(C) PLOS One
This story was originally published by PLOS One and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Understanding household self-supply use and management using a mixed-methods approach in urban Indonesia [1]

['Franziska Genter', 'Institute For Sustainable Futures', 'University Of Technology Sydney', 'Ultimo', 'Nsw', 'Gita Lestari Putri', 'Department Of Civil', 'Environmental Engineering', 'Universitas Indonesia', 'Depok']

Date: 2023-03

The result section draws on both quantitative and qualitative data organized in the following way. The first sub-section on water choice and perceptions includes only quantitative findings and provides an overview of the use of multiple water sources. Subsequent sub-sections are organized by water source types (private dug wells, private boreholes, public water services and packaged water) and cover information on use, water quality, water availability and reason for non-use. These sections begin with quantitative data from the household survey, if available, and are complemented by qualitative findings from the in-depth interview. The last two sub-sections in the result sections include quantitative and qualitative findings on attributes of water perception and self-supply management with regard to responsibilities, workload and decision-making.

Water choice and perceptions

Based on the household survey, households predominantly used self-supply as their main water source for drinking and domestic uses at both study sites. Regarding the main drinking water source, 48% of households (n = 144) were relying on private boreholes in Bekasi, and 47% households on private dug wells (n = 138) in Metro (Table 1). Another common drinking water source was refill water, with 21% of households reported to use refill water as their main drinking water source in Bekasi (n = 63) and Metro (n = 61). Public water service, including water from public boreholes, dug wells, piped systems and taps, was used by 12% (n = 35) and 8% (n = 22) of households as a main drinking water source in Bekasi and Metro, respectively. At the study sites, water for domestic purposes was obtained from private boreholes by 72% of households (n = 217) in Bekasi and from private dug wells by 65% of households (n = 191) in Metro mainly (Table 1). Besides self-supply, public water services, including water from public boreholes, dug wells, piped systems and taps, were used as a main source of water for domestic purposes by 20% of households (n = 60) in Bekasi and 9% (n = 26) in Metro. Disaggregating the different domestic uses, self-supply was the most common source of water for all domestic uses such as cooking, making tea, washing and watering garden and animals, with private boreholes predominantly used in Bekasi and private dug wells in Metro (Figs A and B in S1 Text). Water uses were comparable in the rainy and dry seasons at both study sites (Figs C and D in S1 Text).

Private dug well. Use. Private dug wells were primarily used as a water source for drinking and domestic purposes in Metro, but were also used by a few households in Bekasi. Descriptive analysis from the household survey showed that water from private dug wells was used as a main source for drinking (Bekasi: 6%, n = 18, Metro: 47%, n = 138) and domestic purposes (Bekasi: 6%, n = 17, Metro: 65%, n = 191) at both study sites, but particularly in Metro (Table 1). Of the 24 in-depth interviewed households in Bekasi and Metro, 21 owned or had owned in the past a private dug well. Of those, 12 households still used the water from dug wells for drinking and/or domestic purposes. Among these 12 households, the water from the dug wells was used by ten in-depth interview informants for drinking and by ten for domestic uses such as washing clothes, showering and cooking. Ten households had subsequently replaced the dug well with a borehole (Table D in S1 Text). Water quality. Water quality perceptions for dug wells were mixed and water treatment was common. Half of the in-depth interview informants perceived the water quality of dug wells as good, as one informant said “The water from the dug well is safe to drink, [it is] clear and tastes good and fresh”. However, the other half reported water quality concerns such as cloudy or turbid water. One informant constructed a borehole because the water quality of his dug well had decreased “In the past we used a dug well but now it leaks, the water cannot be used, the water is black like sewage water.” If the self-supplied water was used for drinking, informants reported boiling it before consumption to avoid health issues. “My child said, if the water is not boiled, the stomach bloats. When the water is boiled, [it is] sweet.” One informant in Metro observed turbid water during the rainy season and let the mud settle before boiling, “If it rains, the well water for cooking and drinking is deposited in a container overnight. In the morning, we take water with a scoop, then we boil it”. Water availability. The perception of water availability was mixed, with poor availability reported during the dry season, resulting in dug wells being replaced or deepened. Descriptive analysis from the household survey showed that in Metro, 32% (n = 18) of the surveyed dug well owners had to deepen the dug well at least once. Also in Bekasi, where boreholes were prevalent, the well/borehole and/or pump setting was deepened by 13% (n = 33) and 10% (n = 25) of the surveyed households, respectively (Table E in S1 Text). The well/borehole had gone dry in the past 12 months for 30.4% (n = 7) of the 23 responding households in Bekasi, and in 18.6% (n = 11) of the 59 responding households in Metro (Table J in S1 Text). Half the in-depth interview informants were not satisfied with the water availability of dug wells and explained that dug wells were often deepened or replaced with a borehole, since dug wells dry out during dry season. For example, one informant in Metro described it as follows “In the dry season, water from the well is like a kid peeing”. Another informant in Metro had to deepen the dug well several times, as he said: “[The] first [deepening] was 4m due to drought, [after another] deepening, the water came out [and] it was clear. Again drought [came], [so the dug well was] deepened again to 6m [depth], again drought, again deepened 2m, it [the water] was clear. Now the water is in a constant high flow, but the color has changed [no longer clear].” Reasons for non-use. Reasons for the non-use of dug wells were connected to the amount of work involved, the large space required, unsatisfactory water quality and availability and lack of protection for children. Dug wells were often used with a bucket and rope or hand pump, which was associated with a higher workload than using a borehole with a motorized pump. One informant explained “The dug well was often dry. Draw water was tiring, [so we] replaced the dug well with a borehole and a Sanyo pump [Sanyo: Brand of a motorized water pump]. The Sanyo pump is more practical, [since it] doesn’t need human power.” Compared to bottled or refill water, water from dug wells needed to be boiled before consumption, which was also associated with a higher workload. Eight informants elected not to use their dug wells because of the workload, as one widow explained: “[In the past], when [I was] still strong, [I] looked for wood to boil [the water]. The wood was abundant. Now [I am] no longer strong enough to boil water, so [I] buy water in gallons.” Descriptive results from the household survey on the fuel used for boiling water showed that liquified petroleum gas (LPG) was the most common fuel for water boiling in Bekasi (96%, n = 288) and Metro (96%, n = 287), however wood was still used by 28.1% (n = 84) in Metro (Table F in S1 Text). Another informant who owned a dug well instead used refill water for drinking, since well water used for drinking needed to be boiled and it was turbid during rainy season: “[Usually] I’m too lazy to boil the water. [But] when I boil [the water], [I] usually let it [the water] stand first to let the dirt settle to the bottom of the container.” Dug wells were also perceived by two informants as being unsafe for children: “Dug wells can be worrying because there are many children who could fall into the well.” A further reason for the replacement included that dug wells required larger land area than boreholes: “Dug wells are no longer used because they require more open land and are not safe for small children.”

Private borehole. Use. Private boreholes were mostly used as a water source for drinking and domestic purposes in Bekasi, but were also frequently used in Metro. Descriptive analysis from the household survey showed that water from private boreholes was used for drinking (Bekasi: 48%, n = 144, Metro: 13%, n = 39) and domestic purposes (Bekasi: 72%, n = 217, Metro: 21%, n = 61) at both study sites, but particularly in Bekasi (Table 1). Of the 24 households participating in the in-depth interviews in Bekasi and Metro, 12 households owned a private borehole. Of those, 11 households used it for drinking and 10 for domestic purposes. Informants also reported that borehole water was an important source of water not only for drinking, but also for daily needs: “Borehole water is used quite a lot for washing clothes [and] watering plants. For daily needs [it is] collected in a large tub.” In the past, households often used dug wells, which have been replaced by a borehole with a motorized pump, as one respondent explained: “It is more practical, [I] don’t need to draw water, the water flows out directly from the tap.” Water quality. The quality of water from private boreholes was mostly perceived as good though water was still commonly boiled. A deterioration of water quality was, however, perceived during rainy season. Two-thirds of the interviewed households perceived water quality from boreholes as clear and good, as for example one respondent said “The dug well is not closed, but the well that is being used is a borehole. The borehole is equipped with a Sanyo pump. The water from the borehole is good, the water is clear.” One respondent mentioned the importance of using clean water for the religious purification ritual and linked this use with safety for drinking, “The important thing is that the water has no odor. If the pure water can be used for wudhu [ritual purity for Muslim], it is drinkable.” All interviewed households reported boiling the water from boreholes before drinking and a few respondents linked the boiling of water to potential health concerns. “[When] the water is boiled, [it] does not make you feel sick to the stomach.” A difference between boiled and non-boiled borehole water was also perceived by another informant, as he mentioned “the children said that the non-boiled water spoils the stomach.” However, three interviewed households perceived an increased risk of water contamination compared to the past, as one informant noted: “The water is good, [it is] safe to drink, but when [it is] raining there is white colored dirt. Back then, when [we were] using [a] dug well with a bucket, there was no white [colored dirt], the water remained clear.” Another informant linked the contamination directly to a potential source: “After the landfill exists, the water from the drilled well is getting oily.” Some potential risks for water quality deterioration were mentioned during the interviews. If asked whether the motorized Sanyo pump is submerged in runoff during rainfall, one respondent replied: “Yes the Sanyo is soaked. There is a roof as cover for the pump.” Further, a few respondents indirectly indicated a potential issue of bacteria growth in pipes from boreholes, as one respondent explained, "The tube is cleaned once a week. It becomes slimy after a while. There is moss inside the tube. I saw it myself, when I saw the water from Sanyo, it was slimy on the inside of the tube, sometimes it is cleaned. [I am] afraid that the moss will get thicker the longer it goes. [I am] afraid that the tube will get clogged. Then it becomes more work." Water availability. Results from the household survey suggested self-supply provides a relatively reliable service, but the in-depth interviews revealed water scarcity problems during the dry season, and therefore households often shifted from shallow dug wells to deeper boreholes. In the household survey, 97.2% (n = 176) and 97.0% (n = 258) households reported to have water available the past two weeks in Bekasi and Metro, respectively (Table I in S1 Text). However, ten in-depth interviewed households had replaced the dug wells with boreholes, partly for the reason to improve the water availability. An informant from Bekasi explained, that people in Bekasi use boreholes, because the water is better and more reliable. In Metro, availability of water was noted to improve when a dug well was replaced with a deeper borehole: “Initially, [I] used a dug well [with a rope and bucket]. But when it is dry, there is often no water. So I started using a borehole (35 m) three to four years ago. The dug well is about 10m deep, and if the well is dug again, it will collapse, so I don’t dare [to deepen the dug well].” Three in-depth informants reported that even with boreholes, water shortages were still experienced during dry season, “[Water from the] borehole is decreasing during the dry season for at least one month. It [the location of the borehole] has been moved three times. [Previously, when it was] next to the house bedroom, it was equipped with a hand pump. Now the borehole is located at the house yard.” or “Last dry season, the water from the well decreased and one had to wait a while for water to come out after turning on the Sanyo pump. The Sanyo pump was lowered once”. To counteract availability issues and to save time, some households stored the collected water from boreholes. One respondent with a 100 liter storage container explained: "So, it won’t take long. After it is used for washing, showering, there is still some left. If the lights go out [no electricity], the remaining water can still be used." Another household reported to store the water after boiling, as he said “Drinking water after being boiled is collected in a bucket with a volume of 30 liters for about 5 days.” Reasons for non-use. Private boreholes were a preferred source of drinking water for most households in Bekasi, however boiling water can be tiring and households typically used multiple water sources for different purposes. One main reason for the switch to refill water for drinking was linked to the hassle of boiling the borehole water, as for private dug wells. “For drinking, the process is long. [The water] must be boiled first. Sometimes turning on the stove first. So that is quite something." One informant even reported a deterioration in water quality due to boiling using firewood, as he said, “Every week I boil two gallons of water and store the boiled water in the clean gallon. [I] put it first in the pan and then pour it into the gallon. The special characteristic of the boiled water is smoky, because it is boiled using firewood.” Households used multiple water sources for different purposes, as one informant said, “For drinking, it is refill water. But when it comes to making tea, it is borehole water. And that is not much, one teapot at most.” Even if informants used borehole water, alternative sources provided a useful back-up option, as one informant proposed: “Maybe we can use both, the water from the artesian well and [the water] from the borehole. For backup, one could say. If the water from my borehole fails, that means the water from the artesian well is available, right.” One respondent mentioned the possibility to get access to clean borehole water from mosques, “If they don’t have a well, it will be difficult. Sometimes, they also go to the mosque. There is government aid [subsidies] for [drilling] boreholes [in mosques]. Take the water from there. If it is in the mosque, it is free. And mosques can get a discount from PLN [State Electricity Company]." Another reason for the non-use of private boreholes was the high cost of construction. In the household survey, 24.0% (n = 12) of respondents in Bekasi and 39.4% (n = 13) of respondents in Metro reported high construction costs as a reason for not using private boreholes (Table G in S1 Text). In the in-depth interviews, one dug well owner in Metro stated the cost of seven million rupiah (approximately 460 USD) as a reason for not using a private borehole. Another respondent in Metro, when asked why he did not use a borehole, replied, “Yes, later. I am waiting for the [money] transfer”. One informant expressed his concern regarding the increasing use of boreholes: "If everyone uses boreholes, it would be a pity for the one without. So it can be dry, left and right. I think there needs to be a regulation. Except, if the neighbor doesn’t have any water, he gives it, it is okay maybe, there is a solution. Now if they are using boreholes, maybe it is just for them, right? Left and right neighbors can’t get water, it is a pity thing."

Public water services. Use. A few households used public piped systems as a water source to supplement self-supply for domestic purposes, but most households did not have access to public piped systems. Descriptive analysis from the household survey showed that public water services, including public boreholes, dug wells, piped systems and taps, were commonly used as a main source of water for domestic purposes (Bekasi: 20%, n = 60, Metro: 9%, n = 26). However, 75% (n = 224) and 36% (n = 101) households reported that public piped service does not supply water to this area in Bekasi and Metro, respectively (Table G in S1 Text). Of the interviewed households, 13 did not have access to public piped services fed either from surface water or groundwater from artesian aquifers. Eight households used water from public piped water supplies. The water was not used for cooking or drinking, but as an additional source of water to supplement and backup self-supply for daily needs only, such as washing or watering plants. “Given piped water is okay for flushing, for washing motorbikes, for washing bicycles.” One informant in Metro who was offered access to the piped network in front of his house did not use it and described the situation as follows: “Why should I use piped water? Well water is enough, there is no shortage. If you use public piped water, you will spend more money. The water from public piped water should be boiled, which means more work. Neighbors who use the public piped service may experience shortage during the dry season. […] Then the water quality is also bad. It can be black, and sometimes it smells. So people don’t use it for cooking. Usually they use it for watering flowers. That is all people say. I don’t use piped water anyway. Water quality. Water quality of public piped water supplies was perceived negatively by households that had access and households that did not have access. "That is public piped water. The water is likely black-colored. If it is clear, it is clear, sometimes it is really black. In the rainy season, it is cloudy, it is black.” Another informant who did not have access said “The informants are not interested in public water services from artesian wells because the quality is not good. Public water service, it is lacking, the water is bad. Lots of sand.” Therefore, the water was generally not used for drinking or cooking, as one informant said: "Water is just for washing. For cooking or drinking, it is not quite suitable.” Also the smell of chlorine was unfavourable for consumers, as a respondent explained: "Everyone here has public pipes installed, but the water is bad. The water is a little cloudy. Second, the smell of chlorine. So not all of us use public water services. So, in the end it stopped. In 1995–1996 there was no public water service.“ One informant who used the public supply which was connected to his sibling’s house was happy with the quality, as he said "Same taste, same clearness, but not every day [the water flow] is smooth". He did not have to pay and saw the connection as beneficial. "There are many benefits, saving a lot of electricity. Sometimes [I] wash [e.g. laundry, not showering] using water from public water services.", he said. Water availability. Problems were identified with public piped water supply in terms of access, reliability and availability of water. Many households still did not have access to a piped water service, and some were not even aware of this as a water supply option, with an informant replying: “There isn’t one. It is in the village, not in the city.” Public piped water did not reach all households equally; therefore, not all households could get access to pipe connections, as for example one informant said “My house is far from the road, so I can’t get a pipe from the government or urban village. My house is inside, so the connections are far away”. Another respondent from the same district mentioned the same issue “The pipe network is unevenly distributed. Here too. There is no pipe. The artesian pipes are mainly located only next to the main road. It is said that it will be installed gradually, per community association (RT–rukun tetangga). It is said that the pipe network installation for my community association will be done later. But after some time, it is not installed yet. But it is alright.” A decrease in the water availability was also perceived from public piped services based on groundwater, “In the dry season, water from artesian wells also decreases, so the distribution must be in shifts.” Public water service is also not always reliable, as one informant said “Water from public water services does not always flow, the benefit is saving electricity usage.” Another informant mentioned that the public piped supply was broken since a long time. “Previously there was piped water from the landfill artesian well [artesian well was constructed as the compensation of the new landfill], but it had been damaged for a long time by a neighbor’s children. Water from the artesian well was used only for washing, not for drinking.” Reasons for non-use. Most households did not have the possibility to connect to public piped services because they were not available in these regions (Table G in S1 Text). However, if available, public piped services were generally not used due to several reasons such as lack of trust, lack of reliability, perceived bad smell of chlorine, costs, and the preference for self-supply water. Descriptive results from the household survey showed that most households would not connect if public services were to expand infrastructure to their area (Bekasi: Definitely not n = 108, 38%; Metro: Unlikely n = 132, 52%) (Table H in S1 Text). A major reason for not using piped water was the general preference of groundwater self-supply. Three respondents associated the preference for private supply over public supply with the taste of chlorine, "Well water is better because if water is from public piped service, there is a taste of chlorine, maybe we are not used to chlorine. The well water has no [chlorine taste]. It is pure." Respondents connect the taste of chlorine with medicine, "It tastes different, smells like medicine. What smell, I don’t know. It does not smell good." One respondent mentioned a preference for groundwater supplied from public boreholes owned by mosques compared to the chlorinated public piped water because of the chlorine taste “Once, I opened it [public piped service], the water was not good. Maybe too much chlorine. Medicine [refers to chlorine] is added to the public piped water, right? This morning, I took the water at the mosque because I avoided the chlorine. We are not used to the smell of chlorine. Water from the mosque is good, [it is] from boreholes, a support from the mosque. The borehole is a government aid. I only take two gallons to boil drinking water. However for washing clothes and showering, we use water from the dug well.” Public services were also not perceived as reliable sources of water for some households, as one informant said “People who get artesian piped water also have [private] wells, because artesian water doesn’t always flow every day, it just flows at midnight. What is the point if the water only flows at night.” Respondents did not want to pay for bad public services, if they already had access from self-supply. "If I had to pay, I would change my mind. Roughly speaking, only for daily needs we made the effort [and] dug [the well]. For Sanyo water [from private borehole], we do not need to pay for as much as we use.” However, if water from public supply were reliable, people would also be willing to connect, as one informant said “I also want to pay as long as the water is good and abundant, proportional to the usage. It is natural if we use it [public piped water]. The [use of the] public piped water is the recommendation of the government.”

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://journals.plos.org/water/article?id=10.1371/journal.pwat.0000070

Published and (C) by PLOS One
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons - Attribution BY 4.0.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/plosone/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.