Attachment J.14 - Urban Water Assessment Report.pdf

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: a Mixed Methods Study Report

Submitted to: United States Agency for International Development

Submitted by: Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs

[August 14, 2021]

Cooperative Agreement #AID-OAA-A-17-00017

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: a Mixed Methods Study

| 1

Table of Contents Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

Executive Summary

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Methodology

Chapter 3: Participant Profile

Chapter 4: Rainy Season Water Ownership and Access

Chapter 5: Dry Season Water (safe drinking) Access and Ownership

Chapter 6: Household Water Collection & Water Storage

Chapter 7 Household Water Quality Perceptions

Chapter 8: Household Water Preferences

Chapter 9: Household Water Financing, Services, and Willingness-to-pay

Chapter 10: Household Water Responsibilities

Chapter 11: Household Sanitation & Hygiene Practices

Chapter 12: Determinants of Water Treatment and Extended Trips for Water Collection (multivariate analysis)

Chapter 13: Qualitative Findings

Chapter 14: Conclusions & Recommendations

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 2

Acknowledgements Breakthrough ACTION Liberia would like to thank Wilbert Quintanilla, Amos Gborie, and Stephen Sara from the SAVE the Children WASH team, and Nandita Kapadia-Kundu, Samantha Tsang, J. Ben Kitson, and Joseph Millward from the Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs (CCP) research team for their dedicated and committed efforts towards conducting a robust and relevant policy research study in peri-urban water needs and composing this report.

We thank our donor USAID Liberia for the consistent guidance they have provided to the peri-urban water study.

We would also like to thank the research agency PERT consultancy for their work on data collection and data management. We recognize and appreciate them for managing the study on the ground, and keeping COVID-19 safety as a major goal.

We thank Saratu Olabode-Ojo, the Breakthrough ACTION Liberia Chief of Party, and Jen Boyle, Team Lead, Baltimore for their constant support to the study. We thank Eric Filemyr, Breakthrough ACTION Liberia for his support in editing and formatting the report.

Finally, we would like to give our most sincere thanks to the communities in Logan Town, New Kru and Peace Island who participated in this study. Your responses have provided the basis of a study that reflects the water situation on the ground and provides data to guide policy. Thank you.

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 3

Executive Summary

Background

As of 2020, 36% of rural and 15% of urban Liberians lacked access to a basic water service.1 Although access to a basic water service among urban Liberian households is fairly high (85%), there are disparities in access based on wealth. Joint Monitoring Programme data from 2020 shows that almost a quarter (23.5% ) of urban households within the lowest wealth quintile lacked access to basic water services, while only 6.6% of the richest households lacked basic water service access.2 A lack of access to sufficient quantities of convenient, affordable and potable water still pose great challenges for the urban poor living in informal settlements in Liberia. A 2016 study from Kumpel et al reported that 57% of water sources sampled in Monrovia contained fecal indicator bacteria (FIB).3 This evidence suggests that significant water access and use challenges still exist for the urban poor in Liberia.

Study Objectives:

This study aimed to identify the access and quality challenges associated with household water resources in three peri-urban communities in Monrovia, Montserrado County. The study also explored personal, social and environmental factors related to household water access and use.

The objectives of the peri-urban water study were to:

• Deepen understanding of the drivers and barriers to household water source selection in peri-urban communities of Montserrado county

• Explore household preferences and practices related to storage, treatment and use in peri-urban communities of Montserrado county

Methodology:

The peri-urban4 water study took place in informal settlement communities of Montserrado county

(Logan Town, New Kru and Peace Island). Breakthrough ACTION Liberia used a mixed methods approach for this research study, a cross-sectional descriptive study using household (HH) quantitative surveys, HH observational surveys, focus group discussions (FGDs), in-depth interviews (IDIs) and Key Informant

Interviews (KII). The respondents for the peri-urban water study consisted of adult men and women (ages 18 or older) from informal settlement communities within informal settlements of Logan

Town, New Kru and Peace Island communities of Montserrado County. A total sample of 1,200 women and men was used.

1 WHO & UNICEF (2021). Estimates on the use of water, sanitation & hygiene in Liberia. Joint Monitoring Programme 2 WHO & UNICEF. Summary of Trends in use of drinking water by wealth quintile: Liberia. Joint Monitoring Programme. www.washdata.org 3 Kumpel E, Albert J, Peletz R, et al. Urban Water Services in Fragile States: An Analysis of Drinking Water Sources and Quality in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, and Monrovia, Liberia. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016;95(1):229-238. doi:10.4269/ajtmh.15-0766 4 As the words ‘peri-’ (peripheral) and ‘urban’ suggest, peri-urban areas occupy the region immediately outside and around urban areas. In practice, peri-urban areas are characteristic of developing countries because in these areas they exhibit some unique characteristics and serve some functions that are usually not found in developed countries.

http://www.washdata.org/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/periurban-area https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/periurban-area https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/periurban-area

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 4

Key Findings and Recommendations:

While household access to improved water sources is relatively high, access to water sources vary based on season, convenience, perceived water quality and distance. Despite close proximity to water sources, household water collection burdens are extremely high and 63% of study participants reported challenges collecting the minimum quantity of water for daily use set by WHO (20L/person/day).

Household access to safe and sufficient water resources was hampered by cost, convenience, and reliability of water systems. Household water storage practices and sanitation practices created significant drinking water quality risks and affected household confidence in water quality. Gender disparities in household water responsibilities remained high among participating households. Based on these findings, our recommendations are to:

1. Support the establishment and continuation of community-based water management committees, which was associated with reduced water collection travel times.

2. Design and test accountability mechanisms that empower community members to report water system deficiencies and assist governments in holding service providers accountable for providing safe, reliable, and affordable water services.

3. Increase community water access, to make 20L /person/day available in peri-urban settlements in

Liberia and reduce long waiting time, by providing additional community water sources or service providers.

4. Explore strategies to expand household financing for water, such as reduced or interest-free connection loans, pooling community resources to contribute to the extension of water infrastructure or to finance professionalized water services or offering micro-loans to households or communities.

5. Include community stakeholders in the development and implementation of water safety plans.

Increase financial and capacity strengthening support to local and national governments to increase the frequency of water quality testing and implementation of mitigation actions.

6. Design and test social interventions aimed at balancing the burden of water collection and management responsibilities more equally among men and women, while ensuring children’s time is protected to pursue education and development activities.

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 5

Chapter 1: Introduction

Overview of the Breakthrough ACTION Liberia Program:

Breakthrough ACTION is a global SBC project funded by USAID to lead social and behavior change (SBC) programs around the world. Breakthrough ACTION ignites collective action and encourages people to adopt healthier behaviors—from using modern contraceptive methods to sleeping under bed nets and beyond. The work harnesses the demonstrated power of communication and integrates innovative approaches from marketing science, behavioral economics, and human-centered design.

In Liberia, adopting healthy behaviors remains a critical barrier to improved health outcomes. While USAID Liberia has previously invested in community health, social mobilization and community engagement including outreach activities and facility strengthening, the need for household level change continues, along with strengthened engagement of traditional leadership structures. To address these needs and contribute to USAID/Liberia’s Development Objective 3, Breakthrough ACTION will deliver effective quality SBC activities in Liberia that will result in behavior change across a variety of health sectors, including WASH. Breakthrough ACTION will build on and complement existing knowledge, information, and partner efforts where possible, while building the capacity of Liberian institutions in SBC.

Background:

As of 2020, 36% of rural and 15% of urban Liberians lacked access to a basic water service.5 Although access to a basic water service among urban Liberian households is high (85%), there are disparities in access based on wealth. Joint Monitoring Programme data from 2020 shows that almost a quarter (23.5% ) of urban households within the lowest wealth quintile lacked access to basic water services, while only 6.6% of the richest households lacked basic water service access.6 A lack of access to sufficient quantities of convenient, affordable and potable water still pose great challenges for the urban poor living in informal settlements in Liberia. A 2016 study from Kumpel et al reported that 57% of water sources sampled in Monrovia contained fecal indicator bacteria (FIB).7 This evidence suggests that significant water access and use challenges still exist for the urban poor in Liberia.

The most common sources of drinking water in urban households are hand pumps, tube wells, or boreholes (48%); bottled water or mineral water in sachets (30%); and protected dug well (6%). Access to improved water sources is lower in rural communities (63%) with 31% of rural households obtaining their drinking water from an unimproved source, as compared to 5% of urban households. Access to improved sources of drinking water varies per county with Montserrado and Grand Gedeh counties having the highest coverage rate at 96% each. Additionally, access to safe drinking water is dependent on a household’s wealth and ability to pay for safe drinking water – households in the lowest wealth quintiles in both urban and rural contexts are more likely to use an unimproved source of drinking

5 WHO & UNICEF (2021). Estimates on the use of water, sanitation & hygiene in Liberia. Joint Monitoring Programme 6 WHO & UNICEF. Summary of Trends in use of drinking water by wealth quintile: Liberia. Joint Monitoring Programme. www.washdata.org 7 Kumpel E, Albert J, Peletz R, et al. Urban Water Services in Fragile States: An Analysis of Drinking Water Sources and Quality in Port

Harcourt, Nigeria, and Monrovia, Liberia. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016;95(1):229-238. doi:10.4269/ajtmh.15-0766 http://www.washdata.org/

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 6 water.8 Despite the availability of water purification products (most commonly bleach or WaterGuard), water treatment practices in Liberia remain low. According to the Liberia DHS 2019-20, 25% of households treated their drinking water, with 19% using bleach or chlorine, and 4% using WaterGuard.8

Water Practices in urban study locations:

Although access to a basic water service among urban Liberian households is fairly high, there are disparities in access based on wealth. Joint Monitoring Programme data from 2020 shows that Joint almost a quarter (23.5% ) of urban households within the lowest wealth quintile lacked access to basic water services, while only 6.6% of the richest households lacked basic water service access.9 A 2012 study in the urban study locations of Sanniquellie city and Voinjama city found that a majority of residents in both cities (87% in Sanniquellie, 77% in Voinjama) reported convenience and water quality as their primary reason for selecting their most used water source.10 Most respondents in both cities (79% in Sanniquellie, 64% in Voinjama) thought water quality from their primary water source was good or very good. In the same survey, eighty-nine percent (89%) of the respondents reported owning water storage equipment.10 Out of the 89% who stored water, 75% reported storing water in jerrycans.

Previous studies indicate that citizens of Sanniquellie and Voinjama would prefer to use more water if it was more consistently available and closer to home.10 Their preferred water source type was a household piped connection, but households were often less willing to pay for shared or community stand-pipe connections because they were less convenient due to water access, distance and/or queue times.10

Rapid urbanization has led to large parts of urban populations with limited access to clean water. This situation is exacerbated in the informal settlements in urban and peri-urban areas11. However most urban studies tend to show an improved scenario as data is collected across the socio-economic spectrum and reported for the urban “whole”. Unfortunately, urban data mask the poor water conditions of the informal settlements due to a lack of disaggregation between rich and poor areas. This is also true of the DHS data. Studies that assess the real condition of informal settlements are necessary for ensuring better access to clean water for the poorest strata of society.

The objectives of the urban water study are to:

• Deepen understanding of the drivers and barriers to household water source selection in peri-urban communities of Montserrado county

• Explore household preferences and practices related to storage, treatment and use in peri-urban communities of Montserrado county

Research Questions:

8 Liberia Institute of Statistics and Geo-Information Services (2020). Liberia Demographic and Health Survey 2019-20.

9 WHO & UNICEF. Summary of Trends in use of drinking water by wealth quintile: Liberia. Joint Monitoring Programme. www.washdata.org 10 Tetra Tech (2012). Situational Analysis Report: Liberia Municipal Water Project. Liberia Municipal Water Project.

11 Dos Santos S, Adams EA, Neville G, Wada Y, de Sherbinin A, Mullin Bernhardt E, Adamo SB. Urban growth and water access in sub-Saharan Africa: Progress, challenges, and emerging research directions. Sci Total Environ. 2017 Dec 31;607-608:497-508. doi:

10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.157. Epub 2017 Jul 27. PMID: 28704674.

https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR362/FR362.pdf http://www.washdata.org/ https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/2012-11%20LMWP%20SA%20Report.pdf

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 7

1. What are the current individual, household and community practices related to water source selection, water treatment and water use?

2. What are the social and behavioral determinants that influence household water source selection, storage, treatment and water use?

3. What are the social, community and service determinants (ref. Figure 1) that influence household water source selection, storage, treatment and water use?

4. How do environmental determinants (water availability, variability, proximity) influence household water source selection and use?

5. How do the local and political structures influence community (and household) action related to water source selection, treatment and use?

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 8

Chapter 2: Methodology

Study design:

Breakthrough ACTION Liberia used a mixed methods approach for this research study, a cross-sectional descriptive study using household (HH) quantitative surveys, HH observational surveys, focus group discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KII). Data collected from these methods was triangulated to develop a deeper understanding of household practices, preferences, barriers.

Target population and geographical focus:

The neighborhoods of Logan Town, New Kru and Peace Island were purposefully selected as study locations within Montserrado County due to their large urban poor populations and household homogeneity in water access (less than basic water service as per JMP definition).12 Within these administrative boundaries, households were randomly selected to participate in the study (as described below). Breakthrough ACTION Liberia assessed water source selection behaviors, preferences and water use practices among households without access to basic water services. Households were stratified by informal settlement.

Sample size:

The sample size for the peri-urban water study has been calculated on a maximum variance of 0.50 as we don’t have data on sources of water distribution in the selected samples areas. With an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 80%, the sample to detect 0.50 is 407 per site. Since the study was conducted in 3 towns, the total sample is 1,221 which was rounded to 1,200.

TABLE 2.1: SAMPLES SIZES BY DATA COLLECTION METHOD

PERI-URBAN

WATER

STUDY

SAMPLE

POPULATION

(2014)

HOUSEHOLD

WATER

STORAGE AND

USE

OBSERVATIONS

HH

QUESTIONNAIRE FGDS IDIS

Logan Town 6,749 400 400 2 (adult men)

2 (adult women)

10 adult men

10 adult women

New Kru 5,880 400 400 2 (adult men)

2 (adult women)

10 adult women

10 adults

Peace Island 4,658 400 400 2 (adult men) 10 adult women

10 adults

12 WHO & UNICEF (2021). Estimates on the use of water, sanitation & hygiene in Liberia. Joint Monitoring Programme

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 9

2 (adult women)

Local government officials

Total Sample Size

1200 1200 12 106

Inclusion Criteria:

Participants for the peri-urban water study consisted of adult women and men older than 18 years of age from informal settlement communities including Logan Town, New Kru and Peace Island communities, of Montserrado County. Participants were selected based on the following:

• Adults (men and women) ages 18 or older

• Full time resident of the communities purposefully selected within Logan Town, New Kru or

Peace Island communities

• Households without access to a basic water service

• Only one participant from each household

Exclusion Criteria:

• Children (<18 years old)

• Vulnerable populations (cognitive limitations, education, legal migration status, incarceration, poverty, or some combination of factors)

• Non-full-time residents of sampled communities

Data analysis:

For quantitative data collection, descriptive analyses, bivariate and multi-variate analyses were conducted to determine trends in sanitation practices based on household settings and participant-reported behaviors and preferences. Survey CTO, a mobile data collection platform, was used for quantitative data collection and storage. Tablets were used to collect household surveys and the data was uploaded to the Survey CTO platform once internet connectivity was available. Dedoose software was used to analyse qualitative data. Lawrence Green’s PRECEDE-PROCEED model was use to further analyse the qualitative findings.

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 10

Chapter 3: Participant Profile The study interviewed respondents from Logan Town, New Kru and Peace Island. This chapter presents the socio-demographic profile of the overall sample of 1200 respondents. Also included are qualitative findings related to socio-demographic factors.

Table 1 provides the socio demographic profile of the total sample. Approximately 60.7% of respondents were female, while 39.3% were male. A large portion of respondents were between the ages of 18 to 35 (56.7%), while 9.9% of household heads were above 55 years old. Most respondents (81.4%) reported that they have attended school in the past. Of the respondents who had attended school, the majority (63.4%) had completed secondary or higher education, however there was observed difference by respondent sex.

Almost 20% of the sample reported no source of income, while another 61.3% of respondents reported earning less than $100 USD per month. The remaining 20% of the sample reported earning over 100 USD per month, with no large differences observed by gender. Overwhelmingly, respondents were Christian (92.2), with a small amount reporting that they were Muslim (7.8%). The average household surveyed had 5.3 members. Of those surveyed, 53.9% reported that they currently rent their home, while 35.3% of the sample reported home ownership. The remaining 10.8% of respondents stated that they were currently living rent-free.

TABLE 3.1: SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

VARIABLE VALUE MALE FEMALE TOTAL SAMPLE

HOUSEHOLD

HEADS

(N=472)

HOUSEHOLD

HEADS

(N=728)

HOUSEHOLD

HEADS

(N=1200)

(95 CI)

Respondent Sex

Male 39.3 0.0 39.3

(36.6, 42.1)

Female 0.0 60.7 60.7

(57.9, 63.4)

Respondent Age

18 – 35 46.4 56.7 52.7

(49.8, 55.5)

36 – 55 41.5 34.8 37.4

(34.7, 40.2)

55+ 12.1 8.5 9.9

(8.3, 11.7)

Ever Attended School

Yes 89.4 76.2 81.4

(79.1, 83.5)

No 10.6 23.8 18.6

(16.5, 20.9)

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 11

Highest Level of Education

Elementary 8.3 16.0 12.7

(10.7, 14.9)

Junior high 17.3 28.8 23.8

(21.3, 26.6)

Senior High/Secondary 49.5 42.9 45.7

(42.6, 48.9)

Higher than Senior High/Secondary

24.9 12.3 17.7

(15.4, 20.2)

Household Monthly Income

Not Working or no source of Income

17.2 20.3 19.1

(17.0, 21.4)

Less than 100 US Dollars or

20,000 LD

57.6 63.6 61.3

(58.5, 64.0)

Between 100 USD or 20,000 LD to 40,000 LD

24.6 15.8 19.3

(17.1, 21.6)

Other 0.6 0.3 0.4

(0.2, 1.0)

Religion

Christian 88.8 94.4 92.2

(90.5, 93.6)

Muslim 11.2 5.6 7.8

(6.4, 9.5)

Average household size Mean HH Size (Not Percentage) 5.0

(4.7, 5.3)

5.5

(5.3, 5.6)

5.3

(5.1, 5.4)

House Ownership

Own 40.3 32.0 35.3

(32.6, 38.0)

Rent 49.6 56.7 53.9

(51.1, 56.7)

Live for Free 10.2 11.3 10.8

(9.2, 12.7)

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 12

Chapter 4: Rainy Season Water Ownership and Access This chapter examines water use patterns in the 3 peri-urban sites of Montserrado county during the rainy season. It assesses the primary drinking water source during the rainy season and how far the water source is from the house. It also measures how much time it takes to fetch water and the number of trips involved. The chapter explores whether drinking water is treated and the methods used for water purification.

The most common rainy season water source is a protected dug well or tap (34%), followed by an open dug well (21%). In addition, rainy season water sources include private taps in the yard (10%) or homes (4%). Water vendors (9%) are also a fairly common source of water in the rainy season. Other sources of water include water kiosks, public boreholes, neighboring household pumps, etc. (Table 4.1).

In terms of location of water source, 50% of respondents reported that their water source is located at a neighbor’s house, indicating a shared use of individual water sources. About a third of respondents stated that their water source was located centrally within the community, while 8% of the respondents reported that their rainy season water source was situated outside their community (Table 4.1). There were no significant differences in the reported water source and access situation reported by men and women during the rainy season.

TABLE 4.1 RAINY SEASON DRINKING WATER SOURCES AND ACCESS

HOUSEHOLD

HEAD

(N=472)

HOUSEHOLD

HEAD

(N=728)

HOUSEHOLD HEAD

(N=1200)

(95 CI)

Water source

(Rainy Season)

Lake, river, pond, stream (surface water)

4.0 1.7 2.6

(1.8, 3.6)

Open or dug well/ spring (unprotected)

21.6 21.6 21.6

(19.3, 24.0)

Protected dug well/tap 32.0 35.7 34.3

(31.6, 37.0)

Private yard tap 9.1 10.4 9.9

(8.3, 11.7)

Private Inside tap 5.3 3.3 4.1

(3.1, 5.4)

Water Kiosk 5.9 7.6 6.9

(5.6, 8.5)

Water Vendor 9.8 8.5 9.0

(7.5, 10.6)

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 13

Public borehole/pump 6.6 5.2 5.6

(4.6, 7.2)

Neighboring household well/pump

3.2 3.0 3.1

(2.2, 4.2)

Rainwater harvesting system /tank

2.3 2.9 2.7

(1.9, 3.7)

Public Reservoir 0.0 0.1 0.08

(0.01, 0.6)

Other 0.2 0.0 0.08

(0.01, 0.6)

Water2_Location

(Rainy Season)

On household plot/land 12.3 10.7 11.3

(9.7, 13.3)

At neighbor’s house 48.3 51.2 50.1

(47.3, 52.9)

Centrally located within the community

30.1 29.0 29.4

(26.9, 32.1)

Outside the community 9.1 7.8 8.3

(6.9, 10.0)

Other 0.2 1.2 0.8

(0.5, 1.5)

Time per trip of water per person

(Rainy Season)

Less than 30 minutes 78.6

73.2 75.3

(72.8, 77.7)

More than 30 minutes 21.4 26.8 24.7

(22.3, 27.2)

Reason for using water source

(Rainy Season)

Distance 18.0 18.8 18.5

(16.4, 20.8)

Convenience 51.1 51.7 51.4

(48.6, 54.2)

Water Quality 27.1 26.9 27.0

(24.6, 29.6)

Price 1.5 1.0 1.2

(0.7, 1.9)

Other 2.3 1.7 1.9

(1.3, 2.9)

Point-of-use water treatment

(Rainy Season)

Yes 26.5 24.7 25.4

(23.0, 28.0)

No 73.5 75.3 74.6

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 14

(72.0, 77.0)

Point of Use Water treatment methods used

Boiling 3.2 1.1 2.0

(0.9, 4.3)

Filtering 10.4 1.7 5.2

(3.2, 8.4)

Chlorine water (Waterguard) 85.6 97.2 92.5

(88.9, 94.9)

Other 0.8 0.0 0.3

(0.05, 2.3)

Is the same source for drinking water used for other household needs (bathing, laundry etc.)?

(Rainy Season)

Yes 68.4 68.4 68.4

(65.7, 71.0)

No 31.6 31.6 31.6

(29.0, 34.3)

As displayed in Table 4.1, 75.3% of the sample stated that one trip to collect water took less than 30 minutes. Convenience (51.4%) was the main factor for choosing a specific water source, followed by water quality (27%). Only 25.4% of the respondents stated they treated or purified their drinking water.

The most common method for drinking water purification was chlorination (92.5%), followed by filtering (5.2%). A majority of respondents (68.4%) reported that they use the same water source for their drinking water and other household needs (Table 4.1).

As shown in Table 4.2, open or dug wells were the most commonly used water source for domestic use (52.8%), followed by the protected dug well/tap (31.7%), and rainwater harvesting (10%). The majority of respondents reported that their domestic water source was located on a neighbor’s property (63.1%), while 19.5% of the respondents had their water source on their own household plot.

TABLE 4.2 WATER SOURCE USES FOR OTHER DOMESTIC USE DURING THE RAINY SEASON

HOUSEHOLD

HEAD

(N=472)

HOUSEHOLD

HEAD

(N=728)

HOUSEHOLD

HEADS

(N=1200)

(95 CI)

Water source for bathing and laundry

(Rainy Season)

Open or dug well/Spring (unprotected)

53.0 52.6 52.8

(47.7, 57.8)

Protected dug well/tap 31.5 31.7 31.7

(27.2, 36.5)

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 15

Private yard tap 1.3 0.9 1.1

(0.4, 2.8)

Private inside tap 0.0 0.4 0.3

(0.04, 1.9)

Water Kiosk 2.7 0.9 1.6

(0.7, 3.5)

Water Vendor 1.3 0.4 0.8

(0.3, 2.4)

Public borehole 2.0 0.4 1.1

(0.4, 2.8)

Neighboring household 0.0 1.3 0.8

(0.3, 2.4)

Rain harvesting system/tank 8.1 11.3 10.0

(7.4, 13.5)

Location of water source

(Rainy Season)

On the household plot/land 19.5 19.6 19.5

(15.8, 23.8)

At neighbor’s house 65.1 61.7 63.1

(58.1, 67.8)

Centrally located within community

12.1 16.5 14.8

(11.5, 18.7)

Outside the community 3.7 2.2 2.6

(1.4, 4.8)

Time per trip of water per person

Less than 30 minutes 84.6

80.4 82.1

(77.8, 85.6)

More than 30 minutes 15.4 19.6 17.9

(14.4, 22.1)

Reason for using water source

(Rainy Season)

Distance 26.2 23.9 24.8

(20.7, 29.4)

Convenience 55.7 57.8 57.0

(51.9, 61.9)

Water Quality 8.1 8.3 8.2

(5.8, 11.4)

Price 10.1 9.6 9.8

(7.1, 13.2)

Other 0.0 0.4 0.3

(0.04, 1.9)

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 16

Number of 5 gallons container (jerry cans) used

(Rainy Season)

Mean quantity of water used in rainy season (Not Percentage)

6.8

(6.3, 7.4)

6.8

(6.4, 7.1)

Does water source change in dry season?

Yes 34.3 37.0 35.9

(33.2, 38.7)

No 65.7 63.0 64.1

(61.3, 66.8)

Most respondents (82.1%) reported they took less than 30 minutes per trip to collect domestic water, with convenience (57%) being the main reason for choosing their water source. The other reasons for choosing water sources are distance (24.8%), water quality (8.2%) and price (9.8%). On average, both women and men use 6.8 jerry cans (5-gallon container) of water for household use during the rainy season. More than a third of the sample reported that their water source changed during the dry season (35.9%).

Chapter 5: Dry Season Water (safe drinking) Access and Ownership Understanding the seasonality of safe drinking water access and ownership among households in peri-urban areas is important in determining the challenges faced by households in ensuring water is available for drinking at the household level year-round. Water shortage and scarcity is often anticipated during the dry season due to a fall or drop in the ground water table/aquifer. This situation often leads households to either travel a long distance or queue in long lines to collect drinking water.

The study found that in the study communities, the most common source of safe drinking water during the dry season is protected hand dug well/tap (26.9%). About 13.2% of the households’ surveyed have a private yard tap that they access water from during the dry season; while 11.8% of households indicated that their drinking water source during the dry season was a public borehole/pump. Interestingly, results from Tables 4.1 and 5.1 show that household use of improved water sources increased from 76% in the wet season to 81% in the dry season. However, the proportion of households reporting use of surface water for drinking also increased slightly during the dry season (from 2.6% to 4.2%).

The location of the drinking water supply is an important factor to consider in household water ownership and access. The study findings show that 47.8% of respondents’ source of drinking water during the dry season is at a neighbor’s house, while 27.6% of respondents’ access drinking water located centrally in the community during the dry season. Only 3.5% of households have their source of drinking water on their house plot/yard.

The average distance travelled by households to collect drinking water is often an issue in water access.

Households are considered to have basic access to drinking water if they can access water from an improved source, provided collection time is not more than 30 minutes for a roundtrip including waiting

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 17 time at the water source.13 Adequate access also considers the quantity of water available year-round.

The U.N. Sustainable Development Goals also highlight the importance of water quality. This study findings reveal that 53.6% of respondents’ households travel less than 30 minutes during the dry season to fetch water from the nearest water source, while 46.4% of respondents’ households travel more than 30 minutes to collect drinking water during the dry season (Table 5.1). The predominant reasons given for using the water sources include convenience (46.6%) and water quality (37.3%). Only 12.5% of respondents indicated the distance as a motivator to access drinking water source during the dry season. However, it should be noted that this calculation of time taken to the water source is based on a single trip only. Most respondents fetch water for drinking and for domestic use, and therefore they make multiple trips to the water source to meet their hourshold’s basic water needs.

As for drinking water quality, only 21.3% of respondents mentioned treating their drinking water during the dry season. 78.7% of the respondents do not treat their drinking water. The most common method of treating drinking water among respondents who indicated that they treat their drinking water during the dry season is chlorine-based treatment (92.4%), while 4.3% indicated filtration is their method of water treatment. There was no significant difference between male and female respondents for the variables (Table 5.1).

13WHO & UNICEF (2021). Estimates on the use of water, sanitation & hygiene in Liberia. Joint Monitoring Programme

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 18

TABLE 5.1 OVERALL WATER (FOR DRINKING) OWNERSHIP/ACCESS DURING THE DRY SEASON

VARIABLE VALUE MALE FEMALE TOTAL SAMPLE

HOUSEHOLD

HEADS

(N=162)

HOUSEHOLD

HEADS

(N=269)

HOUSEHOLD

HEADS

(N=431)

(95 CI)

Dry season water source

Lake, river, pond, stream (surface water)

4.3 4.1 4.2

(2.6, 6.5)

Open or dug well/ spring (unprotected)

11.1 14.5 13.2

(10.3, 16.8)

Protected dug well/tap 26.5 27.1 26.9

(22.9, 31.3)

Private yard tap 12.4 13.7 13.2

(10.3, 16.8)

Private Inside tap 7.4 6.7 7.0

(4.9, 9.8)

Water Kiosk 13.6 7.4 9.7

(7.3, 12.9)

Water Vendor 5.6 5.6 5.6

(3.8, 8.2)

Public borehole/pump 10.5 12.6 11.8

(9.1, 15.2)

Neighboring household well/pump

6.8 6.3 6.5

(4.5, 9.3)

Rainwater harvesting system /tank

1.2 0.4 0.7

(0.2, 2.1)

Public Reservoir 0.0 1.5 0.9

(0.4, 2.4)

Other 0.6 0.0 0.2

(0.03, 1.6)

Location of water source (Dry Season)

On household plot/land 3.7 3.4 3.5

(2.1, 5.7)

At neighbor’s house 45.1 49.4 47.8

(43.1, 52.5)

Centrally located within the community

29.0 26.8 27.6

(23.6, 32.0)

Outside the community 22.2 19.7 20.6

(17.1, 24.7)

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 19

Other 0.0 0.7 0.5

(0.1, 1.8)

Time per trip of water per person

(Dry Season)

Less than 30 minutes 52.5

54.3 53.6

(48.9, 58.3)

More than 30 minutes 47.5 45.7 46.4

(41.7, 51.1)

Reason for using water source

(Dry Season)

Distance 12.4 12.6 12.5

(9.7, 16.0)

Convenience 44.4 48.0 46.6

(42.0, 51.4)

Water Quality 38.9 36.4 37.3

(32.9, 42.0)

Price 0.0 0.7 0.5

(0.1, 1.8)

Other 4.3 2.2 3.0

(1.8, 5.1)

Treat purify drinking water

(Dry Season)

Yes 21.6 21.2 21.3

(17.7, 25.5)

No 78.4 78.8 78.7

(74.5, 82.3)

Water treatment method

(Dry Season)

Boiling 2.9 0.0 1.1

(0.2, 7.5)

Filtering 5.7 3.5 4.3

(1.6, 11.2)

Chlorine water 91.4 93.0 92.4

(84.8, 96.4)

Other 0.0 3.5 2.2

(0.5, 8.4) this the same water source your household most frequently uses for other household needs during the dry season?

(bathing, laundry/washing etc.)?

Yes 69.7 69.5 69.6

(65.1, 73.8)

No 30.3 30.5 30.4

(26.2, 34.9)

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 20

Dry Season Water (for other domestic use) Access and ownership:

Water availability for other domestic chores is often an access issue in most communities. The sources of water used for drinking sometimes differ from those used for other tasks such as laundry, cooking, cleaning and bathing. The seasonal variations in communities with inadequate water infrastructure can have significant impact on water access.

The study findings show that the most common source of water for bathing and laundry during the dry season is protected dug well/tap among 46.6% of respondents, while protected open or dug well/spring (unprotected) is the second source among 45% of respondents. Table 5.2 shows that the most common location for the water source used for other chores is at a neighbor’s house (66.4%) followed by water sources that are centrally located in the community (16.8%). Water sources on the households’ plot/land constituted 13.7% while the least common location for water sources used during the dry season for domestic work is outside the community (3.1%). Travel time for fetching water for other domestic chores was measured and 65% of the respondents indicated a walking distance of less than 30 minutes to fetch water while 35.0% of respondents indicated more than 30 minute roundtrip to fetch water.

TABLE 5.2 OVERALL WATER (WATER FOR OTHER DOMESTIC USE) OWNERSHIP/ACCESS DURING THE DRY SEASON

HOUSEHOLD

HEADS

(N=162)

HOUSEHOLD

HEADS

(N=269)

HOUSEHOLD

HEADS

(N=431)

(95 CI)

Water source for bathing and laundry

(Dry Season)

Lake, river, pond, stream (Surface water)

0.0 1.2 0.8

(0.1, 5.3)

Open or dug well/Spring (unprotected)

51.0 41.5 45.0

(36.7, 53.7)

Protected dug well/tap 36.7 52.4 46.6

(38.1, 55.2)

Private yard tap 4.1 1.2 2.3

(0.7, 6.9)

Water Kiosk 4.1 2.4 3.1

(1.1, 7.9)

Public borehole 0.0 1.2 0.8

(0.1, 5.3)

Neighboring household 4.1 0.0 1.5

(0.4, 6.0)

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 21

Location of water source

(Dry Season)

On the household plot/land 14.3 13.4 13.7

(8.8, 20.8)

At neighbor’s house 71.4 63.4 66.4

(57.8, 74.0)

Centrally located within community

14.3 18.3 16.8

(11.3, 24.3)

Outside the community 0.0 4.9 3.1

(1.1, 7.9)

Time per trip of water per person

(Dry Season)

Less than 30 minutes 84.6

80.4 65.0

(60.3, 69.3)

More than 30 minutes 15.4 19.6 35.0

(30.7, 39.7)

Chapter 6: Household Water Collection & Water Storage This chapter looks at household water collection and water storage patterns. The chapter discusses who has the primary responsibility of collecting household water, who else collects water, water collection frequency and time, travel partners for water collection, and type of water container used for water collection.

Table 6.1 highlights information on household water collection, including who collects water, as well as distance, frequency, and nature of water collection among respondents. Overwhelmingly, adult women and children are the primary water collectors in households (88.1%). 70.2% of households state that an additional person also collects water, with this person primarily being an adult woman or child.

The highest percentage of male and female participants (31.1% and 44.5%, respectively) reported that adult women in their household were responsible for collecting water, meaning 39.3% of all participants thought adult women were primarily responsible for collecting water. Adult men were the least likely to be identified as the primary household water collected by all participants (11.9%), although a much higher percentage of male respondents (24.6%) thought adult men were the primary household water collectors compared to female respondents (3.7%). Most participants (70.2%) reported having other water collectors for their household. Of these participants, most reported having either a female child (32.3%), an adult woman (28.4%), or a male child (24.5%) as secondary water collectors.

The two most common times for water collection were early morning (67.2%) and early evening (23.7%). When asked why participants choose certain times to collect water, almost all reported that it was either a result of factoring in other daily priorities (51.1%) or due to convenience (41.3%).

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 22

TABLE 6.1: HOUSEHOLD WATER COLLECTION

VARIABLE VALUE MALE FEMALE TOTAL SAMPLE

HOUSEHOLD

HEADS

(N=472)

HOUSEHOLD

HEADS

(N=728)

HOUSEHOLD

HEADS

(N=1200)

(95 CI)

Primary Household Water Collector

Adult women 31.1 44.5 39.3

(36.5, 42.1)

Adult men 24.6 3.7 11.9

(10.2, 13.9)

Male Child 28.8 25.7 26.9

(24.5, 29.5)

Female Child 15.5 26.1 21.9

(19.7, 24.3)

Other Water Collector

Yes 70.3 70.1 70.2

(67.5, 72.7)

No 29.7 29.9 29.8

(27.3, 32.5)

Other Water Collector

Adult women 25.3 30.4 28.4

(25.4, 31.5)

Adult men 24.7 8.4 14.8

(12.6, 17.4)

Male Child 24.4 24.5 24.5

(21.7, 27.5)

Female Child 25.6 36.7 32.3

(29.2, 35.5)

Water Collection Time Of Day

Early morning 68.4 66.4 67.2

(64.5, 69.8)

Late morning 4.5 4.5 4.5

(3.5, 5.8)

Mid – day 2.8 4.4 3.8

(2.8, 5.0)

Early Evening 23.5 23.9 23.7

(21.4, 26.2)

At night 0.9 0.8 0.8

(0.5, 1.5)

Preference for water collection time

Convenience 41.1 41.5 41.3

(38.6, 44.1)

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 23

Other daily priorities (school etc.) 50.9 51.2 51.1

(48.3, 53.9)

Safety 2.8 1.1 1.8

(1.1, 2.7)

Operating hours of vendor 5.3 5.8 5.6

(4.4, 7.0)

Other 0.0 0.4 0.3

(0.08, 0.8)

Travel alone or with others

Alone 58.3 57.8 58.0

(55.2, 60.8)

With others 41.7 42.2 42.0

(39.2, 44.8)

Frequency of water collection

Every day 70.6 72.8 71.9

(69.3, 74.4)

Alternate day 23.5 18.7 20.6

(18.4, 23.0)

1 – 2 Times per week 5.9 8.5 7.5

(6.1, 9.1)

Type of water collection container

Jerry Cans (5-gallons container) 71.4 61.7 65.5

(62.8, 68.1)

Barrel 2.1 2.8 2.5

(1.8, 3.6)

Open Bucket 24.8 33.9 30.3

(27.8, 33.0)

Other 1.7 1.7 1.7

(1.1, 2.6)

When asked if they travel alone or with others, those collecting water stated that 58% travel alone, while 42% travel with others. Given that only 1.8% of respondents reported safety as a preference for water collection time, the high percentage reporting that they travel with others likely indicates that water collection is considered a social activity.

The majority of respondents collect water every day (71.9%) while roughly a fifth of respondents report collecting water every other day. A small amount of the sample reported collecting water only one to two times per week (7.5%). The primary containers used for water collection were 5-gallon jerry cans (65.5%) and open buckets (30.3%). Few respondents reported the use of barrels for water storage (2.5%). There were no significant differences in water collection responses from men and women.

Household Water storage:

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 24

Household water storage is a method used by households to ensure water is available at the household level for drinking or other domestic uses in areas where reliable pipe borne water is lacking. It is a cardinal aspect of ensuring drinking water quality at the household level in such situations. For drinking water storage at the household level (Table 6.2), the study findings show that 95.2% of all respondents practice storage of water at home. The most common containers used for storing water by respondents’ households were jerry cans (62.2%) followed by barrel (20%) and water stored in sachet (11.3%).

Water storage for other domestic purposes was found reported by 91.6% of respondents while 8.4% of respondent households mentioned not storing water for other household uses. The most common storage container used for storing non-drinking water by study participants is large container/barrel (44.9%) followed by Jerry cans (41.2%).

TABLE 6.2: HOUSEHOLD WATER STORAGE

HOUSEHOL

D HEADS

(N=472)

HOUSEHOL

D HEADS

(N=728)

HOUSEHOLD

HEADS

(N=1,200)

(95 CI)

Water storage in home

Yes 94.1 95.1 95.2

(93.8, 96.2)

No 5.9 4.1 4.8

(3.8, 6.2)

Method of water storage

Jerry Cans (5-gallons container) 62.1 62.2 62.2

(59.4, 64.9)

Large Storage container (Barrel) 18.4 21.0 20.0

(17.8, 22.4)

Plastic rainwater catchment 1.1 0.8 0.9

(0.5, 1.7)

Water Stored in sachet (mineral water)

13.8 9.6 11.3

(9.6, 13.2)

Water stored in tub/Bucket (Open Bucket)

3.8 6.2 5.3

(4.1, 6.7)

Other 0.9 0.1 0.4

(0.2, 1.0)

Water stored for other purposes

Yes 91.3 91.8 91.6

(89.9, 93.0)

No 8.7 8.2 8.4

(7.0, 10.1)

Jerry Cans (5-gallons container) 45.8 38.2 41.2

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 25

Method of water storage for other purposes

(38.4, 44.0)

Large Storage container (Barrel) 42.1 46.7 44.9

(42.1, 47.7)

Plastic rainwater catchment 1.3 1.7 1.5

(0.9, 2.4)

Water Stored in sachet (mineral water)

1.3 0.4 0.8

(0.4, 1.4)

Water stored in tub/Bucket (Open Bucket)

8.2 12.2 10.7

(9.0, 12.5)

Other 1.3 0.8 1.0

(0.6, 1.6)

Chapter 7 Household Water Quality Perceptions This chapter looks at perceptions of drinking water characteristics. The World Health Organization’s (WHO) Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality includes guidelines on consumer’s acceptability of the taste, color, and odor of drinking water.14 Although water appearance or taste may not have negative health effects, consumers may consider water turbidity, taste and/or odor as unsafe and may reject it.

Therefore, consumer perception of water is important, as it is often a factor that households use for choosing where to access water for household consumption.

This study assessed respondents’ perception of smell, turbidity, taste, and overall quality of the water from their primary water source. About 39% of respondents are not satisfied with the water quality, taste, smell, and turbidity of their primary water source. This study found that only 61% of respondents had a positive perception of the water quality from their primary water source and only 56% of respondents reported that their water has a good taste – 27% of respondents stated that their water has a terrible taste. Interestingly, 65% did not perceive their water to have a bad smell/odor even though smell/odor can affect perception of water taste. However, 21% of respondents stated that the water was “extremely smelly”. Perception of water turbidity was similar with 59% of respondents reporting that their water was very clear and 23% of respondents reporting that the water from their primary water source is “extremely dirty”. Around a quarter of respondents are not satisfied with the smell, turbidity, taste and overall quality of their water.

14 WHO (2017). WHO: Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. World Health Organization, Geneva.

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241549950

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 26

TABLE 7.1 HOUSEHOLD WATER PERCEPTIONS IN PERI-URBAN AREAS OF MONTSERRADO COUNTY

VARIABLE VALUE MALE FEMALE TOTAL SAMPLE

HOUSEHOLD

HEADS

(N=472)

HOUSEHOLD

HEADS

(N=728)

HOUSEHOLD

HEADS

(N=1,200)

(95 CI)

Smell

(scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being no smell and 10 being extremely smelly)

0 - 3 63.3 67.0 65.6

(62.8, 68.2)

4 - 6 15.5 12.0 13.3

(11.5, 15.4)

7 - 10 21.2 21.0 21.1

(18.9, 23.5)

Turbidity

(scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being not clear and 10 being extremely clear)

0 - 3 58.5 59.1 58.8

(56.0, 61.6)

4 - 6 18.4 18.4 18.4

(16.3, 20.7)

7 – 10 23.1 22.5 22.8

(20.5, 25.2)

Taste

(scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being terrible taste and 10 being great taste,)

0 - 3 29.5 23.9 26.1

(23.7, 28.6)

4 - 6 19.5 17.5 18.2

(16.2, 20.5)

7 - 10 51.0 58.6 55.7

(52.8, 58.5)

Overall quality

(scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being terrible and 10 being great)

0 - 3 21.2 16.8 18.5

(16.4, 20.8)

4 - 6 22.5 18.5 20.1

(17.9, 22.5)

7 - 10 56.4 64.7 61.4

(58.6, 64.1)

Availability

Yes 54.7 52.1 53.1

(50.3, 55.9)

No 45.3 47.9 46.9

(44.1, 49.8)

Chapter 8: Household Water Preferences

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 27

The preference households have for water sources used for drinking and other domestic purposes is important in understanding what type of infrastructure or service to provide communities. The four most preferred water sources (in order of preference) among study participants was found to be protected well with cover (32.2%), private yard tap/pump (22.4%), open dug well/unprotected (12.7%), water kiosk (10.7%). Private inside tap, although the best in the water ladder, was preferred by only 8.0% of the study participants (Table 8.1).

The reason for preference of the water sources was also assessed during the study (Table 8.1). The most common reason for water source preference is distance/convenience of the water source from the household (46.9%), followed by perceived ```

TABLE 8.1: HOUSEHOLD WATER PREFERENCE

HOUSEHOLD

HEADS

(N=472)

HOUSEHOLD

HEADS

(N=728)

HOUSEHOLD

HEADS

(N=1,200)

(95 CI)

Preferred water source

Lake, river, pond, stream (surface water)

4.5 3.4 3.8

(2.9, 5.1)

Open or dug well (unprotected) 11.2 13.7 12.7

(11.0, 14.8)

Protected Well with cover 31.8 32.4 32.2

(29.6, 34.9)

Private yard tap/pump 22.5 22.4 22.4

(20.1, 24.9)

Private Inside tap 9.1 7.3 8.0

(6.6, 9.7)

Rainwater 0.4 0.1 0.3

(0.08, 0.8)

Public borehole 3.6 4.7 4.3

(3.2, 5.6)

Water Kiosk 12.3 9.7 10.7

(9.1, 12.6)

Water Vendor 3.2 4.8 4.2

(3.2, 5.5)

Neighbor’s tap 1.5 1.2 1.3

(0.8, 2.2)

Other 0.0 0.1 0.08

(0.01, 0.6)

Taste 12.9 12.6 12.7

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 28

Reason for water source preference

(11.0, 14.8)

Price 4.5 2.6 3.3

(2.5, 4.5)

Perceived Quality 37.1 35.3 36.0

(33.3, 38.8)

Distance/Convenience 44.3 48.6 46.9

(44.1, 49.7)

Other 1.3 0.8 1.0

(0.6, 1.7)

If you could change your water source, would you choose a different water source?

Yes 91.7 93.1 92.6

(91.0, 93.9)

No 8.3 6.9 7.4

(6.1, 9.0)

Peri-urban Water Study in Informal Settlement Communities of Montserrado County Liberia: A Mixed Methods

| 29

Chapter 9: Household Water Financing, Services, and Willingness-to-pay

Household Water Financing:

This chapter looks at payment for water services, along with water plan type, frequency, costs and service management, which can all act as drivers of water source selection, and further time spent traveling for water collection. Table 9.1 highlights the prevalence, types and frequency of financing for water services.

The majority of individuals (72%) reported paying for their water, with the most common payment plans including pay per use (86%) with monthly billing frequency (73%).