This document discusses the development of a Water Wellbeing Indicator to more accurately measure the impact of water programs, especially among pastoral populations with complex water use. It proposes using emotional response as the basis for the indicator. Research in Ethiopia found water collected did not differ seasonally but emotional responses did, showing conventional measures do not capture impacts. The indicator toolkit developed includes simple, intermediate, and complex tools to serve various assessment needs. The project aims to have partners adopt the survey instrument to demonstrate its value, with the long term goal of broader adoption.

1. © Cranfield University1 © Cranfield University1
WEEP: Water Security in Ethiopia and the Emotional
Response of Pastoralists (Development Frontiers: 2017-2019)
Dr Paul Hutchings, Cranfield University
• Health as an unreliable impact indicator for water programmes
• Wellbeing as a project impact: but does anyone measure this?
• Water outcome measures (e.g. water point) not always aligned with impact ambitions
(e.g. wellbeing), esp. in settings with complex water use patterns such as pastoralists
• Can we develop a Water Wellbeing Indicator that overcomes these issues?
Resources Activities Outputs Outcomes Impacts

2. © Cranfield University2 © Cranfield University2
Cross-cultural studies have shown that water insecurity has detrimental
impact on emotional wellbeing esp. among subsistent populations
(Wutich and Ragsdale, 2008; Sultana, 2011; Stevenson et al., 2012;
Jepson, 2014; Sahoo et al., 2015; Bisung and Elliot, 2017, White, 2017)
– so, can we use emotional response as the basis for this
indicator?
Figure 2 – Emotional Response Framework
Figure 1 – Research Design

3. © Cranfield University3
Seasonality, quantity collected and emotional distress
- A conventional indicator versus emotional response indicator
- Water collected within the rainy season was 32 lpcd and 25 lpcd for the dry season
(no statistical difference) but significant difference in seasonal emotional responses
- Seasonally different water use patterns drive emotional response which are poorly
captured in conventional approaches
Figure 3: Quantity (water collected per capita)
Figure 4: Emotional response to quantity of water

4. © Cranfield University4
NGOs encourage development of indicator toolkit
Type of
indicator
Purpose Use Ease Validation
Water
Wellbeing
Impact
Baseline v
endline
indicator, on-
going
monitoring
Impact/
Changes in
wellbeing
Simple
Analysis
(linear scale)
Validated &
ready to use
Water
Wellbeing
Diagnostic
Needs
Assessment,
monitoring,
learning
Equity, conflict Intermediate
Analysis (4
variables)
Partially
Validated
Water
Wellbeing
Assessment
Research,
needs
assessment
for vulnerable
populations,
learning
Mental health Complex
Analysis (12
variables)
Further
research
needed
Conceptualisation
Research Design
Formative Research
Emotional
Circumplex
Design of indicator
Survey Study
Analysis
To explore a
new cultural
context
To replicate
in the Afar
language

5. © Cranfield University5 © Cranfield University5
Impact journey reflections
Resources Activities Outputs Outcomes Impacts
• Research coproduced between University and NGO partners –
balancing usability/practicability against precision/accuracy
• Immediate primary focus is to support project partners to adopt and
use survey instrument and analysis framework in their own
programmes to demonstrate its value
• Broader “higher profile” stakeholders also engaged with, including
MoWIE, UNICEF, USAID etc., through conventional dissemination but
they are second generation target for adoption of tool – they will not
adopt/promote without a level of confidence in the approach that is
infeasible to achieve within our 18 month time frame
• Long-term success remains uncertain but there is a feasible route
towards real-world impact (which is probably appropriate for a
Development Frontiers project at this stage)
• More info - p.t.hutchings@cranfield.ac.uk / @pt_hutch
You are here!