Dbk: Text replacement - "[[Category:OR/17/029 UPGro Hidden Crisis Research Consortium: Unravelling past failures for future success in Rural Water Supply - Survey 1 Country Report – Uganda" to "[[Category:OR/17/029 UPGro hidden crisis research consortium: Unravelling past failures for future success in rural water supply - Survey 1 Country Report – Uganda"

2018-01-10T13:49:02Z

Text replacement - "[[Category:OR/17/029 UPGro Hidden Crisis Research Consortium: Unravelling past failures for future success in Rural Water Supply - Survey 1 Country Report – Uganda" to "[[Category:OR/17/029 UPGro hidden crisis research consortium: Unravelling past failures for future success in rural water supply - Survey 1 Country Report – Uganda"

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:49, 10 January 2018
Line 93:		Line 93:
	A few other HPB’s are shown to have inorganic water quality parameters in excess of the WHO drinking water standards. Inorganic water quality parameters found to be in excess were: Manganese, Zinc, Aluminium, and Boron. With the exception of one HPB which failed on two parameters, HPB typically fail on a single inorganic parameter.		A few other HPB’s are shown to have inorganic water quality parameters in excess of the WHO drinking water standards. Inorganic water quality parameters found to be in excess were: Manganese, Zinc, Aluminium, and Boron. With the exception of one HPB which failed on two parameters, HPB typically fail on a single inorganic parameter.

	[[Category:OR/17/029 UPGro ~~Hidden Crisis Research Consortium~~: Unravelling past failures for future success in ~~Rural Water Supply~~ - Survey 1 Country Report – Uganda \| 07]]		[[Category:OR/17/029 UPGro hidden crisis research consortium: Unravelling past failures for future success in rural water supply - Survey 1 Country Report – Uganda \| 07]]

Dbk: 1 revision imported

2018-01-09T14:02:43Z

1 revision imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 15:02, 9 January 2018
(No difference)

Dbk at 13:04, 9 January 2018

2018-01-09T13:04:07Z

New page

__NOTOC__
{{OR/17/029}}
{| cellspacing="8" cellpadding="8"
|- style="vertical-align:top;"
| style="width: 1100px;" |
[[Image:header_image.jpg|frameless|right|300px|]]
|}
The results of Survey 1 in Uganda are summarised below.

<center>
{| class="wikitable"
| '''Functionality performance level'''
| '''% pass'''
|-
| '''Basic '''– working (yes/no)
| 55
|-
| '''Snapshot '''– provides sufficient yield (10 L/min)
| 34
|-
| '''Functionality performance '''– sufficient yield and reliability (<30 days downtime in last year)
| 23
|-
| '''Functionality including water quality '''– passes WHO TTC and inorganic parameters
| 18
|}
</center>

The ‘Basic’ and ‘Snapshot’ assessments reflect the requirements of national survey assessments, whilst the more performance-focused definitions are more relevant to local or regional surveys looking to track the functionality of individual water points or programmes through time.

The results of the basic survey (55%) are lower than the National functionality of rural water supply (86%). The difference is likely to be due to our different sampling methodology, where we randomly sample from ''all ''boreholes equipped with a handpump. The more comprehensive assessments of functionality performance which include yield and reliability are considerably lower.

Water quality is generally considered a service issue rather than strictly water point functionality. A breakdown of district results is shown in [[OR/17/029 Appendix 3 – Individual district results | Appendix 3]].

== Basic functionality ==
[[Image:OR17029fig3.jpg|thumb|center|500hpx|'''Figure 3 '''Functionality assessed as working or not working (no flow).]]

==Snapshot functionality==
[[Image:OR17029fig4.jpg|thumb|center|500hpx|'''Figure 4 '''Functionality assessed as working with sufficient yield (10 L/min).]]

== Functionality performance ==
[[Image:OR17029fig5.jpg|thumb|center|500hpx|'''Figure 5 '''Functionality performance — functionality assessed as working with sufficient yield (>10 L/min) and reliability (<30 days downtime [days not working] in the last year).]]

== Functionality performance – including water quality ==
<center>
{| class="wikitable"
|+ '''Table 2 '''Functionality performance, including water quality.
| colspan="6" | '''Water quality issues (%)'''      
|-
|
|
| None
| TTC only
| Inorganic only
| both
|-
| Fully functioning
| rowspan="4" |
| 17.6
| 2.6
| 1.6
| 1.0
|-
| Good yield, unreliable
| 6.2
| 3.1
| 0
| 1.6
|-
| Poor yield
| 12.8
| 3.1
| 0
| 0.9
|-
| Poor yield, poor reliability
| 3.5
| 1.4
| 0
| 0
|-
| No flow but worked in last year
| 14
| colspan="4" rowspan="2" |
|-
| No flow abandoned
| 30.6
|}
</center>

Some HPB’s are shown to have Thermo-tolerant coliforms (TTC) in excess of the WHO drinking water standard. TTC’s are a bacterial indicator of sanitary quality of water. We used the strict WHO standard of a failure being any measured TTC in the water, rather than a risk based approach which would prioritise higher concentrations of TTCs.

A few other HPB’s are shown to have inorganic water quality parameters in excess of the WHO drinking water standards. Inorganic water quality parameters found to be in excess were: Manganese, Zinc, Aluminium, and Boron. With the exception of one HPB which failed on two parameters, HPB typically fail on a single inorganic parameter.

[[Category:OR/17/029 UPGro Hidden Crisis Research Consortium: Unravelling past failures for future success in Rural Water Supply - Survey 1 Country Report – Uganda | 07]]

OR/17/029 Survey 1 Results, Uganda - Revision history

Dbk: 1 revision imported

Dbk at 13:04, 9 January 2018