2014
DOI: 10.4335/12.3.695-714(2014)
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Determinants of users’ willingness to contribute to safe water provision in rural Uganda

Abstract: In the context of recent devolution processes in Uganda, operation and maintenance of drinking water infrastructure still pose a major challenge. Given the importance of water user fees and local collective action for operation and maintenance, it is paramount to consider factors influencing the users’ willingness to contribute. Based on 802 structured household interviews, this article looks into the link between willingness to contribute and actual contribution and presents variables influencing users’ willi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
35
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
(29 reference statements)
4
35
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, our findings provide a foundation for deriving hypotheses about those factors that determine the water users' willingness to contribute to O&M (e.g. trust in WUC, the distance of water source from households) for subsequent large-N studies (Poteete et al 2010;Naiga and Penker 2014).…”
Section: Discussion Of Analytic Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Furthermore, our findings provide a foundation for deriving hypotheses about those factors that determine the water users' willingness to contribute to O&M (e.g. trust in WUC, the distance of water source from households) for subsequent large-N studies (Poteete et al 2010;Naiga and Penker 2014).…”
Section: Discussion Of Analytic Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This share is very similar to the national share of point water sources in rural Uganda. Bearing in mind that communities in Uganda are not homogeneous, several studies in Uganda indicate that communities with the same type of technologies are largely confronted with similar challenges (Muhangi 1996;Asingwire 2008;DWD 2011a;Baguma et al 2013;Foster 2013;Mugumya 2013;Naiga and Penker 2014). Thus, the case study promises a fruitful perspective on possible pitfalls, challenges and innovations for rural water governance elsewhere in Uganda.…”
Section: Case Study Selection and Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As already mentioned, the O&M challenge accounts for over 50 per cent of the non-functionality of water sources (DWD, 2011a;Foster, 2013;Naiga and Penker, 2014;Naiga et al, 2015). Non-functionality of water sources, especially in rural areas, is mainly due to water users' unwillingness to contribute user fees (Naiga and Penker, 2014). It is noteworthy that the poor cannot afford the full market costs of water, hence the importance of government as a major player.…”
Section: Challenges To Water Access and Governancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Uganda, safe water coverage is estimated at 72.8 per cent of the population in urban areas and 64 per cent in rural areas (MWE, 2014). However, the actual water coverage levels are considered much lower in rural areas given the hypothetical statistical procedures of deriving the coverage and the fact that most dysfunctional water sources are not controlled for, and the tendency by political leaders to portray a rosy picture towards water coverage statistics (Carter et al, 1999;Naiga and Penker, 2014;Naiga et al, 2015). Further still, the national access goal of 77 per cent in rural areas and a functionality rate of 80-90 per cent by 2015 are far from being met (GoU, 1999).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation