Poor functionality: a stubborn concern in rural water supply
Lack of a standard definition
Definition class | Summary |
---|---|
1. Not defined | Functionality not explicitly defined: by default, working or not working |
2. Defined binary approach | Defined to be ‘working’ or ‘not working’ based on whether the water point is working at the time of the visit: ‘in use’/‘not in use’ |
3. Multi-categories | Different categories are used to capture the different levels of functionality status: functional, minimally functional, functioning through difficulties, broken, missing parts, seasonal |
4. Tiered definition | Several different levels of assessment are used to assess functionality. As a minimum, functionality is assessed using a binary approach of ‘working’/‘not working’, but can be examined in greater detail using several levels of assessment |
5. Sustainability assessment | A broader assessment approach which includes several factors indicating the reliability of the supply |
6. Design yield | A water point is functional if it produces the design yield at the time of the visit |
Guidelines for assessing functionality
-
Functionality should be measured against an explicitly stated standard and population of water points.
-
Functionality should be measured separately from the users’ experience of the service it provides.
-
The assessments should be tiered, allowing for further information, but always being able to be reduced to a simple measure.
-
A distinction can be made between surveying functionality as a snapshot (e.g. for national metrics) and monitoring individual water point performance and reliability (including a temporal aspect).