1. Women and Water in Vulnerable
Rural Households:
Assessing the Vulnerability of Rural Households to Problems
of Lac k of Water for Domestic and Productive Needs
Yusuf Kabir, Niranjan Vedantam and M. Dinesh Kumar
Email: niranjan@irapindia.org

2. Background
 Traditionally water supply surveillance generates data on safety
and adequacy of drinking water supply for protection of the
human health
 Most current models of water supply surveillance come from
developed countries and have significant shortcoming if directly
applied in a developing country context
 Natural, physical, social, human, economic, financial,
institutional factors are influencing the vulnerability of the rural
population to problems associated with inadequate supply of
water for domestic and productive needs
 A Well designed and implemented water supply surveillance in
relation to domestic and productive needs is required

3. Rationale
 An assessment of water supply at the household level, based on the
old norms worked out on the notion of water supplies that serve
human health and hygiene needs would be grossly in appropriate
 The monitoring of rural water supply is based on simplistic
considerations, involving data on No. of HHs covered by different
types of water supply systems
 The data gathered through such surveys are silent on the amount of
water actually consumed by the population

4. Rationale (Contd..)
 Extensive review of international literature shows the following could be
the factors that influence the vulnerability of household to problems
associated with lack of water for domestic and productive needs
1. Degree of access to water supplies for human consumption, personal
hygiene and productive uses
2. Social Profile and family Occupation
3. Social Institutions and Ingenuity
4. Condition of Water Resources
5. Climate Factors
6. Financial condition
(based on Lloyd and Bartram, 1991; Cairncross and Kinnear, 1992; Hunter, 2003; Nicole,
2000; DFID, 2001; Sullivan, 2002; WHO, 2002).
 There is a need to develop a composite index which takes into account
the above complex factors in assessing the vulnerability of rural
households and make the surveillance more targeted

5. Methods
All these parameters are factored in six broad sub-indices
1. Water supply and use
2. Family occupation and social profile
3. Presence of social institutions and ingenuity
4. Climate and drought-proneness
5. Water resources endowment
6. Financial stability
The composite index of “MUWS vulnerability” will have a maximum
value of 10.0, meaning zero vulnerability; lower values of the index
meaning higher vulnerability.

6. Selected field locations
Village Varoshi, • Located at foothill of Western Ghats
District Satara • Characterized by high rainfall
• Plenty of local streams flowing down from
high altitudes fed by base flows from hilly
aquifers
Village Kerkatta, • Located in hard rock plateau areas
District Latur • Low to medium rainfall
• Rural water supplies heavily dependent on
the limited groundwater resources in the
Deccan trap formations
Village Chikhali, • Located in plains
District Chandrapur • Moderate to high rainfall
• Endowed with tanks/ponds, but replenished
by canal water releases

7. Water sources for multiple needs
Number of Families (only majority) Depending on Various Sources
Varoshi Kerkatta Chikhali
Various
Water Needs Monsoon Winter Summer Monsoon Winter Summer Monsoon Winter Summer
Drinking & 64-Public 63- 85-Farm 58- 58- 55-Farm 63- 63- 63-
Cooking Bore-well Public well Individual Individu well Individual Individu Individual
Bore- tap al tap tap al tap tap
well connection connection connection
Other 65-Public 30- 85-Farm 60- 59- 51-Farm 68- 68- 68-
Domestic Bore well Common well Individual Individu well Individual Individu Individual
Uses Stand- tap al tap tap al tap tap
including post connection connection connection
Washing,
Bathing &
Sanitation
Homestead 10-Other 10-Other 10-Other 11- 12- 9-Farm well 7-Other 12-Other 11-Other
Gardens sources sources sources Individual Individu sources sources sources
tap al tap
Livestock 27-Public 28- 39-Farm 20- 21- 23-Farm 34-Other 33-Other 44-
Bore-well Public well Individual Individu well sources sources Individual
Bore- tap al tap tap
well connection
Small Scale 1- Common 1- 1- 1-Individual 1- 1-Open Well - - -
Enterprise Stand- post Common Common tap Individu
Stand- Stand- al tap
post post

8. Findings
 In case of Varoshi , the value of the Index was
found to be varying from 3.31 – 6.58.
 The computed values of multiple use vulnerability
index for the sample households in Kerkatta
village of Latur varies from 2.21 to 6.32.
 The computed values of multiple use vulnerability
index for the sample households in Chikhali village
of Chandrapur district 3.15 to 6.37.

9. Findings (Contd..)
 In all the villages, water use for domestic and productive
needs was found to be influenced by the overall economy
of the households.
 From water scarcity point of view, Kerkatta had the
maximum percentage of household vulnerable to
problems associated with inadequate water supply for
multiple uses.

10. Conclusions
 A demand responsive approach to water supply requires
that the livelihood needs of the communities are taken
care of. rather than mere human consumption and
sanitation requirements.
 This also means that the considerations for assessing the
vulnerability of rural communities to problems associated
with lack of adequate water supplies (in terms of quality,
quantity and reliability) at the household level would
change significantly from those used in the past.

11. Conclusions (Contd..)
 The development of an index that helps assess vulnerable
rural population and pockets within is useful to target data
collection in water supply surveillance.
 Computing the household level vulnerability index can
assist a utility in targeting MUWS interventions into
communities and strategies where public health gains are
likely to be greatest.

12. THANK YOU

13. Sr. No Parameters Quantitative criterion for measurement Method of data
collection
A Water Supply and Use
1 Access to water supply source Vulnerability decreases with improved access. Access is Interviews of
(primary) an inverse function of the distance. The index is a sample
function of the distance to the source from ‘0” within households
the dwelling to a maximum of 1km and above in
gradations of 0.20
2 Frequency of water supplies Vulnerability increases with decrease in frequency of Do
water delivery.
3 Ownership of alternative water Ownership of an alternative water source would Do
sources increase the overall access and reduce the vulnerability.
4 Distance to the alternative source Distance to the alternative source, would increase the Do
“owned” vulnerability. Often, the alternative sources are farm
wells, which are located outside the village.
5 Access to other alternative sources Vulnerability decreases with no. of alternative sources. Do
6 Capacity of domestic storage Vulnerability to lack of regular water supplies decreases Do
systems with increase in volume of storage systems in place
7 Quantity of water used The vulnerability increases with decrease in quantum of Do
water used against the requirement. The vulnerability
can be treated as zero when all the requirements in the
household are fully met
8 Quality (chemical, physical and Poor quality of drinking water increases vulnerability; Lab test results/
bacteriological) of domestic water Bacteriologically, physically & chemically pure is the perceptions
supplies best water
9 Total monthly water bill as a Vulnerability increases with increasing % of total family Interviews of
percentage of monthly income income spent on water. An expenditure level of 10% of sample
monthly income is treated as highest and most households
vulnerable9

14. Sr. No Parameters Quantitative criterion for measurement Method of data
collection
B Family Occupation and Social Profile
1 Family Occupation Vulnerability will be low for families having regular source of Interviews of sample
livelihood that are not dependent on water. Those who are dependent households
on irrigated crop production are considered to be not vulnerable. But,
those who are dependent on dairying will be vulnerable. The
vulnerability will reduce if they depend on wage labour and other
sources of livelihood that do not require water.
2 Social Profile Vulnerability is also a function of the social profile. The families Interviews of sample
having school going children are more vulnerable to inadequate households
quantity, quality and reliability of water supplies. So, is the case with
families having office-going adult. But, The vulnerability would reduce
with the presence of surplus labour availability.
C Social Institutions and Ingenuity Community’s vulnerability to the problems associated with lack of Primary survey (but
water increases in the absence of social/community institutions; qualitative to be
social ingenuity. The value can range from “0” for the absence of obtained from
social institutions or ingenuity to 0.50 for presence of either of these discussions)
to 1.0 for the presence of both. Social institutions would include:
WATSAN committees (Y=0.50; No=0).
Social ingenuity would include: existence of water sharing traditions
between households during crisis (Y=0.25; No =0.0) and practice of re-
using water in households--using bathing/washing water for toilet
flushing, use of sand & ash for cleaning utensils etc. (Y=0.25; No-0.0).
D Climate and Drought Proneness
1 Climate (whether semi arid/arid/hyper-arid The vulnerability to lack of water for environmental sanitation is a Secondary data on
or sub-humid/humid function of climate. It increases from hot & arid to hot & semi-arid to climate
hot & sub-humid to hot & humid to cold & humid. The value ranges
from “0.0” for cold & humid to “1.0” for hot & arid with increments
of “0.20”.
2 Aridity and drought proneness The vulnerability due to lack of water for domestic uses, livestock Secondary data on
increases with increase in aridity as it would increase the demand for climate
water for washing, bathing, livestock drinking and irrigation of
vegetables and fruit trees. Aridity areas are also drought prone.
The value ranges from “1.0” for cold & humid to “0.0” for hot & arid
with reduction of “0.20”

15. Sr. No Parameters Quantitative criterion for measurement Method of data
collection
E Condition of Water Resources
1 Surface and groundwater availability in the A renewable water availability of 1700 m3 per capita per annum is Secondary Data
area considered adequate for a region or town, estimated at the level of
river basin in which it is falling.
The value of the index is computed by taking the amount of
renewable water as a fraction of the desirable level of 1,700m3.
2 Variability in resource condition Higher the variability, greater will be vulnerability. Secondary Data
The index is computed an inverse function of the coefficient of
variation in the rainfall variability in that basin/sub-basin (1-x/100);
where x is the coefficient of variation in rainfall.
3 Seasonal variation Regions which experience high seasonal variation in water availability Secondary Data
are highly vulnerable. For alluvial areas, the value of this index is
considered as 1. For hard rocks, the value is considered as 0.3. For
sedimentary and alluvial deposits, the value is considered as 0.65.
4 Vulnerability of the resource to pollution or Surface water is more vulnerable to pollution than groundwater. Secondary Data
contamination Shallow aquifer is more vulnerable than deep confined aquifer.
F Financial Stability Overall financial stability of the family would influence the From Primary Survey
vulnerability. This is different from the earnings from current
occupations. The savings in banks/post office; ownership of
productive land, which is not mortgaged.
The family having 1.0 ha of productive land member in a semi arid,
water-scarce region, or 0.5 ha of productive land per member in a
water-rich area are considered to be financial stable, with zero
vulnerability, and the vulnerability is assumed to increase gradually
with reducing size of land owned, with highest vulnerability for
landless.
Again, the lack of ownership of land can be compensated by income
savings, with a total saving of Rs. 20,000 equivalent to 0.5 ha in
water-rich area and 1.0 ha in a water-scarce area.

16. WSVI for Varoshi Village
Figure 1: Multiple Use Vulnerability Index for Sample
7.000
Households, Varoshi, Satara
Vulnerability index of HHs
6.000
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97
WSVI Range: 3.31 – 6.58 and Highly Vulnerable HHs: 67

17. WSVI for Kerkatta Village
Figure 2: Multiple Use Vulnerability Index for Sample
7.000 Households,
6.000 Kerkatta, Latur
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97
WSVI Range: 2.21 – 6.32 and Highly Vulnerable HHs: 81

18. WSVI for Chikkali Village
Figure 3: Multiple Use Vulnerability Index for Sample
Households, Chikkali, Chandrapur
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
5
9
17
21
25
49
53
77
81
85
13
29
33
37
41
45
57
61
65
69
73
89
93
97
WSVI Range3.15– 6.37 and Highly Vulnerable HHs: 30