sustainability

Article
Project Implementation Management Modalities and
Their Implications on Sustainability of Water
Services in Rural Areas in Ethiopia: Are
Community-Managed Projects More Effective?
Fekadu Megersa Senbeta 1 and Yang Shu 2, *
1 School of Economics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China;
fekadu@[Link]
2 School of Economics and Trade, Hunan University, Changsha 410008, China
* Correspondence: shuy@[Link]




Received: 21 January 2019; Accepted: 19 March 2019; Published: 20 March 2019


Abstract: The study examines the impact of project implementation management approaches on
the sustainability outcomes of rural water services in Ethiopia. A random selection of 102 water
access points managed by the community, local government, and other external actors (charity
and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)) were made to comparatively assess the sustainable
outcomes of each. The analysis of the study is based on a unique set of data that constitutes interview
results gathered from 612 beneficiary households, observation of 102 water access points, and another
set of interviews held with 387 water supply, sanitation, and hygiene committee (WASHCO) members
drawn from 102 water supply services. Additionally, document analysis was conducted on the
records that were kept by all the 102 WASHCOs. One-way ANOVA and chi-square analysis was
employed to assess and test the existence of significant differences among project implementation
management approaches. The result showed the existence of a significant difference in most of the
sustainability variables among project implementation management modalities under the study.
As to the findings, the community-managed project approach generated a relatively higher and
statistically significant sustainability outcome as compared to the others. Nevertheless, environmental
sustainability indicators lack a statistically significant relationship. Overall, the key findings suggest
that, in addition to demand-driven interventions, if the communities are empowered with the
management and decision-making role of constructing their water points, the benefits of continuous
delivery and sustainability of services can be maximized.

Keywords: sustainability; community; community-managed project; sustainability assessment

indicators; rural water supply

1. Introduction
Developing countries are working towards the provision of safe and affordable drinking water
services to their citizens. This is due to the fact that the global community is working towards the
realization of sustainable development goals [1,2] which is no exception for developing countries.
The cost of inaction leads to negative social [3], economic [4], and environmental [5] impacts in the
areas inhabited by populations that do not have access to clean water services. Reports revealed that
lack of access to clean water and subsequent poor sanitation cost countries between 0.5% and 4.3%
of their annual GDP [4], in addition to the toll that it takes on their time and energy traveling to and
from water sources [6]. Lack of safe and improved drinking water supply causes diseases, such as
diarrhea, cholera, dysentery, typhoid, and polio, resulting in the death of more than 0.36 million people

Sustainability 2019, 11, 1675; doi:10.3390/su11061675 [Link]/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 1675 2 of 19

each year [7]. These data show that working towards achieving SDGs of the water sector can greatly
improve the lives and health of the population in the region.
Ninety-one percent of the world population had access to improved water supply services with
some gap between urban and rural areas in the year 2015, though there existed a significant disparity
among regions [6]. The sub-Saharan Africa region had the lowest water supply coverage wherein only
56% of the total population had access to the service in which almost half (48%) of the rural community
relied on unimproved water sources [6]. The majority of rural residents who obtained access mainly
rely on boreholes with hand pumps [8]. The limited capital investment needed to achieve the target,
which is about three times the current investment levels [4], dependence on unimproved sources [6],
and sustainability of existing infrastructures [9] are the main challenges for the sector.
Several studies evaluating rural water services in developing countries prompt that sustainability
and continuous delivery of services are the foremost problems coupled with expanding the access for
the unserved. To tackle the problem, governments and donor agencies are spending billions of dollars
every year. Despite efforts, many water points failed to continuously provide services throughout
the span of time that they were supposed to [10]. According to an assessment made by rural water
supply and sanitation networks in selected sub-Saharan African countries in the year 2016, 22.5% of
rural water services were non-functional at visit time [11]. Some other studies claim that the figure
of non-functionality reaches 35% [12], while operational failures stand at 60% [13]. Reasons cited for
non-functionality are universal and multidimensional [14,15], constituting institutional, management,
technical, financial, and environmental issues. Fragmented institutional responsibilities, weak local
management institutions, and stalled decentralization [16], inefficient service providers [17], inefficient
tariff, unreliable quality, and quantity [18] are some of the crucial problems. In many developing
countries, sustainability and continuous delivery of the services receive negligible attention compared
to the construction of water supply projects [19].
Studies made on the sustainability of rural water services gave prominence to a demand-
responsive approach than that of a supply-driven approach, claiming that the former is a relatively
better way of sustaining rural water services. The approach was initially designed and accepted by
governments in the 1990s following the poor performance of supply-driven approaches in rural water
services [20]. It opened a way for participation of beneficiary communities in planning, choice
of technology, and source, while giving the role of operation and maintenance management to
representative user committees [20]. It is applauded in improving the sense of ownership, increase
functionality, and playing a role in improving the sustainability of the services [21,22]. Some studies
criticized the demand-driven approach by citing the limitations the communities have in managing
the operation and maintenance management of the facilities [23]. The supply-driven approach solely
depends on the provision of services by external actors while the demand-driven approach gives
room for participation of communities in the development and management of their water supply
facilities [24]. Though the demand-driven approach is praised against the supply-driven, many still
believe that a better way of ensuring the sustainability of rural water services need to be in place since
it is assumed by many that rural water services still suffer from sustainability problems.
Even though attempts were made to assess the role of demand responsive factors, the impact of
project implementation management modalities was hardly studied in the area. Additionally, most of
the previous studies were relying on a qualitative assessment of sustainability. To the best of our
knowledge, Ethiopia became the first country from the sub-Saharan African region to adopt different
project implementation management modalities in the water supply, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH)
implementation framework which was sanctioned in 2011. This move makes the country a pioneering
figure in embracing four alternative project implementation management modalities (i.e., community,
local government, self-supply, and other external sources including NGOs and charity organizations)
irrespective of its budgetary sources for the purpose of undertaking the construction of new water
facilities [25].
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1675 3 of 19

Thus, this study was designed to empirically assess the implications of project implementation
management modalities on the sustainability outcomes of rural water services in Abichu Gna
district, Ethiopia. It focused on factors internal to the community affecting sustainability using
sustainability assessment indicators. The aim of the study is to (i) assess the sustainability of
rural water services, and (ii) assess and test the impact of project implementation management
approaches on sustainability outcomes of rural water services. It provides evidence on the
sustainability effectiveness of community-managed vis-à-vis other conventional demand-driven project
implementation management approaches. The output of the study gives a policy indication in the
rural water infrastructure management strategy of attaining optimal sustainability.

2. Background: Community-Managed Project Approach

Though there existed controversies in top down and bottom up development approaches,
many studies support a bottom-up development approach, especially in rural community development
projects. Proponents of a bottom-up development approach believe that the approach gives room for
wider participation of communities which is capable of maintaining sustainability [26,27] and criticises
the top-down development approach that communities perceive government is responsible for service
delivery [28], which weakens communities’ sense of ownership. The bottom-up approach is not
without criticism in that it suffers a low level of community capacity and knowledge constraints [29].
In principle, rural water policies in many sub-Saharan African countries encourage rural water services
to follow a bottom-up development approach by permitting water points to be managed at the
lowest decentralized level [25,30] though it is a practical fact to observe role changes in which other
bodies of the government and their development partners engage in many rural water infrastructures.
The community-managed project approach is among the four project implementation management
modalities adopted by the government of Ethiopia and included in the One WASH national program
in 2011, which opted to follow a bottom-up approach [25].
Community-managed project is an approach that gives communities the responsibility to plan,
implement, and manage both the construction and operation and maintenance of rural water
services [31]. The approach passes through the following sequence of steps [32]: (1) promotion:
a step in which promotion is made about the project to communities; (2) application: a stage in which
communities organize themselves, discuss their water problem, select water sanitation, and hygiene
committees (WASHCOs). It is made up of seven people who live in the user community and acts
on their behalf with respect to water issues and takes the lead in managing water facilities, and,
finally, submit applications to the district water supply, sanitation and hygiene team (DWT), which is
the highest government body made up of seven people, which makes decisions related to funds
allocated to water resource development and management in the district, for appraisal and approval;
(3) appraisal: desk and field appraisal of applications is made by water professionals that submit
results to DWT for approval; (4) approval: DWT makes the final decisions on applications; (5) funding
agreement: this is a step in which a funding agreement is made between the district administrator on
behalf of the DWT and head of the WASHCOs; (6) contracting and procurement: after getting funds,
WASHCOs, on behalf of communities and technical support from the district water office, an office
mandated for development and management of water resources in the district, make contracts and
procurements; (7) construction: this is conducted by hired contractors under the project management
role of WASHCOs and technical support from district water office; and (8) post-construction operation
and maintenance management by WASHCOs on behalf of communities. The project cycle permits
communities to make an informed choice about the level of services, technology type, and reveals their
level of participation.
The main distinguishing features of the community-managed project approach that differentiates
it from local government- and other external actor-managed project approaches is the flow of fund
transfer, project management role, and procurement responsibility [25]. In the community-managed
project approach, the budget assigned for construction of water services is directly transferred
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1675 4 of 19

to the community based on approval of DWT through a designated micro-credit and saving
association opened by the name of WASHCOs while the allocated money is not directly transferred
to the community, but retained in the account of the respective organizations in local and other
externally-managed project approaches.
The communities through representative user WASHCOs are responsible for the overall
process of their water supply development, including planning, construction management, financial
responsibility, implementation, operation and maintenance management of water services in
community-managed project approaches. In local government- and other externally-managed project
approaches, the role of communities are restricted to planning, participation in the construction
process, and operation and maintenance management by leaving the role of construction and financial
management to the structures of the governments, NGOs, and/or charity organizations. Materials and
services required in the construction of water services are procured by WASHCOs through structured
external support in community-managed project approaches, but the structures of the governments
are responsible in local government, and NGOs or charity organizations in other externally-managed
project approaches.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Area

Ethiopia is one of the avenues that offers a viable context to carry out a study on the sustainability
of rural water services’ performance whose constructions were run by different project implementation
management approaches. The country had a population of 105 million in 2017 [33], the second most
populous country in Africa next to Nigeria in which 79.7% of the total population lives in rural
areas [34]. It is one of the fastest growing economies in the region with an average annual growth rate
of 10.3% from year 2005/2006 to 2015/2016, compared with a regional average of 5.4% [35]. According
to 2015 UNICEF/JMP estimates, the country ranked among the lowest sub-Saharan African countries
in water supply coverage in which only 51% of the total population had access to clean water [6].
Oromia region, the largest national state in the country in terms of population and area
coverage [36] was purposively selected for the study. Among districts found in the region, Abichu
Gna was purposively selected based on the availability of the highest possible number of rural water
services constructed by project implementation management approaches that are regarded as the core
issues the current study is anchored on. The district is found in North Shoa zone of Oromia regional
state, about 271 km from the capital city of the country, Addis Ababa [37]. According to the data we
obtained from the district water office, it has 19 peasant associations and one urban part with a total
population estimated to be 100,741. The livelihood of the populations of the area mainly depends on
agriculture and the socio-cultural conditions are almost similar. The area is mostly high land ranging
from 2590 to 2843 meter above sea level which accounts for about 92.0% of the total area, and data
analyzed from the year 2011/2012 to 2016/2017 shows an average annual rainfall of 950 mm. The rural
water supply coverage of the district was 76.2% in the year 2017. A total of 658 rural water points were
constructed and serving the community, among which 312 are hand pumps [38]. The representative
of users WASHCOs are in charge of the post construction operation and maintenance management
despite the fact that there exists a difference with regard to the construction of water points in the area.
The following figure (Figure 1) shows the location of water points under the study.
 Sustainability 2019, 11, 1675 5 of 19
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19

Figure 1. Study site and location of community hand pumps. (Source: authors’ work from Google Maps).
Figure 1. Study site and location of community hand pumps. (Source: authors’ work from Google
Maps).
3.2. Data Collection
DataCollection
3.2. Data supporting the study were collected between December 2017 and April 2018 in four separate
operations consisting: (a) an interview of 612 rural households benefiting from 102 water services; (b) an
Data held
interview supporting
with 387the study were
WASHCO memberscollected
drawn between
from 102December 2017 (c)
water services; andanApril 2018 incarried
observation four
separate operations consisting: (a) an interview of 612 rural households
out to gather data on the technical status of 102 water services; and (d) a document analysis conducted benefiting from 102 water
services; (b) an kept
on the records interview
by 102held with 387 A
WASHCOs. WASHCO
total of ten members
trained drawn from 102 water
local enumerators made services; (c) an
all operations
observation carried out
in the local language, to gather
Afan [Link] They onwerethe selected
technicalfromstatus theofwater
102 sector
water based
services; and (d)
on their yearsa
document analysis conducted on the records kept by 102 WASHCOs.
of professional experience, educational background, and knowledge of the local language. The data A total of ten trained local
enumerators
collection was made
made all with
operations
consent in and
the local language,
permission Afan
of the Oromo.
local They were
communities andselected from the
the government.
water sector based onwere
The questionnaires their years
adopted of professional
for implementation experience, educational
after background,
a pilot survey and knowledge
was conducted on 15
of the local language. The
households and five water services. data collection was made with consent and permission of the local
communities and the government.
The household survey revealed The questionnaires
factors such were as theiradopted for implementation
perception of WASHCO after a pilot
selection,
survey was conducted on 15 households and five water services.
transparency of WASHCOs, participation in tariff payment, satisfaction with the level of services and
theirThe household
awareness aboutsurvey
water shaderevealed factors such
management plan. Aassettheir
of dataperception
gathered of WASHCO
from 606 households selection,
was
transparency of WASHCOs, participation in tariff payment, satisfaction
used for analysis, excluding six response bias cases with poor respondent understanding or concerns with the level of services and
their
aboutawareness
the accuracy about of water shadeAn
responses. management
interview aiming plan. Aatset of data gathered
performance fromthat
appraisal 606encompasses
households
was used for analysis, excluding six response bias cases with poor
institutional, managerial, financial, technical, and environmental matters was held with WASHCOs respondent understanding or
concerns
in chargeabout the accuracy
of managing of responses.
the selected water services. An interview
A similaraimingstep was at followed
performancewhileappraisal
analyzingthat the
encompasses institutional, managerial, financial, technical, and environmental
records and files kept by them. The water point observation was made by preparing an assessment matters was held with
WASHCOs in charge
checklist which captured of managing the selected of
technical sustainability water services.
the system A similar
including step was followed
functionality, inclusivenesswhile of
analyzing the records and files kept by them. The water point observation
design which ensure the ease of a potentially marginalized group of the population including aged, was made by preparing
an assessment
women’s, andchecklist
people with which captured technical
disabilities, the sanitary sustainability
conditionofofthe system including
surrounding, drainage functionality,
condition,
inclusiveness of design
and risk of flooding. which ensure the ease of a potentially marginalized group of the population
including aged, women’s,
Communal hand pumps andfitted
people with with disabilities,
Afridev, which is thea dominant
sanitary condition
type of pump of surrounding,
in the area,
drainage condition, and risk of flooding.
were selected for the study. Though the country adopted four project implementation management
Communal
approaches, duehandto thepumps fitted with
unavailability of Afridev, which is
the self-supply a dominant approach
management type of pumpin the instudy
the area,areawere
as it
selected for the study. Though the country adopted four project
is rarely practiced in the country, our study focused on the other three management modalities. implementation management
approaches,
Accordinglydue to the
water unavailability
points are included of thein self-supply
the studymanagement
only if theyapproach in the studyby
were constructed area as it
project
isimplementation
rarely practiced in the country,
modalities under the ourstudy.
studyWe focused
employed on the other three random
a cluster-based management sampling modalities.
method
Accordingly water points are included in the study only if
of data collection to ensure that every household of the community and water services can getthey were constructed by anproject
equal
implementation modalities under the study. We employed a cluster-based
chance of being selected. A perfect response rate was registered during the campaign due to the fact random sampling method
of data collection to ensure that every household of the community and water services can get an
equal chance of being selected. A perfect response rate was registered during the campaign due to
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1675 6 of 19

that the interviewers were experts from the district water office that often meets with the communities
which might boost their confidence in answering the questions.

3.3. Construction and Measurement of Variables

Due to the multidimensional relations between user communities and the water systems [39],
measuring sustainability outcomes of water services in a particular community requires data about
user’s preference and decision-making behavior related to water, and the operation and maintenance
management of the system. Multiple characteristics of sustainability make it tough to quantify, due to
the fact that available data on the traits and sustainability indicators vary when examined in light of
types of technology and countries [40].
Different authors had made attempts to develop sustainability indicators to measure the
sustainability performance of water services. Among them, a multi-criteria approach [41], life cycle
thinking approach [15], and the sustainability index tool prepared by United States Aid for International
Development (USAID) in collaboration with Rotary International [42] appear to be worth mentioning.
Despite the existence of various sustainability measurement indicators in recent years, there is neither
scholarly agreement on what methods must be used to measure the outcomes in water services nor
possible rationalization in the literature for preferring one criterion to another [43]. In spite of the
above mentioned indeterminacy, there is a tacit convention that performance is such a multifaceted
concept within which institutional, managerial, financial, technical, and environmental indicators are
embedded. Each of these indicators also comes out along with other factors/frames of reference.
The following variables and factors were used in the study since the study is confined to hand
pump types of rural water services. They were built on the conceptual framework of sustainability
assessment measurement developed by USAID in collaboration with Rotary International and factors
contextualized by consultation with water sector professionals according to the country’s situation.
Due to the relatively large number of factors the study has, exploratory factor analysis is employed
and used in the study as the technique is recommended to obtain a small set of variables from a given
large set of factors [44]. The Cronbach statistic is typically used as a reference of the consistency and
reliability of the combined factors [45], which is used in the study.
Institutional sustainability. Two variables were used to measure institutional sustainability in
the analysis. The existence of institutions that were built in accordance with the standards set by
the country was one of the variables of the study. This variable encompasses: (1) the existence of
WASHCOs; (2) the existence of caretakers, which are selected from beneficiary communities and
responsible for preventive maintenance and daily operation of the water facility; and (3) the existence
of WASHCOs as per national standard with regard to gender composition (which sets at least 50%
of WASHCO members shall be women). As only one factor emerged in exploratory factor analysis,
dichotomous responses to the three factors (0 = no, 1 = yes) were summed as a composite existence of
institutions which has been constituted in line with national norms and standards measure (Cronbach’s
alpha reliability coefficient = 0.73). The second institutional sustainability indicator represented the
democratic election of WASHCOs. A dichotomous indicator of community perception (0 = no, 1 = yes)
was created based on households response to the question. The percentage of households reporting
democratic participation in selecting their WASHCO reflected the aggregate level of democratic
involvement of communities in selecting WASHCOs.
Management sustainability. The survey included the following series of questions related to
the management performance of WASHCOs and caretakers: (1) is the management roles and
responsibilities of WASHCOs clearly defined? (2) Does the WASHCO carry out its technical duties?
(3) Does the WASHCO carry out its administrative duties? (4) Does the WASHCO carry out its financial
management responsibilities? (5) Does the caretaker carry out its technical responsibilities? (6) Are
the WASHCO meetings conducted at minimum frequency stipulated in their law? As only one factor
emerged in the exploratory factor analysis, dichotomous responses to the six items (0 = no, 1 = yes)
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1675 7 of 19

were summed as a composite management sustainability performance measure (Cronbach’s alpha

reliability coefficients = 0.71).
Financial sustainability. Four variables were used to measure the financial sustainability in the
analysis. The first was an indicator of water services tariff setting compliance with the national
regulations which include the existence of: (1) water tariff rule; (2) the tariff set in line with national
regulations; and (3) social tariff, a special tariff payment system designed for low income and other
vulnerable groups. As only one factor emerged in exploratory factor analysis, dichotomous responses
to the three factors (0 = no, 1 = yes) were summed as a composite tariff setting compliance with national
regulation measure (Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient = 0.74). The second indicator represented
the regularity and sufficiency of tariff collection. WASHCO interviews and document observation were
made to assure: (1) the regularity of tariff collection; and (2) the tariff paid can cover the operation and
maintenance cost. As only one factor emerged in exploratory factor analysis, dichotomous responses
to the two factors (0 = no, 1 = yes) were summed as a composite regularity and sufficiency of tariff
collection measure (Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients = 0.71). The third variable represented the
effectiveness of WASHCOs in demonstrating financial management and accounting’. The variable
was measured by the interviews conducted with WASHCOs and observation of financial records.
Exploratory factor analysis revealed three factors among these variables: (1) the existence of financial
records; (2) the existence of bank account; and (3) audit. Dichotomous responses to the three factors
(0 = no, 1 = yes) were summed as a composite WASHCO demonstrates effective financial management
and accounting measure (Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients = 0.73). The final variable was the
number of households paying tariff. A dichotomous indicator of tariff payment (0 = no, 1 = yes) was
created based on households’ responses to the question. The percentage of households reporting
paying the tariff reflected the aggregate level of households paying tariff.
Technical sustainability. Three variables were used to measure the technical sustainability of water
services in the analysis. The first was an indicator of functionality, inclusiveness of design and standard
which includes: (1) functionality; (2) standard as per the national regulation; and (3) inclusiveness
of design. As only one factor emerged in exploratory factor analysis, dichotomous responses to the
three factors (0 = no, 1 = yes) were summed as a composite functionality, inclusiveness of design and
standard measure (Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients = 0.67). The second technical sustainability
indicator represented compliance of hand pump with standards and norms in terms of siting and
public health risk. Water point observation was made to assess three factors: (1) maintenance of
sanitary surrounding; (2) existence of drainage; and (3) existence of flooding control. As only one factor
emerged in the exploratory factor analysis, dichotomous responses to the three factors (0 = no, 1 = yes)
were summed as a composite compliance of hand pump with standards and norms in terms of siting
and public health risk measures (Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients = 0.69). The third variable
represented households’ satisfaction with the level of services which includes: (1) quantity (availability
throughout the year); and (2) quality. As only one factor emerged in the exploratory factor analysis,
dichotomous responses to the two factors (0 = no, 1 = yes) were summed as a composite households
satisfaction with the level of services measure (Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients = 0.72).
Environmental sustainability. Three variables were used to measure environmental sustainability
in the analysis. The first was an indicator of the existence of local watershed management plan
related to water points. A dichotomous indicator of the availability of a watershed management plan
(0 = no, 1 = yes) was created based on results obtained from field observation. The percentage of
water services having a watershed management plan reflected the aggregate level of water services
having a watershed management plan. The second variable was related to communities’ awareness
about the watershed management plan related to water services. A dichotomous indicator of
community awareness (0 = no, 1 = yes) was created based on households’ responses to the question.
The percentage of households having awareness reflected the aggregate level of households’ awareness
about watershed management plan. The third variable was related to environment-related adaptation
measures (i.e., afforestation, and cut off drain) incorporated in the development of water supply
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1675 8 of 19

services. A dichotomous indicator of community adaptation measure (0 = no, 1 = yes) was created
based on the observations towards committees’ responses. The percentage of water services having
environment related adaptation measures reflected the aggregate level of water services having
environment-related adaptation measures incorporated in the development of water services.

3.4. Analysis
The analysis was made to measure sustainability performance and find out the existence of a
statistically significant difference among project implementation management modalities. Accordingly,
post hoc tests were conducted using one-way ANOVA for numeric and continuous variables and
a chi-squared test was employed for dichotomous variables to determine whether the groups
of implementation management modalities are statistically significant regarding sustainability
performance outcomes. Eventually, differences were identified using Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25, of International Business Machine (IBM) Corporation, which is based
in Armonk, New York, Unites States.

4. Results

4.1. Sustainability Performance of Water Services

4.1.1. Institutional Performance

A study was conducted to assess factors associated with institutional sustainability performance
of water services under the study. To begin with, it could be inferred from Table 1 that all of
the water services had WASHCOs expected to manage the operation and maintenance of the
system. Additionally, an interview was held with respondents to know if they were involved in
electing/selecting WASHCOs. As a result, it was found out that 68.1% of the respondents believe
that their committees were selected democratically with the involvement of the entire beneficiary
community. When it comes to the gender composition of the WASHCOs, 51.0% of the total water
services had more than 50% of women members which is complying with the national standard with
regard to gender composition. Less than half of water services (45.1%) had caretakers responsible for
day-to-day operation and minor maintenance of the system.
We also looked at whether there was a difference between project implementation management
modalities in institutional sustainability factors. Accordingly, the democratic election of WASHCOs,
the composition of WASHCOs that meets the national standard and existence of caretakers stood
highest among water services constructed by the community-managed project approach.

4.1.2. Management Performance

In the study area, community representative WASHCOs are expected to manage operation
and maintenance of water services with clearly defined roles and responsibilities. In view of
that, they were asked to respond to five questions related to their awareness about their roles and
responsibilities, how they are discharging their duties, and committee meetings. Table 1 illustrates
that only 81.4% of WASHCOs clearly know their duties and responsibilities out of which 22.6% did
minor maintenance at least once in the project’s lifetime. The interview result revealed that 72.6% and
60.8% of them were engaged in at least one of the administrative and financial duties, respectively.
With regard to committee meetings which is conducted biannually according to national norm, 54.9%
of WASHCOs reported that they were conducting at least once in a minimum standard. When it
comes to management performance of caretakers, among caretakers that were found in 45.0% of water
services under the study, 37.2% of them were at least engaged in preventive maintenance and daily
operation of the water facilities.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1675 9 of 19

Table 1. Sustainability performance of water services under the study by project implementation modality.

Local Government Other External Actors

Community (n = 34) Total (n = 102)
Factors (n = 34) (n = 34)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Institutional Performance
Water services having WASHCOs (%) 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
Water services having caretakers (%) 94.12 23.88 5.88 23.90 35.29 48.51 45.10 50.24
Water services in which WASHCOs constituted in line with a national standard regarding
91.18 28.79 32.35 47.49 29.41 46.25 50.98 50.24
gender (%)
Households who believe that WASHCOs have elected democratically with the
81.86 38.60 56.86 49.60 65.67 47.60 68.14 46.60
involvement of the entire community (%)
Management Performance
Water services in which roles and responsibilities of WASHCOs are clearly defined (%) 100.00 0.00 82.35 38.70 61.76 49.34 81.37 39.12
Water services in which WASHCOs are carrying out their technical responsibilities (%) 35.29 48.51 5.88 23.88 26.47 44.78 22.55 42.00
Water services in which WASHCOs are carrying out their administrative duties (%) 91.18 28.79 61.76 49.33 64.71 48.51 72.55 44.84
Water services in which WASHCOs are carrying out their financial management
91.18 28.79 38.24 49.33 52.94 50.66 60.78 49.06
responsibilities (%)
Water services in which caretakers are carrying out their duties (%) 82.35 38.70 2.94 17.15 26.47 44.78 37.25 48.59
Water services in which WASHCO meetings conducted at minimum frequency stipulated
85.29 36.00 47.06 50.66 32.35 47.49 54.90 50.00
in their law (%)
Financial performance
Water services tariff has been set (%) 94.12 23.88 76.47 43.06 88.24 32.70 86.27 34.58
Water services tariff has been set as per national standard (%) 85.29 35.94 70.59 46.25 85.29 35.94 80.39 39.90
Water services in which tariff has been set by considering poorest in the community
55.88 50.40 32.35 47.49 44.12 50.40 44.12 49.90
through social tariff (%)
Water services in which tariff is regularly collected (%) 85.29 35.95 32.35 47.49 52.94 50.66 56.86 49.71
Water services in which tariff has covered or exceeds operation and maintenance cost (%) 55.88 50.40 11.76 32.70 17.65 38.70 28.43 45.33
Water services in which WASHCOs keeping financial ledger (%) 70.59 46.25 23.53 43.06 41.48 49.96 45.10 50.00
Water services which opened bank account for operation and maintenance (%) 70.59 46.25 14.71 35.95 47.06 50.66 44.12 49.90
Water services in which at least their finances are audited internally (%) 38.24 49.32 0.00 0.00 14.71 35.95 17.65 38.31
Households paying tariff (%) 73.56 44.20 31.87 46.70 41.67 49.40 49.02 50.00
Households who believe that the WASHCOs are transparent in finance (%) 52.45 50.10 22.06 41.60 20.01 40.20 31.54 46.50
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1675 10 of 19

Table 1. Cont.

Local Government Other External Actors

Community (n = 34) Total (n = 102)
Factors (n = 34) (n = 34)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Technical Performance
Water services functional at visit time (%) 97.06 17.15 94.12 23.88 85.29 35.95 92.16 27.02
Water services which is designed, constructed and maintained to ensure the ease of by a
41.18 49.96 26.47 44.78 20.59 41.04 29.41 45.79
potentially marginalized group of population (%)
Water services complies with national norms about sitting (%) 94.12 23.88 97.06 17.15 76.47 43.06 89.22 31.17
Water services sanitary surrounding meets with local standard (%) 82.35 38.69 67.65 47.49 50.00 50.70 66.67 47.37
Water services drainage is controlled to minimize standing water and water vector
91.18 28.79 70.59 46.25 73.53 44.78 78.43 41.33
diseases (%)
Water services the location of the borehole is not at the risk of flooding 79.41 41.04 61.76 49.33 58.82 49.96 66.67 47.34
Households satisfied with quantity (%) 73.00 .447 48.00 .501 42.00 .494 54.00 49.90
Households satisfied with quantity (%) 70.00 .459 49.00 .501 38.00 .486 52.00 50.00
Environmental Performance
Water services having local water shade management plan related to their water point (%) 35.29 48.51 41.18 49.96 44.12 50.40 40.20 49.27
Households having awareness about water shade management plan (%) 28.92 45.50 22.55 41.90 22.06 41.60 25.00 43.00
Water services environment related adaptation measures been incorporated (%) 11.76 32.70 17.65 38.70 20.59 41.04 16.67 37.45
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1675 11 of 19

A result obtained from a comparative analysis conducted on project implementation management

approaches reveals that in most factors, local government was performing lowest as compared to other
external actors and community-managed projects. Knowledge of roles and responsibilities, achieving
technical, administrative, and financial duties, making frequent committee meeting, and achieving
caretaker duties were found to be better in community-managed projects.

4.1.3. Financial Performance

The operation and maintenance cost of water services in the study area shall be covered by user
communities through tariffs. Accordingly, observations and interviews were made with WASHCOs
and households to discover the financial performance of water services (Table 1). The result revealed
that 86.3% of water services fix the tariff amount by meetings convened with beneficiary communities.
When determining the water tariff, 44.1% of them decided that the tariff they made gives a provision
for the most impoverished members of the community. From the total water services, only 56.9% of
them were collecting revenues as per the agreement reached in meetings, though the timing of tariff
collection differs.
Out of the total households interviewed, only 49.2% were paying the water tariff that had been
used for operation and maintenance purposes. As per the calculation made, the tariff paid could cover
the operation and maintenance cost of only 28.4% of water services, and the revenue of more than 71%
of water services was not sufficient to cover the cost, which poses risk of financing. Major deviations
were observed between groups under the study in which 72.6%, 42.6%, and 24.4% of households were
paying the tariff pertinent to the local laws of the communities for water services constructed under the
community-, other external actors-, and local government-managed project implementation modalities,
respectively. The tariff paid by households were able to cover the operation and maintenance cost of
43.9%, 13.0%, and 9.0% of water points, respectively.
WASHCOs are responsible for the overall financial management of water services.
The observation result revealed that from 102 water services under the study, 45.1% of water
service WASHCOs kept a financial ledger, while 44.1% of water services opened a bank account
at Oromia Credit and Saving Share Company (OCSSCO), a micro bank mandated to give financial
services for rural communities in the study area. Financial transparency of WASHCOs plays a
pivotal role in tariff collection efficiency and maintaining the financial sustainability of rural water
services. The finances of 17.7% of water services were internally audited by committee auditors.
The interview result obtained from 57.2% of the households revealed that revenues and expenses were
not made available to them during the projects’ lifetime. The obtained result indicates that projects
constructed by the community-managed project approach were performing highest in terms of financial
management leaving behind as competitors other external actor- and local government-managed
project approaches, respectively.

4.1.4. Technical Performance

The technical performance of the study involved five factors related to functionality and
continuous delivery of the system which includes functionality, households’ satisfaction with the level
of quality and quantity, inclusiveness of design, and standard. The remaining factors were related to
hand pump compliance with norms and standards of water services regarding siting and public health.
As a result, from the total water services observed during the study, 92.2% of them were functional
at visit time (Table 1). Households were invited to rate how satisfied they are with the quantity and
quality of water supply they receive from the water points. Accordingly, it was determined that only
54.0% of the respondents are satisfied with the quantity, while 52.0% of the partakers replied that they
are satisfied with the quality. The comparison made between project implementation management
approaches revealed that water services constructed by the community-managed project approach
was found to be more functional, and more satisfactory for the households than other external actors
and local government managed project approaches.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1675 12 of 19

The technical observation was made to pledge that the water points are designed, constructed and
maintained to ensure the ease by marginalized sections of the society. Accordingly (Table 1), 29.4% of
water services have met the criteria, and there existed a difference among project implementation
modalities. A similar observation conducted on the surrounding water services revealed that 89.2%,
66.7%, 78.4%, and 66.4% of water services were constructed in compliance with the locally set standard,
surrounding sanitary maintained, possessing good drainage system, and minimizing risks of flooding,
respectively. A comparison of results among project implementation management approaches reveals
the local government-managed project approach performed higher in compliance with national
norms about siting factors, while the community-managed project performed better in the rest of the
three factors.

4.1.5. Environmental Performance

In order to maintain the long-term functionality and continuous delivery of services,
environmental factors affecting water points needs to be maintained with the participation of
communities. The environmental sustainability of rural water services under the study revealed
that a great deal of work still needs to be done to minimize the effect of environmental impacts on
water services. As shown in Table 1, 40.2% of water services under the study had a local water shade
management plan related to their respective water services. Among households that took part in the
interview, only 25.0% of households had awareness about water shade management of their water
services. Despite the existence of watershed management plans and some level of awareness among
the communities, only 16.7% of water services were identified risks and measures are being taken to
rectify the identified problems. In most of the environmental sustainability factors, except awareness,
all project implementation management approaches were performing on the same level.

4.2. Project Implementation Management Modalities and Sustainability Outcomes

The analysis was made to assess the existence of a statistically significant difference among project
implementation management modalities in sustainability outcome variables (Table 2).
Institutional sustainability: The existence of institutions which have been constituted in line with
national norms and standards differed across project implementation management modalities under
the study (Table 2). Interviews conducted with WASHCOs revealed it was found to be the highest
among water supply services construction managed by communities, which differed significantly
from local government and other external actors. Though projects managed by other external actors
registered higher institutional performance than local government, a significant difference was not
observed between them. The perception of households about the democratic selection of WASHCO
members was also highly related to project implementation management modalities. Survey data
from the household interview indicates it was lowest in local government- and significantly highest in
community-managed project approaches.
Management sustainability: The observation and interview results on the management performance
of WASHCOs show that there existed a significant and high difference between community and other
project implementation management approaches (Table 2). The management performance was lowest
in the local government-managed approach, but a significant difference was not found with other
external actor-managed project approach.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1675 13 of 19

Table 2. Comparisons of project implementation management modalities on major sustainability variables in the analysis a .

Variables Community Local Government Other External Actors Total b

Existence of institutions which has been constituted in line with
2.85 L, O 1.38 C 1.65 C 1.96 *
national norms and standards
Democratic election of WASHCOs (% households reporting
81.86 L, O 56.86 C 65.67 C 68.14 *
democratic)
Management Sustainability 4.85 L, O 2.38 C 2.65 C 3.29 *
Tariff setting compliance with national regulation 2.35 L 1.79 C 2.18 2.11 **
The regularity and sufficiency of tariff collection 1.41 L, O 0.44 C 0.71 C 0.85 *
WASHCOs demonstrates effective financial management and
1.79 L, O 038 C, O 1.03 C, L 1.07 *
accounting
Households paying tariff (% households reporting paying) 73.56 L, O 31.87 C, O 41.67 C, L 49.02 *
Financial transparency of WASHCOs (% of households reporting
52.45 L, O 22.06 C 20.10 C, 31.54 *
transparent)
Functionality inclusiveness of design and standard 2.32 O 2.18 1.82 C 2.11 *
Compliance of hand pump with standards and norms in terms of
2.53 O 2.00 1.82 C 2.12 *
sitting and public health risk
Household’s satisfaction with level of services 1.16 L, O 0.91 C 0.78 C 0.95 *
Existence of local water shade management plan related to
0.35 0.41 0.44 0.40
water service
communities’ awareness about the water shade management plan
28.92 22.55 22.06 25.00
related to water services (% of households reporting aware of)
Environment related adaptation measures been incorporated in the
0.12 0.18 0.21 0.17
development of water supply services
a Given as mean values of variables except democratic election of WASHCOs, households paying tariff, financial transparency of WASHCOs, and community awareness about the water
shade management plan related to water services. Superscript codes indicate a statistically significant difference between the two project implementation management approaches as per
the results of post hoc and chi-squared tests. Codes for project implementation management approaches: C = Community, L = Local Government, O = Other External Actors. b Asterisks
indicate the statistical significance of differences among project implementation management modalities at significance levels of * p < 0.01, ** p < 0.10.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1675 14 of 19

Financial sustainability: Compliance of tariff setting with national regulations was highest in the
community-managed project approach, while external actors rank next, and local government last,
though there was no statistically significant difference among them. The regularity and sufficiency of
tariff collection found a mirror reflection of compliance of tariff setting with national regulations. It was
highest in community-managed project approach and average in other external actors, and lowest in the
local government management project approach. However, the other external actor-managed project
approach no longer differed significantly from local government. The effectiveness of WASHCOs
in handling financial management and document related tasks is also highly varied among project
implementation management approaches (Table 2). The community-managed project approach was
highest followed by other external actors and local government. A significant difference was observed
among project implementation management approaches. Household survey results on tariff payment
show that community-managed projects had a higher and significantly greater number of households
paying the tariff than local government- and other external-managed project approaches.
Technical sustainability: The other external actor-managed project approach was the lowest in
the two variables of functionality, inclusiveness of standard of water services as well as compliance
of water services with standards and norms in terms of siting and public health, which differed
significantly from the community-managed project approach. The community-managed project
approach performed better than local government in both variables; however, a significant difference
was not found. Beneficiary households of water services constructed by the community-managed
project approach reported that they are highly satisfied as opposed to the beneficiaries of water
services constructed by the local government- and other externally-managed project approaches with
a statistically significant result. Other externally-managed projects had the lowest level of satisfaction
though they did not significantly differ from local government.
Environmental sustainability: The observation made on the existence of water shade management
plan and incorporation of environment-related adaptation measure of water services under the study
(Table 2) shows that it was highest in the other external actor-managed project approach followed
by local government, and lowest in community-managed project approach. Though there was a
difference among project implementation management modalities in both variables, a statistically
significant difference was not found among them. The degree to which respondents know about
the existence of the watershed management plan of their respective water service was almost the
same for local government and other external managed project approaches. Awareness about the
water shade management plan of their respective water services was highest in community-managed
project approaches and the chi-square test result showed an insignificant difference among project
implementation management modalities.

5. Discussion
The study offers the following major insights about the sustainability of rural water services and
how project implementation management modalities, conveyed by the responsible body for managing
the construction of projects, can influence the sustainability of rural water services.
Accordingly, the study revealed that sustainability outcomes of water services were affected
by project implementation management modalities under the study. A high level of institutional
performance was generated by the community-managed project approach, relatively. This is in
harmony with the hypothesis that empowering communities with the project construction management
role initiates them to create a relatively stronger institution that involves women responsible for
managing the operation and maintenance of the system. The skill and knowledge acquired from
managing the construction of the projects and the existence of stronger institutions are associated
with management sustainability performance. Relative management sustainability inefficiency was
observed in the local government- and other external actor-managed projects. This inefficiency is
mainly linked to lack of experience. In the aforementioned project management approaches, the
communities were entitled to take over the management role only after projects are completed, and
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1675 15 of 19

handover made to the beneficiaries. Although there is a lack of prior study related to community
empowerment in the construction stage, there is evidence that participation is positively affecting
sustainability [46,47]. The study found that empowering communities leads to better water service as
measured by institutional and management sustainability indicators, implying that the communities
are more engaged and committed to sustaining their water services.
A comparable study undertaken on the financial sustainability in sub-Saharan African
countries [48] indicated that, on average, 30% of beneficiary households were paying the tariff, though
there exists significant difference among countries. The regularity of the tariff collection and its capacity
in covering the operation and maintenance cost was even lower than the figure. On contrary, this study
revealed that almost 73.6% of households were paying the tariff, and a significant proportion was
paying on a regular basis for water services construction managed by the communities. There exists
a significant difference in financial sustainability performance among the project implementation
modalities. The regularity of the tariff collection and percentage of households paying the tariff was
also a mirror reflection of the cost of covering operation and maintenance. A significant relationship
is observed between the financial transparency and project implementation management approach
in which the level of involvement of the communities in selecting the WASHCOs and managing the
construction is related to financial transparency. Thus, the study found that to realize a cost recovery
system, the involvement of the user communities in managing the construction of their water points
can make households pay regularly and sufficiently, and enables WASHCOs to handle proper financial
management, which is key in maintaining the financial sustainability of water services.
The technical assessment of the study revealed that 92.2% of the rural water services under
scrutiny were functional at visit time and there existed differences among the project implementation
management modalities. The result showed that the community-managed project approach registered a
lower non-functionality rate and this result is in contradiction with similar studies made in sub-Saharan
African countries which figures a non-functionality rate up to 35% [11]. The level of satisfaction with
regard to the service level, the participation of the communities in keeping sanitation of the surrounding
area, and control flooding are also related to the level of empowerment. It is observed that communities
do not have the capacity necessary to manage water services in tandem with the required technical
skills, standards, and designs. From the results, the technical sustainability of the study came to
conclude that if communities are empowered and given a proper managerial role in the construction
of water facilities, they can become more capable of shouldering responsibilities in maintaining the
functional and technical status of water services. Water shade management plans and environmental
adaptation measures taken to maintain the environmental flow of the water services also revealed
there is a low level of awareness among the communities on the issues. There is a need to maintain
the minimum environmental flow in fulfilling the demand of all water needs [49,50]. The low level of
environmental protection activities in the study area might have a long-term effect on the availability
of water and even in meeting the needs of growing demand due to population pressure.
Generally, the study has provided vital insights that water service projects, where the community
is empowered and maintained leadership responsibility in constructing their rural water projects,
the outcome was found more sustainable than that of managed by local government, NGOs and charity
organizations. A demand-responsive approach gives communities the opportunity to participate
rather than a managerial role. In accordance with this, the current study found that the highly-praised
conventional demand-driven approach of rural water supply can benefit more in terms of sustainability
and continuous delivery of the services if it brings communities to managerial and decision-making
positions in the process of constructing water projects. The result is in contradiction with previous
research made by Ellie which raised the risk of community management [23]. These might be a
clear indication that, as far as sustainability is concerned, the role of governments, NGOs, and
charity organizations in construction management of rural water projects might be restricted and
areas of particular intervention need to be identified. The facilitative role of involvement taken
by the governments, NGOs, and charity organizations in structured support and capacity building
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1675 16 of 19

initiatives to the communities throughout the project cycle might optimize the benefits of sustainable,
and continuous, delivery of systems.

6. Conclusions
In addition to serving the unserved, sustainability of rural water services is one of the overriding
problems for the water sector in developing countries. Different attempts were made to identify
factors affecting sustainability in spite of the fact that there is lack of studies on the impact of project
implementation management modalities on sustainability outcomes of rural water services. The study
has made an attempt to shed light on the relationship between project implementation management
modalities and sustainability outcomes of rural water services in Abichu Gna district, Ethiopia.
Three different types of project implementation management modalities: community, local government,
and other external actors were identified in the area. The USAID sustainability assessment tool was
adopted, contextualized, and employed to quantify factors affecting sustainability. The analysis of the
data from the study area reveals that the sustainability of rural water services is still a major concern
for the sector and different aspects of sustainability of rural water services are significantly affected by
project implementation management modalities. The followings are key findings of the study:
Though the community-managed project approach to construction of water projects are not
common in sub-Saharan African countries, the evidence from Abichu Gna district reveals that
community management of water infrastructures generates higher institutional, managerial, financial,
and technical sustainability performance compared to projects managed by local government, NGOs,
and charity organizations. In most of the sustainability assessment variables, community-managed
projects registered a higher statistically significant difference. We think these results linking the
community-managed project approach in greater sustainability of water services can be explained by
the reaction of communities to empowerment which increases their awareness and sense of ownership.
The experience they are getting from construction management of water points might also give them
the necessary skills and knowledge on how to sustain their water services. Thus, in order to attain
the sustainable development goal target of the water sector, which aimed at increasing the water
supply coverage and improve the functionality of existing water infrastructures, the policymakers and
governments of developing countries should work more, besides participation, on the empowerment
of user communities in the construction of water points.
The study is limited to low-cost rural water technology of hand pumps and internal factors to
the community affecting sustainability. A sort of action research that anchors its analysis on a mix of
variables treating external factors and the possibility of engaging the community in the tasks related to
other types of rural water construction and its cost implication needs to be conducted.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization: F.M.S. and S.Y.; methodology: F.M.S. and S.Y.; software: F.M.S. and
S.Y.; validation: F.M.S. and S.Y.; formal analysis: F.M.S. and S.Y.; data curation: F.M.S. and S.Y.; writing—original
draft preparation: F.M.S. and S.Y.; writing—review and editing: F.M.S. and S.Y.
Funding: This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71673081).
Acknowledgments: We would like to acknowledge financial support from the Ministry of Commerce and
Commercial Services, P. R, of China for financial support during the study time and logistical support from
Oromia Regional Water, Mines, and Energy Bureau. We thank study partners from the Ethiopian Ministry of
Water, Irrigation, and Energy, regional experts, and district water office experts for their time and commitment
during the study period. We are also grateful for all the user households, and water, sanitation, and hygiene
committee member, who took their time to respond to our interviews.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1675 17 of 19

References
1. United Nations Department of Public Information. Sustainable Development Goals in sync with Africa’s
Priorities. Available online: [Link]
development-goals-are-sync-africa%E2%80%99s-priorities (accessed on 12 November 2018).
2. United Nations. Transforming our World. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available online:
[Link] (accessed on 18 November 2018).
3. United Nations Environmental Program. Financing Sustainable Development: Moving from Momentum to
Transformation in a Time of Turmoil. Available online: [Link]
vel-sdg-financing-lab/ (accessed on 9 November 2018).
4. Hutton, G. Global Costs and Benefits of Drinking-Water Supply and Sanitation Interventions to Reach the MDG Target
and Universal Coverage; WHO/HSE/WSH/12.01; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012.
5. Bhaduri, A.; Bogardi, J.; Siddiqi, A.; Voigt, H.; Vörösmarty, C.; Pahl-Wostl, C.; Bunn, S.E.; Shrivastava, P.;
Lawford, R.; Foster, S.; et al. Achieving Sustainable Development Goals from a Water Perspective. Front.
Environ. Sci. 2016, 4, 1–13. [CrossRef]
6. United Nations Children’s Education Fund (UNICEF); World Health Organization (WHO). Progress on
Sanitation and Drinking Water 2015 Update and MDG Assessment. Available online: [Link]
rg/publications/index_82419.html (accessed on 12 June 2018).
7. World Bank. Overview Water. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 2 September 2018).
8. Sansom, K.; Koestler, L. African Handpump Market Mapping Study. Available online: [Link]
-[Link]/resources/pubs/Handpump_market_study_summary_report.pdf (accessed on
15 February 2018).
9. Ibrahim, S.H. Sustainability Assessment and Identification of Determinants in Community-Based Water
Supply Projects using Partial Least Squares Path Model. J. Sustain. Dev. Energy Water Environ. Syst. 2017, 5,
345–358. [CrossRef]
10. Lockwood, H.; Bakalian, A.; Wakeman, W. Assessing Sustainability in Rural Water Supply: The role of
Follow-up Support to Communities: Literature Review and Desk Review of Rural Water Supply and
Sanitation Project Documents. Available online: [Link]
[Link] (accessed on 19 August 2018).
11. Banks, B.; Furey, S. What’s Working, Where, and for How Long: A 2016 Water Point Update. In Proceedings
of the 7th Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (RWSS) Forum, Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, 29 November–2
December 2016. [CrossRef]
12. Baumann, E.; Ball, P.; Beyene, A. Rationalization of Drilling Operations in Tanzania: Review of the Borehole
Drilling Sector in Tanzania. 2005. Available online: [Link]
_attachments/BAUMANN%20et%20al%202005%20Rationalization%20of%20Drilling%20Operations%20i
n%[Link] (accessed on 7 May 2018 ).
13. Sutton, S. The Sub-Saharan Potential for Household Level Water Supply Improvement, Maximizing the
Benefits from Water and Environmental Sanitation. In Proceedings of the 31st WEDC Conference, Kampala,
Uganda, 31 October–4 November 2005.
14. Smith, G. Rural Water System Sustainability: A Case of Community-Managed Water Systems in Saramaka
Communities. Master’s Thesis, University of Michigan, East Lansing, MI, USA, 2011.
15. McConville, J.R.; Mihelcic, J.R. Adapting Life-Cycle Thinking Tools to Evaluate Project Sustainability in
International Water and Sanitation Development Work. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2007, 24. [CrossRef]
16. The World Bank; UNICEF. Water and Sanitation for All. How The Financing Gap Be Filled: A Discussion Paper;
Paper Submitted to World Bank and UNICEF to Support the Sanitation and Water for All Finance Minister Meeting
Preparatory Process; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
17. Whaley, L.; Cleaver, F. Can ’Functionality’ Save the Community Management Model of Rural Water Supply?
Water Resour. Rural Develop. 2017, 9, 56–66. [CrossRef]
18. Beshah, M.B.; Jarmo, J.H.; Tapio, S.K. Service Failures of Rural Water Supply Systems in Ethiopia and Their
Policy Implications. Public Works Manag. Policy 2017, 22, 179–196. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1675 18 of 19

19. Bain, R.; Cronk, R.; Hossain, R.; Bonjour, S.; Onda, K.; Wright, J.; Yang, H.; Slaymaker, T.; Hunter, P.;
Pruss-Ustun, A.; et al. Global Assessment of Exposure to Faecal Contamination through Drinking Water
Based on a Systematic Review. Trop. Med. Int. Health 2014, 19, 917–927. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Whittington, D.; Davis, J.; McClelland, E. Implementing a Demand-Driven Approach to Community Water
Supply Planning: A Case Study of Lugazi, Uganda. Water Int. 1998, 23, 134–145. [CrossRef]
21. Marks, S.J.; Davis, J. Does User Participation Lead to Sense of Ownership for Rural Water Systems? Evidence
from Kenya. World Dev. 2012, 40, 1569–1576. [CrossRef]
22. Ghazala, M.; Vijayendra, R. World Bank. Community Driven Development. Available online: Siteresources.
[Link]/INTECAREGTOPCOMDRIDEV/Resources/[Link] (accessed on 2 May 2018).
23. Ellie, C. Is Community Management an Efficient and Effective Model of Public Service Delivery? Lessons
From the Rural Water Supply Sector in Malawi. Public Admin. Dev. 2015, 35, 263–276. [CrossRef]
24. Whittington, D.; Thorsten, R.; Prokopy, L.; Bakalian, A.; Komives, K.; Wakeman, W. How Well is the
Demand-driven, Community Management Model for Rural Water Supply Systems Doing? Evidence from
Bolivia, Peru and Ghana. Water Policy 2009, 11, 696–718. [CrossRef]
25. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. The WaSH Implementation Framework. Available online: https:
//[Link]/2011/11/[Link] (accessed on 15 April 2018).
26. Chambers, R. Participatory rural appraisal PRA: Analysis of experience. World Dev. 1994, 22, 1253–1268.
[CrossRef]
27. Pound, B.; Snapp, S.; McDougall, C.; Braun, A. Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods: Uniting
Science and Participation; Earthscan: London, UK, 2003.
28. Yakubov, M.; Hassan, M. Mainstreaming Rural Poor in Water Resources Management: Preliminary Lessons
of A Bottom-Up WUA Development Approach In Central Asia. Irrig. Drain. 2007, 56, 261–276. [CrossRef]
29. Smith, J.L. A Critical Appreciation of the “bottom-up” Approach to Sustainable Water Management:
Embracing Complexity rather than Desirability. Local Environ. 2008, 13. [CrossRef]
30. Ministry of Water Resources. Ethiopian Water Resources Management Policy; Ministry of Water Resources:
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1998.
31. Community Led Accelerated Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene Project. About CMP. Available online:
[Link] (accessed on 12 September 2018).
32. Community Led Accelerated Water supply, Sanitation and Hygiene Project. CMP Approach. Available
online: [Link] (accessed on 5 September 2018).
33. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, P.D. World Population Prospects: The 2017
Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables. Available online: [Link]
ns/ (accessed on 24 September 2018).
34. World Bank Data Base. Rural Population (% of Total Population). Available online: [Link]
.org/indicator/[Link]?locations=ET (accessed on 12 June 2018).
35. World Bank. Ethiopia Economic Update: The Inescapable Manufacturing Service Nexus Exploring the
Potential. Available online: [Link] (accessed on
18 June 2018).
36. Oromia Regional Bureau of Finance and Economic Cooperation. Oromia National Regional State in Brief.
Available online: [Link]/images/stories/rstatistics/Oromia_In_Brief%20Part_V.pdf
(accessed on 12 September 2017).
37. Oromia Regional Bureau of Finance and Economic Development. Socio-Economic Profile of Abichu Gna
District. Available online: [Link]
ory&layout=blog&id=45&Itemid=62 (accessed on 12 September 2017).
38. Abichu Gna Distrcit Water, Mines and Energy Office. 2017/18 Annual Report; NDP: Mendida, Ethiopia, 2018.
39. Jones, S.A.; Bernhardt, K.; Sanford, L.; Kennedy, M.; Lantz, K.; Holden, T. Collecting Critical Data to
Assess the Sustainability of Rural Infrastructure in Low-Income Countries. Sustainability 2013, 5, 4870–4888.
[CrossRef]
40. Haysom, A. A Study of the Factors Affecting Sustainability of Rural Water Supplies in Tanzania. Master’s
Thesis, Cranfield University, Bedford, UK, 2006.
41. Panthie, K.; Bhattarai, S. Framework to Assess Sustainability of Community Based Water Projects Using
Multi Criteria Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, Florida International Universiy, Miami, FL, USA, 2008.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1675 19 of 19

42. United States Agency for International Aid (USAID) in Collaboration with Rotary International.
WASH Sustainability Index Tool. Available online: [Link] (accessed
on 26 October 2017).
43. Madrigal, R.; Alpízar, F.; Schlüter, A. Determinants of Performance of Community-Based Drinking Water
Organizations. World Dev. 2011, 39, 1663–1675. [CrossRef]
44. Torres-Reyna, O. Getting Started in Factor Analysis (Using Stata 10): Data and Statistical Services. Available
online: [Link] (accessed on 25 December 2018).
45. Reynaldo, J.; Santos, A. Cronbach’s Alpha: A Tool for Assessing the Reliability of Scales. J. Ext. 1999, 37, 1–4.
46. Peter, G.; Nkambule, S.E. Factors Affecting Sustainability of Rural Water Schemes in Swaziland. Phys. Chem.
Earth 2012, 50, 196–204. [CrossRef]
47. Marks, S.J.; Komives, K.; Davis, J. Community Participation and Water Supply Sustainability: Evidence from
Hand pump Projects in Rural Ghana. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2014, 34, 276–286. [CrossRef]
48. Foster, T. Why Financial Sustainability Matters: Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. In Proceedings of the
World Water Week, Stockholm, Sweden, 25 August 2015.
49. Operacz, A.; Wałega, A.; Cupak, A.; Tomaszewska, B. The comparison of environmental flow
assessment—The barrier for investment in Poland or river protection? J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 193, 575–592.
[CrossRef]
50. Pusłowska-Tyszewska, D.; Tyszewski, S. Attempt at Implementing the 2015 “Ecological Flow Assessment
Method for Poland” In the Wieprza River Catchment. Acta Sci. Pol. Form. Circumiectus 2018, 17, 181–193.
[CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license ([Link]