ... 41
2.6.1 Why use GIS with MCDA ... 41
2.6.2 The Role of GIS in a MCDA Process ... 44
2.7 Conclusion ... 45
- vii -
3 Approach & Methodology ... 47
3.1 Introduction ... 47
3.2 Approach ... 47
3.2.1 Research Technique ... 48
3.2.1 Research Area ... 48
3.2.2 Tools ... 49
3.3 Methodology ... 49
4 Research Implementation... 52
4.1 Research Description... 52
4.2 Research Concept ... 52
4.3 Research Area... 52
4.4 Research Implementation Process ... 55
4.4.1 GIS-based MCDA Approach ... 56
4.4.2 Existing Consultative Approach... 60
4.5 Conclusion ... 61
5 Results ... 62
5.1 Introduction ... 62
5.2 GIS-based Prioritisation Model ... 62
5.3 Hot Spot Areas... 64
5.4 Comparative Results... 65
5.5 Conclusion ... 67
6 Critical Analysis of Results ... 69
7 Summary ... 72
7.1 Summary ... 72
7.2 General Discussion... 72
7.3 Future Work ... 74
7.4 Recommendations ... 75
7.4.1 GIS-based Approach... 75
7.4.2 Establishment of a GIS Department ... 76
7.4.3 Data Requirements ... 78
7.4.4 Research Area ... 78
Bibliography... 79
- viii -
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Chart showing household distribution per province ... 1
Figure 1.2: Map showing household distribution per local municipality... 2
Figure 1.3: Access to piped water per local municipality (% households)... 3
Figure 1.4: Existing Water Services within Rural Communities ... 5
Figure 1.5: Thesis Content Summary... 12
Figure 2.1: Global status map on rural water supply, 2010... 15
Figure 2.2: Rural water supply coverage per continent, 2000... 15
Figure 2.3: Typical WSDP Approval Process of a District Municipality ... 24
Figure 2.4: Framework for MCDA ... 32
Figure 2.5: Classification of Multicriteria Decision Problems ... 33
Figure 2.6: Pairwise Comparison Matrix... 37
Figure 2.7: Completed Pairwise Comparison Matrix Table... 37
Figure 2.8: Final Weights ... 38
Figure 2.9: Calculating Consistency Ration... 39
Figure 2.10: Comparison of Weighting Methods ... 39
Figure 2.11: Annual GIS-MCDA articles (1990-2004)... 43
Figure 2.12: Loose Coupling Strategy... 44
Figure 2.13: Tight Coupling Strategy... 45
Figure 3.1: Approach for Research Implementation ... 47
Figure 3.2: Methodology for Research Implementation ... 51
Figure 4.1: Rural communities in KwaZulu Natal... 53
Figure 4.2: Rural communities in ZDM ... 55
Figure 4.3: Existing water infrastructure in ZDM... 57
Figure 4.4: ZDM “Hot Spot” Areas... 60
Figure 5.1: GIS-based Prioritisation Outcomes and “Hot Spot” Areas ... 63
Figure 5.2: Comparative line of water needs per community... 66
Figure 7.1: Recommended WSDP Approval Process for a District Municipality ... 77
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Articles regarding GIS-based Multicriteria Decision Analysis (1990-2004).. 21Table 2.2: Application Domain and Decision Problem Summary... 21
Table 2.3: Service Delivery Prioritisation Research Examples ... 26
Table 2.4: Prioritisation Methods... 29
Table 2.5: Comparison of MODM and MADM Approaches ... 34
Table 2.6: Pairwise Comparison Matrix... 36
Table 4.1: Questionnaire on GIS functionality ... 54
Table 4.2: Prioritisation Model Scoring... 59
Table 4.3: Role of GIS during implementation... 60
Table 5.1: Hot Spot Area Summary ... 64
- ix -
List of Abbreviations
APEXPH
... Assessm
ent Protocol for Excellence in Public Health DWA ... Department of Water Affairs EXCO ... Executive Council FAO ... Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations GIS ... Geographic Information System IDP ... Integrated Development Plan MADM ... Multiattribute Decision Making MCDA ... Multicriteria Decision Analysis MDP ... Millennium Development Goals MODM ...Multiobjective Decision Making NACCHO ... National Association of County and City Health Officials REC ... Regional Environmental Center RWLI ... Rural Water Livelihoods Index TAWASANET ...Tanzania Water and Sanitation Network WSDP ... Water Services Development Plan WSP ... Water Services Provider ZDM ... Zululand District Municipality- 1 -
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
1.1.1 Historical Background on Water Service Delivery in South Africa
The end of the apartheid in 1994 in South Africa, one of the key focus areas of the new National Government that emerged was basic service delivery (dwa.gov.za, 2004).Millions of South African households were without basic services such as water, sanitation, roads and electricity. The majority of these households are found in traditional rural areas (statssa.gov.za, 2007). A breakdown between informal, formal and traditional dwellings can be reviewed in Figure 1.1 below:
Figure 1.1: Chart showing household distribution per province
In Figure 1.2, the distribution of traditional dwellings per local municipality can be reviewed. The highest concentration of these traditional dwellings can be found in the KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape provinces (statssa.gov.za, 2007).
- 2 - Figure 1.2: Map showing household distribution per local municipality
The most basic of these services is water provision, and National Government was faced with the challenge of supplying free water to millions of households who are reliant on either unprotected surface water or non-sustainable rain water.
A breakdown of access to piped water per local municipality can be reviewed in Figure 1.3. A definite correlation can be seen between traditional dwellings and low access to piped water (statssa.gov.za, 2007).
- 3 - Figure 1.3: Access to piped water per local municipality (% households)
In urban areas, water services are implemented as the areas develop. As new suburbs are developed, infrastructure services are provided at the same time. However, in traditional rural areas, millions of households rely on surface water or rain water for survival (statssa.gov.za, 2007). The existing national legislation of free basic water to all (Government Gazette, 1997) implies that the Government is obliged to supply even the most rural households with free potable water services. However, due to the complexity of difficult road access, topography and water scarcity, it has created a challenge to Government to provide these services in rural areas.
The first Water Supply and Sanitation Policy White Paper was published in 1994 and enacted as the Water Services Act, Act 108 of 1997 (dwa.gov.za, 1994). The Department of Water Affairs (DWA) had the responsibility of providing these services.
A few guidelines were provided on how to implement these services, and the primary principle is that development should be demand-driven. The Apartheid era has left a legacy of prejudice, and it is important that the new water supply policies ensure that their implementation does not become subjective to political influence. The Water for
- 4 - Growth and Development Framework, published by DWA, stipulates that proper planning and resources need to be used to supply water through various programmes, such as bulk water schemes, intermediate stand-alone schemes, and survival-level of water where water scarcity is prevalent (dwa.gov.za, 2011). The water policies, however, provide little guidance about how these services should be prioritised.
The Water and Sanitation White Paper was revised in 2002 and adopted by Parliament on 17 September 2003 as the Strategic Framework for Water Services (dwa.gov.za, 2003). Some major amendments were made to the roles of the DWA and local government. DWA’s function changed from being a direct delivery function to being a sector leader, supporter and regulator. The responsibility of service delivery was handed over to the local government, and each district and local municipality have to implement their own policies to manage service delivery. The Water Services Development Plan (WSDP) forms the basis for how each municipality intends to plan and implement their water and sanitation services. It is a key guideline provided by the White Paper to execute the planning process. It acknowledges the views of all important stakeholders, including communities, through a consultative and participatory process (dwa.gov.za, 2003).
The ward councillors fulfill the role of acting on behalf of the local people in their respective wards with their focus on a consultative and participatory process for service delivery needs. A ward councilor, therefore, has the responsibility of being a spokesperson for the ward, which entails the successful voicing of community needs to the entities providing service delivery. Due to this responsibility, it is important that the councillor ensures that community needs are being addressed. Councillors for these wards may affiliate to different political parties.
Ward councillors are, therefore, in a predicament because they compete with the other ward councillors for budget allocations. The Water Services Provider (WSA), in return, faces the following challenges:
• If ten communities from different wards do not have water services, how should the budget allocations be done and which settlement will get water services first?
• Whose viewpoint acts as the decisive when deciding where water services should be implemented?
- 5 - The community with the lowest level of services in one ward may, for example, be in a better position compared to communities in other wards because it is close to a perennial river. The question remains what objective measurement can determine which community is worse-off? An example of water level of services for rural communities in the Zululand District Municipality, KwaZulu Natal, can be seen below in Figure 1.4. The grey areas represent communities where no water services have been implemented yet, with other areas showing different levels of water services. The challenge is how to prioritise water service delivery needs between the communities without water services.
Figure 1.4: Existing Water Services within Rural Communities
A further complication is that ward councillors represent their political party. This places the ward councillor in the situation whereby their performance for services delivery is a direct representation to the public about how effective the represented political party is. In many instances, the most influential ward councillors have the best
- 6 - success rate in convincing a WSP that their communities need service delivery the most.
In 2004, DWA published a document on best practices for rural water supply (dwa.gov.za 2004), providing some guidelines on the planning and implementation process for rural water supply. It notes that rural communities are largely excluded from the following processes:
• The level of service to be provided;
• Water services provision coverage;
• Choice of technology;
• Operations and maintenance (O&M) arrangements;
• Tariffs;
• Setting up systems to deal with defaulters;
• Mechanisms for laying and dealing with complaints;
• Mechanisms for conflict resolution.
These are focused on the planning and implementation process for water supply itself, but do not provide guidelines about how rural communities should be prioritised for implementation.
In 2009, the Water for Growth and Development Framework version 7 was published (dwa.gov.za, 2009). The provision on basic water services to remote rural areas is described as “complicated and costly”, and that all possible means of water supply should be investigated to supply these rural communities with adequate water. There are still no clear guidelines about how these rural communities should be prioritised for water supply.
1.1.2 Research Problem Definition
The current scenario as described in the previous section, allows the problem definition to be presented as follows:
• The urgency or need for water service delivery to rural communities need to be prioritised in an objective and unbiased approach in order for communities with the highest need for water to be served first.
- 7 -
1.2 Aim and Objectives
Aim
Due to the vast geographic area, with hundreds of communities to be served in a typical Water Services Provider’s area of jurisdiction, together with fast-changing demographic characteristics, efficient planning on this scale can not be done without spatial data and spatial analysis.
A GIS-based Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) will, therefore, be used to analyse and prioritise service delivery to rural communities based on their level of water needs.
The biggest challenge for service delivery lies with rural communities, and water services is the primary basic need of all basic service delivery (dwa.gov.za, 1994). The focus is therefore, on water service needs in rural communities.
Objectives
The objectives of this research are twofold:
• Create a Prioritisation Model for water needs where communities are prioritised in an objective, unbiased approach based on their actual need for water services.
• A comparative analysis between GIS-based approach and the recommended existing consultative approach, which is mainly based on the viewpoints of individuals.
1.3 Approach and Methodology
Theoretical Foundation
The theoretical foundation of the expected outcomes and results of this thesis is that the level of urgency or the need for water supply to rural communities can be determined by establishing the existing form of water access. It should be possible to assign a “water needs” value to the various aspects and characteristics of each settlement related to water access. A total score can then be assigned to each settlement, which represents their urgency or need for water services. The higher the score, the higher the priority of the settlement for water services.
- 8 - Approach
The approach followed consists of analysing the urgency of water supply to each community through a GIS-based Prioritisation Model. This is compared with existing water services requests from communities and councillors, and the perceived urgency for these requests to be addressed. The effectiveness of the GIS-based approach can, therefore, be measured against the consultative approach.
Since the nature of this research problem is geographic, GIS is used to address the problem definition. GIS offers a unique approach to spatially maintain and analyse large data sets which would otherwise be impractical to manage by traditional, manual methods (Malczewski, J. 1999).
Research Technique
The aim of this research is to investigate the feasibility of an un-biased GIS Prioritisation Model, and a quantitative research technique is therefore used. This will minimise the subjectivity of the individual and focus purely on analysing factual data.
Tools
The tools used will mainly include water-related data sets for communities, which can be spatially analysed to determine the level of urgency for water supply to each community.
Research Area
The spatial analysis relies heavily on proper spatial data sets with adequate information regarding existing water infrastructure and access to water. The research area used is selected from a rural area where the required data sets are readily available, or which will require minimal updating to ensure an accurate scoring for each community,
Methodology
A quantitative method requires obtaining information on existing water services at household level. An empirical method is used to collect water-related information on household level. From these details and data sets, a more theoretical method is applied to determine a set of variables and weightings. This produces a prioritisation scoring method for each community to determine their actual level of urgency for water services.
- 9 -
1.4 Expected Results
The expected result from this research is to prioritise communities in order of the most urgent need for water supply in an objective, un-biased approach.
The results should answer the following questions:
• Is it feasible to use GIS to prioritise the level of urgency for water supply to rural communities?
• Can this approach assist municipalities in planning purposes for rural water supply?
• How effective is this approach compared to using a list of urgent needs through a public participation process?
1.5 Issues excluded from research
The expected outcome of this research is to determine the actual need or urgency for water services to rural communities, but it does not elaborate on the method and/or level of services to be implemented for each community. There are several types of water supply programmes, such as bulk regional schemes, smaller stand-alone schemes, or just a simple handpump that supply water to rural communities (dwa.gov.za, 2011). To determine which programme is the most feasible for each community is beyond the scope of this thesis.
The expected outcome of the research is to provide a methodology to a WSP to prioritise which areas or communities should be served first based on their urgency for water services within a given footprint.
- 10 -
1.6 Intended Audience
This thesis focuses on water services delivery to rural communities. Water services implementation is the responsibility of WSP's, which at present lies with local government. The outcomes of this thesis are therefore of interest to the Planning and Technical Departments of District and Local Municipalities with rural communities in need of water services. The implementation process is mostly done with GIS spatial analysis, and will therefore be of interest to the GIS department of a District or Local Municipality.
It could, furthermore, have an effect on how service delivery prioritisation is seen from a provincial and national perspective, and may be of interest to government organizations dealing with such service delivery objectives.
1.7 Structure of the Thesis
The thesis is divided into the following chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction
This section provides a background to water service delivery in South Africa, and describes the research problem of how the existing approach to prioritising rural communities for water services need to be reviewed.
Chapter 2: Literature
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the basic technologies and fields of research which the work presented in this thesis are based on.
Chapter 3: Approach and Methodology
Chapter 3 provides an overview on the approach and methodology that was followed, research techniques and tools that were used, and how the research area was determined.
Chapter 4: Research Implementation
This chapter elaborates on the process followed to collect spatial information regarding existing water services in rural communities. It elaborates on the process followed to analyse this spatial data through a GIS-based approach to prioritise communities for water service delivery based on their actual water needs.
- 11 -
Chapter 5: Results
Chapter 5 provides a summary of the results from both the GIS-based approach to prioritise communities for water services, and the existing consultative approach. This creates a platform to analyse the effectiveness of both approaches.
Chapter 6: Analysis of Results
Chapter 6 provides a comparative analysis on how effective the GIS-based approach is in prioritising the most urgent water needs for rural water service delivery.
Chapter 7: Summary
This section summarises the conclusions drawn from the results of the work presented in this thesis, and proposes an outlook for further research.
Figure 1.5 provides a flowchart of the above chapters:
- 12 - Figure 1.5: Thesis Content Summary
Summarise conclusions &
recommendations from results Implement
GIS-based Approach
Results of GIS-based Approach
Recommended
Future Research
Research Existing Methods
for Rural Water Prioritisation
Existing Consultative Approach Introduction
Background, Aims &
Objectives
Research Problem
GIS-based Approach
Comparative Analysis on both approaches
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Collect details of existing
approach
Results of existing approach
- 13 -
2 Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
Free basic water to every household is underwritten in the South African National Constitution (Government Gazette, 1997). This chapter reviews the requirements that are stipulated at a national level about how water services implementation should be approached in rural areas.
Some examples of how other countries and global organizations approach this task are furthermore reviewed to get a better perspective on how the above national requirements compare to global trend.
The strategies which existing Water Service Providers on a District Municipal level follow to prioritise water services for rural communities are also inspected.
The last section of this chapter provides details on different methods used for prioritisation of projects in general, and what the positive and negative aspects of each method are.
The chapter concludes by discussing the relevance of a GIS-based prioritisation for rural water supply. This will set the stage for the research problem and related approach and methodology to address it.
2.2 National Requirements on Rural Water Services Delivery
The first Water Supply and Sanitation Policy White Paper in South Africa was published in 1994 and enacted as the Water Services Act, Act 108 of 1997
(
Government Gazette, 1997).The Department of Water Affairs had the responsibility of providing these services.
The Water for Growth and Development Framework, published by DWA (dwa.gov.za, 2011), stipulates that proper planning and resources should be used to supply water through various programmes, such as bulk water schemes, intermediate stand-alone schemes, and survival-level of water where water scarcity is most prevalent. The
- 14 - water policies, however, provide very little guidance as to how these services should be prioritised.
The Water and Sanitation White Paper was revised in 2002 and adopted by Parliament on 17 September 2003 as the Strategic Framework for Water Services (dwa.gov.za, 2003). Some major amendments were made in terms of the roles for DWA and local government. The function of the DWA changed from being a direct delivery function to being a sector leader, supporter and regulator.
The responsibility of service delivery was handed over to local government, and each district and local municipality are now required to implement their own service delivery policies. The Water Services Development Plan (WSDO) forms the basis of how each municipality intends to plan and implement their water and sanitation services, and one of the White Paper's key guidelines to execute the planning process, is to consider the views of all the important stakeholders, including communities, through a consultative and participatory process (dwa.gov.za, 2003).
A few aspects of rural water supply in other countries are furthermore discussed to prepare for the comparison of the situation in South Africa with global trends
2.3 Global Trends on Rural Water Services Delivery
2.3.1 Global status of rural water supply
A global assessment is done every ten years by the World Health Organization.
According to the 2010 assessment, an estimated 780 million people still lack access to safe drinking water. Figure 2.1 indicates the percentages of rural water supply per country (gamapserver.who.int, 2012):
- 15 - Figure 2.1: Global status map on rural water supply, 2010
Of this 780 million, the highest percentage of rural population without access to safe water is found in Africa. Figure 2.2 presents a comparative chart for the status presented in Figure 2.1 (whqlibdoc.who.int, 2012):
Figure 2.2: Rural water supply coverage per continent, 2000
The above statistics highlight that there is a major global challenge to provide potable water to rural communities in mostly third world countries. A few aspects in providing water to these rural communities are discussed next.
- 16 -
2.3.2 Global factors influencing rural water provision
Several factors influence the focus of rural water provision. Most of these factors do not necessarily target the most urgent needs in water provision. A few of these factors are discussed next.
2.3.2.1 Goals for eradicating backlogs
In September 2000, the Millennium Summit took place in New York (un.org, 2012), where the global role and function of the United Nations was discussed. As part of the outcomes of this summit, the Millennium Development Goals (MDG's) were adopted.
These are eight development goals to encourage development of social and economic conditions in the world's poorest countries adopted (un.org, 2012).
Most countries with large rural population do not have the funding to provide infrastructure services, they mostly rely on global funding and interventions to alleviate the need for basic services (Fishbein, 2001). Due to the MDG’s, the funding for these interventions are mostly focused on value for money: where can backlogs in service delivery be eradicated the fastest with the money available. Unfortunately this approach may cause these interventions to not focus necessarily on where the most urgent need for water is, but rather on the best value for the money spent. The worst areas for service delivery usually involves a higher cost per capita, making such interventions not ideal in eradicating backlogs as fast as possible.
2.3.2.2 Political Influence
Political influence is a major factor when dealing with any service delivery. Political opposition parties like to promote their own programmes and voting counts, rather than attending to the common good of the people.
The “Water Page” website was established by Len Abrams, an international water sector consultant (africanwater.com, 2012). One of its aims is to provide independent and critical comment on and analysis of water issues.
Len Abrams was commissioned by the World Health Organisation to provide input to the first World Water Development Report, and one of the key issues related to water provision is political influence. The following is quoted from his report:
“The provision of basic services is a "people" affair. At this stage in the 21st Century there is little that cannot be achieved technically. Providing services
- 17 - requires the interaction of many people in all spheres of life. Such interaction is governed by politics - the politics of the allocation of resources, the establishment of priorities, the interaction between institutions and the engagement of those most directly effected…
It is politically naïve to attempt to avoid the 'politicization' of service provision - what is important is to raise the political profile of the issue and to increase the pressure for politicians to be accountable and for good governance, and to achieve this using all the tools and practices available in the politicians' and activists' toolboxes.” (africanwater.com, 2012)
Unfortunately, in many cases, political influence in service delivery is focused on the benefit of the political entity, rather than on the benefit of the common good of the people. However, to implement any service delivery there needs to be beneficiaries who are somehow prioritised.
Political and financial priorities, therefore, seem to dictate who gets water first, which is in contrast to who actually has the greatest and most urgent need for water. A few global organisations who support service delivery in rural areas, and how they prioritise projects, are discussed next.
2.3.3 Global trends in prioritising rural water supply projects
2.3.3.1 African Bank
The African Bank is a partnership of 187 representative countries supporting alleviation of poverty and service delivery (web.worldbank.org, 2012).
In their publication, Rural Infrastructure in Africa: Policy Directions, a different concept is followed for service delivery (web.worldbank.org, 2012). Through decades of experience they have realized that a traditional supply-dominated method is not effective. The traditional method is based on standardised water supply types, and communities are placed on a waiting list to be served with water supply. The list is compiled based on needs and criteria. The problem with this approach is that communities have little or no say in the type of service that they will get, and this usually results in a lack of ownership by the community for the services. They have limited or no understanding of long-term costs or maintenance implications.
- 18 - While this traditional approach has in some cases achieved physical coverage targets, it has led to a heavy reliance on central technical agencies for operation and maintenance, who themselves have limited capabilities or funding.
The concept that African Bank therefore recommends, is that communities are informed of the various types of services available as well as its cost implications . The communities decide which option they would like to have based on their financial capabilities to maintain the services in future. This has led to a greater awareness of financial implications of their services, and furthermore creates a higher level of ownership for the infrastructure.
However, while this is an excellent concept, the situation in South Africa is different.
With African Bank, interested parties can approach the African Bank for funding of water project implementation, and at their discretion decide which are feasible options to support. In South Africa free basic water is promised to each and every single household. Water provision is, therefore, not an option but a legislative requirement, and the basic level of services has been set by government.
The concept of involving the project beneficiaries in the planning process is, however, plausible because this will increase the level of ownership for the infrastructure.
2.3.3.2 Water Aid
Water Aid is another international non-profit, non-governmental organization aimed at improving access to safe water, hygiene and sanitation in the poorest communities (wateraid.org, 2012).
Water Aid has been actively involved in water and sanitation projects in Africa and India. With their involvement in Tanzania and the Tanzania Water and Sanitation Network (TAWASANET), they compiled a water and sanitation equity report in 2009 (tzdpg.or.tz, 2012).
The following findings were made related to prioritisation and implementation of water projects:
a)
Importance of community involvement
Water implementation during the seventies was highly centralised. In 1972, the central government abolished local government. Water project implementation
- 19 - was handled by central government committees at a district and local level.
Communities were selected based on purely technical criteria by the district water departments without consultation with communities. These water projects were not sustainable, and a major reason for this was the lack of involvement from the communities. Local government was re-established in 1978 to reverse the situation. One of the key lessons learnt was that community involvement is essential for the communities to take ownership of the water projects.
b)
Prioritisation of water projects
The equity report provides details on the planning process for water implementation to rural communities. Long wish-lists are submitted by communities, and local government has to prioritise these wishlists. The following items are used to do this:
• Communities level of potential ownership to water projects.
• Previous level of caring for low-level water infrastructure.
• Health risks potential of communities.
• Communities situated in developing areas such as around towns, along major roads etc. were given a higher priority.
• Lower cost per capita was given a higher priority.
It was, however, found that in practice these criteria do not really influence the final decision-making for water projects, but rather political influence. Ward councillors steer projects towards their own wards to gain favour, especially the more influential councillors.
The report suggested that better data on rural communities’ status quo would result in better decision-making during the prioritisation process.
The involvement of project beneficiaries is a high focus point for Water Aid, but projects are prioritised based on certain criteria. However, these criteria do not seem to necessarily focus on which communities have the highest need for water.
- 20 -
2.3.3.3 USA Reclamation
USA Reclamation is a water management agency with numerous programs, initiatives and activities that help the Western States, Native American Tribes and others meet new water needs (edocket.access.gpo.gov, 2012)
The following criteria are used to prioritise projects for implementation (westgov.org, 2012):
• Indian tribes and tribal organizations;
• Urgent & compelling need for a project;
• Promotes & applies a regional or watershed perspective;
• Financial need of the project sponsors;
• Helps meet legal requirements;
• Ineligible for other comprehensive funding;
• State or local priority;
• Innovative approach.
Several unique criteria are included here, and through correspondence with the organization, it was determined that the urgency / need for a water project is still an important criteria (Wilson, 2011). However, projects are only recommended if economically feasible. This means that projects will not be recommended where the implementation costs are higher than the expected return on investment through ratepayers.
This implies that projects with greater economic viability enjoy a higher recommendation, and not necessarily on which communities have the highest need for water services.
2.3.3.4 Using a GIS-based Prioritisation approach
In a survey of literature regarding GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis, it is clear that GIS has become an integral tool in many decision-support processes to provide service delivery in an effective way (Malczewski, 2006). Since the first articles which appeared around 1990, the annual number of articles and publications has increased to over 300 in 2004. A list of these articles can be reviewed in Table 2.1:
- 21 - Table 2.1: Articles regarding GIS-based Multicriteria Decision Analysis (1990-2004)
This approach appears to have a high level of scientific proof and should be able to provide a GIS-based approach with a scientific foundation for rural water prioritisation.
However, when reviewing the application domain and decision problem, it seems that the majority of the articles are associated with finding suitable sites for various applications. Table 2.2 summarises these details (Malczewski, 2006):
Table 2.2: Application Domain and Decision Problem Summary
- 22 - The site locations are already established in the form of existing communities, but it should be possible to use a GIS-based approach to prioritise the water services needs for rural communities.
It is evident from the global trends previously discussed, that community involvement is important during the planning process for water projects, and that different organisations use different criteria to prioritise who gets water services. In South Africa free basic water is promised by the government to every household. Water provision is, therefore, not an option but a legislative requirement for government. The requirements are for water service delivery in South Africa, and how this is typically approached by service providers within the South African context are discussed next.
2.4 Current Situation in South African Local Government
2.4.1 Legislative Requirements
It was previously discussed that in South Africa the responsibility lies with local governmental institutions being the Water Services Provider (WSP), to implement water services. This includes their approach to prioritise service delivery.
Most District Municipalities, in the more rural areas, are the WSP’s for their respective area of jurisdiction. This includes the Local Municipal areas within the District Municipal area. In the Water Services Act of 1997, it stipulates that an Integrated Development Plan (IDP) for each District Municipality should provide details on all Sector Plans required on a National level (Government Gazette, 1997). The purpose of Sector Plans is to provide details on certain aspects or roles that the District Municipalities have to adhere to, explaining their plan of action for each aspect. The Water Services Development Plan (WSDP) is the Sector Plan detailing the approach that the municipality follows for water services, and how they intend to provide water services to its users. This is part of the planning purposes of the Municipality, therefore, the responsibility for compiling the WSDP usually lies with the Planning Department.
The WSDP should, therefore, detail the approach that the municipality follows for water services delivery, and the process followed to prioritise and implement these services.
It is this process that should include the consultative process with all relevant stakeholders to take their views into consideration (dwa.gov.za, 2004).
- 23 - This consultative process is, in many cases driven by political influence, and is prone to result in argumentative situations between ward councillors to motivate projects within their own wards.
Figure 2.3 represents a typical workflow process to approve a WSDP review:
- 24 - Figure 2.3: Typical WSDP Approval Process of a District Municipality
EXCO (Review WSDP proposed project
details)
WSDP Steering Committee (Planning Department)
(Review & Prioritise community needs & compile
WSDP) Full Council Meeting (Review WSDP Strategy and
proposed projects to be implemented)
Approved:
Adopt WSDP document
Ward
Community Meetings Submit draft WSDP Rejected:
Revise project details
Approved:
Submit draft WSDP to Full Council
(Ward Councillors voice communities’ water needs) EXCO & Full Council
members’ perspectives on water needs may differ from WSDP outcomes.
Rejected:
Revise project details
Ward Councillors
Ward Councillors provide feedback on final approved projects
- 25 - Figure 2.3 clearly demonstrates that an endless cycle of resubmissions may occur if the perspectives of the Executive Council (EXCO) and the councillors on water needs differ from what the WSDP Steering Committee view as priorities for water services implementation. Three factors play a dominant role in the above situation:
•
Individual perceptions of their own needs
People in one location may feel that they have an urgent need for water services since they have to walk down to the river to fetch water, but another community may not even have surface water within walking distance.
•
Community expectations of ward councillors
Ward councillors are voted for mainly on the expectation from the ward communities about what the councillor can do for them. This includes service delivery on various levels. Councillors, therefore, need to ensure that service delivery is taking place in their respective wards else they will lose their position as ward councillor.
•
Political pressure
Since multiple political parties are presented in a given municipality, it may become a tug-of-war to see which political party can do the most for their wards.
This mainly consists of provision for basic services in the rural areas.
Prioritisation for service delivery may, therefore, become biased to maintain favour with the ward communities.
2.4.2 Existing Methods for Water Supply Prioritisation
Over recent years there is more interest in GIS as a planning tool within local government, however, there seems to be no specific research done focusing on a scientific methodology to prioritise water needs of rural communities. However, some Water Services Authorities in South Africa have been using a more objective prioritisation model approach whereby several criteria are used to derive a prioritisation score for project implementation. A few examples include Uthungulu, Zululand and Amajuba District Municipality (UDM, 2007; ZDM, 2008; ADM, 2011).
This is an objective approach rather than a purely consultative process, however, the allocation of weights is still subject to the opinions of the stakeholders and not based
- 26 - on a scientific approach. If, for example, a weight is given as 20 points out of 100, is it in reality half as important as another weight which is given as 40 points? The criteria are, furthermore, not always focused on the actual water needs of communities, but include other objectives such as covering the most backlogs with the least amount of money and time.
Other areas of research on prioritisation of service delivery have been published, but the methodology is either not entirely scientific, or the focus of the research does not relate to the objective of this research. Table 2.3 presents a few typical examples
Table 2.3: Service Delivery Prioritisation Research Examples
Area of Research Methodology Remarks
Finding suitable site locations for housing projects
(Motsamai and Munyathi, 2012)
Buffer zones and land use types to derive suitable housing project locations.
Methodology not suitable for this research objective.
Supplying electricity to rural communities
(Barnard, 2008)
Prioritise areas for electricity services based on voronoi polygons and determine optimized delivery route.
Methodology not entirely suitable for this research project;
weighting not done on a scientific approach.
Existing pipe replacement model
(Sinske, A.N., Fair, K.A., 2009)
Weighted criteria model to prioritise a pipe replacement programme for Stellenbosch.
Good model based on a weighted criteria scoring, although the weighting lacks scientific approach.
It is imperative that the prioritisation method is based on a sound scientific foundation to prioritise service delivery in an objective approach and avoid the subjectivity of opinions, especially when opinions have a political motivation. Therefore, the requirements of such a prioritisation methodology need to carefully established together with how it can be applied to prioritise the water needs of rural communities.
2.5 Prioritisation Methodology
It is apparent from the discussed trends and factors, that it is not a simple task to prioritise rural water supply. Each water service provider or entity has its own unique criteria, and from a government perspective there needs to be a method in place to prioritise communities objectively without political interference, whilst still taking
- 27 - community participation into consideration to ensure ownership by the users for the infrastructure.
In short, all criteria are based on specific characteristics, and prioritisation is based on these characteristics to determine service delivery. The methodology behind a prioritisation process depends largely on the desired outcome for a particular situation, and various methods can be used to do this. However, before examining a methodology, some basic details concerning prioritization itself are discussed next.
2.5.1 Prioritisation Defined 2.5.1.1 What is Prioritisation?
The Collins dictionary defines the word “prioritisation” as follows:
“to arrange (items to be attended to) in order of their relative importance”
(Collins English Dictionary, 2003).
Prioritisation is, therefore, comparing a given set of items with another set based on certain characteristics to rank them in order of relative importance.
2.5.1.2 Who should be doing the prioritising?
All stakeholders involved should have input into the prioritisation process. The stakeholders need to be mindful that their own perceptions may differ from others, and that their own perceptions are subjective. It is, therefore, important that an objective methodology is adopted in a prioritisation process.
2.5.1.3 Which method should be used?
Prioritisation methods are in most cases dependant on the desired outcome(s). This is evident from the previous section, where prioritisation processes are aligned with the aims or purposes of the relevant stakeholders.
When the aims and desired outcomes are agreed upon by all the stakeholders, the final outcomes are usually not an issue, because everybody is in agreement with the process and the anticipated outcomes or results. The problem lies in situations when the stakeholders are not in agreement. The methodology supporting the prioritisation process is therefore of utmost importance and significant to its success. If this is not
- 28 - the case, the final outcomes or results will not carry the approval of everybody, causing the purpose of the prioritisation process to fail.
There are several methods to implement a prioritisation process, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. The best method for a given situation will depend on what the prioritisation process aims to achieve. Some methods rely heavily on group participation, whereas others are less participatory and more focused on factual data.
A few prioritisation methods are discussed in the next section.
2.5.2 Prioritisation Methods
Several prioritisation methods exist that can be used, dependant on the scenario and what the desired outcomes should be. A few of these typical methods are discussed in this section.
The National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), Washington DC, has developed the Assessment Protocol for Excellence in Public Health (APEXPH) planning tool (NACCHO, 2012). This is a flexible planning tool for health officials to address health-related issues in communities. A critical component of the Part I and Part II APEXPH processes occurs at the point where the identified issues are prioritised. Prioritising issues allows the health department and community to direct resources, time, and energy to those issues that are deemed most critical and practical to address.
The APEXPH workbook briefly mentions some of the most popular prioritisation methods, which are further described in the NACCHO document (
cdc.gov,
2012). A brief summary of these methods is described next:2.5.2.1 Simplex Method
The Simplex Method obtains group perceptions by the use of questionnaires. The answers to the questionnaires are scored and ranked and the issues with the highest scores are given the highest priority.
2.5.2.2 Nominal Group Planning Method
Nominal Group Planning was developed for situations where individual judgments must be obtained and combined to arrive at decisions which cannot be determined by one
- 29 - person. This strategy is best for problem exploration, knowledge exploration, priority development, program development, and program evaluation.
2.5.2.3 Criteria Weighting Method
The criteria weighting method is a mathematical process whereby participants establish a relevant set of criteria and assign a priority ranking to issues based on how they measure against the criteria. The calculated values do not necessarily dictate the final policy decision, but offer a means by which choices can be ordered.
2.5.2.4 A "Quick and Colorful" Method
This technique uses a means whereby individual group members vote to prioritise each health problem. A ballot or open method can be used.
The document further provides a summary of the positive and negative aspects of each method in Table 2.4.
Table 2.4: Prioritisation Methods
PRIORITIZATION
TECHNIQUES Strengths Weaknesses Optimal size of
group Simplex Efficient and quick to use, once
questionnaire is constructed. Can be used with any size group. Allows for weighting of problems.
Requires the development of a questionnaire. Relies heavily on how questions are asked.
Any size.
Nominal Group Planning
Motivates and gets all participants involved. Can be used to identify areas for further discussion and can be used as part of other techniques (e.g., to help develop a Simplex questionnaire.) Allows for many ideas in a short period of time Stimulates creative thinking and dialogue. Uses a democratic process.
Vocal and persuasive group members can affect others. A biased or strong-minded facilitator can affect the process. Can be difficult with larger groups (more than 20-25) May be overlap of ideas due to unclear wording or inadequate discussion.
10-15 (larger groups can be broken down into subgroups.) Not <6.
Criteria Weighting Offers numerical criteria with which to prioritize. Mathematical process (this is a weakness for some.) Objective; may be best in situations where this is competition among the issues. Allows group to weight criteria differently.
Can become complicated. Requires predetermining criteria.
Any size.
Hanlon (described in the APEXPH Workbook, pp 23 24 and Appendix E)
PEARL component can be a useful feature.
Offers relatively quantitative answers that are appealing for many. Baseline data for issues can be used for parts; this can be appealing due to the objectivity of the data.
The process offers the lowest priorities for those issues where solution requires additional resources or legal changes which may be problematic. Very complicated.
Any size.
A "Quick and Colorful"
Approach
Simple.
Well-suited to customizing.
Blinded responses prevent individuals influencing others. Less time intensive.
Less sophisticated (may be a benefit for some groups).
Doesn’t offer the ability to eliminate options that may be difficult to address given current laws and resources. If open voting is used, participants may be influenced by others’ votes.
Any size.
- 30 - The document concludes with the following statement:
"By using formalized techniques, such as those described here, groups have a structured mechanism that can facilitate an orderly process. Such a process also offers a common starting point that groups can alter to suit their own specific needs. Whatever technique is used, it is important to keep in mind that the reason prioritization is undertaken is to include input from all interest groups.
Therefore, it is vitally important to include the community when defining criteria."
2.5.2.5 Conclusion on Prioritisation Methods
It is clear from these discussed methods that the criteria weighting method is the most appropriate for the purpose of prioritising water needs in an objective manner. The issue of weighting can be subjective, because it can be done based only on user opinion or perspective. To properly understand the way weighting should be defined is, therefore, essential for optimal results. The next section details some techniques to determine weighting.
2.5.3 Prioritisation Weighting
The utilisation of weights provides an indication of importance of the different variables, but it leaves the results open to manipulation. However, by calculating a combination of any set of data, the process is more transparent, because it provides details to the stakeholders about the reasoning behind the weighting. To ensure that this is the case, the issue of weighting must be properly explained to users and stakeholders. This is particularly true since weightings modify the relative importance of specific components. In the compilation of a Rural Livelihood Index, Sullivan et. al (2003) describes the following popular ways of assigning weights.
2.5.3.1 Arbitrary Weights
Arbitrary weights are chosen without reference to theory or empirical evidence, or when equal weights are selected.
2.5.3.2 Weights determined by consensus
Weights determined by consensus imply that policy makers and stakeholders could simply be asked for their views and the choices obtained by consensus.
- 31 -
2.5.3.3 Weights determined by policy relevance
Weights determined by policy relevance means the components can be weighted in accordance with particular areas of policy.
2.5.3.4 Weights driven by theoretical considerations
In
w
eights driven by theoretical considerations, account is taken of the available research evidence which informs the theoretical model of what is being examined, and weights are assigned according to this. The following is an example of this approach; if deriving an index of susceptibility to Malaria, the theory suggests that the presence of specific mosquito types is essential to the transmission of Malaria. This would imply that this would have the greatest weight, while other issues, such as presence of standing water, would be less important, and so would have less weight.2.5.3.5 Empirical approach to weighting
The empirical method is generally characterized by the collection of a large amount of data related to a specific topic without really knowing what their significance would be.
More theoretical methods are applied to the data to derive weights.
2.5.3.6 Conclusion on Prioritisation Weighting
Since the methodology of this thesis is based on a theoretical foundation for prioritising communities in terms of their level of water needs, the process of assigning weights to the prioritisation criteria would need a theoretical approach. Multiple criteria need to be incorporated to determine the level of water need for each community, and a closer look will, therefore, be taken into Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in the next section.
2.5.4 Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)
In his book “GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis”, Jacek Malczewski explains the process of assigning weights to criteria as a value assigned to each criterion, which determines its relative importance to other criteria (Malczewski, 1999). The higher the weight is, the more important the criteria will be.
There are several types of MCDA, and the process of implementation involves several main phases, each with its own steps. Figure 2.4 provides a visual framework for a
- 32 -
Problem Definition
Evaluation Criteria Constraints
Decision Matrix Alternatives
Decision Rules
Sensitivity Analysis
Recommendations
Decision Makers’
Preference
typical MCDA process. Each phase and its associated steps will be discussed in more detail (Malczewski, 1999):
Figure 2.4: Framework for MCDA
According to Malczewski (1999), the three major phases do not necessarily follow a linear path from intelligence to design to choice.
2.5.4.1 MCDA Types
There are many MDCA approaches, each using a different way of combining and utilising the data. These are classified into three distinct types (Malczewski, 1999):
• Multiobjective Decision Making (MODM) versus Multiattribute Decision Making (MADM);
• Individual versus group decision maker analysis;
• Decisions under certainty versus decisions under uncertainty.
Figure 2.5 illustrates these typical classification types of a typical MCDA problem.
INTELLEGENCE PHASE (GIS-based)
DESIGN PHASE (MCDA-based)
CHOICE PHASE (GIS/MCDA-based)
