UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN WATER AND SANITATION

PROJECTS MANAGEMENT AT NEW-TAKORADI IN THE SEKONDI

TAKORADI METROPOLIS, GHANA

HABIB ABUBAKAR

2011

UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN WATER AND SANITATION PROJECTS

MANAGEMENT AT NEW-TAKORADI IN THE SEKONDI TAKORADI

METROPOLIS, GHANA

BY

HABIB ABUBAKAR

DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE INSTITUTE FOR DEVELOPMENT

STUDIES, FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF CAPE

COAST IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

AWARD OF MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE IN GOVERNANCE AND

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

MARCH 2011

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this dissertation is the result of my own original work

and that no part of it has been presented for another degree in this university or

elsewhere.

Name: Habib Abubakar

I hereby declare that the preparation and presentation of the dissertation

were supervised in accordance with the guidelines on supervision of dissertation

laid down by the University of Cape Coast

Name: Dr. Patrick Agbesiyale

ABSTRACT

This study is a descriptive research conducted at New- Takoradi in the Sekondi

Takoradi Metropolis. The main objective was to determine whether participation sustains

water and sanitation projects in the community. Specifically, the study sought to ascertain

whet

questions were posed to aid in the data collection process. The descriptive research

design was used to collect the necessary data. A sample size of two hundred and seventy

eight (278) was selected from the target households of thousand (1000) in the

community. The study also made use of key informants from NGOs, CBOs and the

Metropolitan Assembly officials.

The results gathered from the field revealed that involving communities at all

stages of the project lifecycle will lead to sustainability of the water and sanitation

projects. It was also revealed that community participation in projects management in the

community was not too good due to poor communication, education and logistics

constraints, thus stalling the sustainability of the projects. A few recommendations were

made on how best to minimize this negative practice in order to ensure sustainability of

the projects. Some of them are: If the STMA, NGOs and CBOs in the community

involves the residents at all stages of projects lifecycle, it will contribute to projects

effectiveness and sustainability. Also, there is the need for effective education and

sensitization of the essence of participation to enable the residents participate fully at the

right time and at the right place.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A dissertation of this sort necessarily owes its success to a number of

people for their priceless contributions. I am therefore thankful to my supervisor,

Dr. Patrick Agbesiyale for his patience, devotion and constructive criticism that

have made this work a wholesome academic endeavor.

Again, my profound gratitude goes to the Sekondi Takoradi Metropolitan

management

Dialogue Ghana (PD), CHF International and Joint Action for Environmental and

Development(JAfED) for providing me with materials to aid my studies. I

sincerely thank the elders and people of New-Takoradi, especially the Assembly

member, Honorable Kingsford Koomson for the support in administering the

questionnaires.

My special appreciation goes to Mr. Charles Oppong, a course mate and a

lecturer at the Department of Arts and Social Sciences Education of the

University of Cape Coast for proof reading and constructive criticism that have

made this work a wholesome academic endeavor.

My final thanks go to all my course mates in the Governance and

Sustainable Development (GSD) class 2010, especially Mr. Moses Adoku and

Mr. Zakariah Yakubu for their special consolation and advice regarding the

successful completion of this project.

DEDICATION

This work is affectionately dedicated to my beloved Father, Wife and the

entire family for their love and support.

TABLE OF CONTENT

Contents Pages

DECLARATION 3

ABSTRACT 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 5

DEDICATION 6

TABLE OF CONTENT 7

LIST OF TABLES 11

LIST OF FIGURES 13

LIST OF ACRONYMS 14

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 16

Background to the study 16

Statement of the problem 20

Objective of study 21

Research questions 22

Significance of the study 22

Organization of the study 23

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 25

Introduction 25

Concept of community participation 25

Reasons why people participate in community project? 31

Participants involved in community participation? 33

Why people participates 34

Stages of participation (Project Life Cycle) 36

The concepts of sustainability and sustainable development 39

Sustainability 39

Sustainable development 42

Sustainable development related to projects 44

Projects sustainability and community participation 45

Sustainability of water and sanitation management 47

Benefits of community participation 49

Challenges of community participation 51

Conceptual framework of the study 53

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 58

Introduction 58

Research design 58

Study area 59

Population of the study 61

Sample and sampling procedure 62

Data collection procedure 64

Research instruments 64

Data analysis 66

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 67

Introduction 67

Demographic characteristics of respondents 67

Age of respondents 68

Occupation 69

Educational level 70

Religious affiliation 71

Community participation in water and sanitation projects management 72

Awareness of community participation in water and sanitation projects 72

Types of projects heard about 72

Community participation in water and sanitation projects 73

Reasons of non-participation 74

Sustainability of water and sanitation projects 75

Unsustainability of water and sanitation projects 76

The effect of community involvement in water and sanitation projects 76

The contribution of community participation to project effectiveness 77

Factors and strategies influencing participation in collective action 78

Institutions and agencies in water and sanitation 79

Types of water and sanitation projects involving community participation 80

Scale and coverage level of projects that involves community participation 82

Knowledge of scale/coverage level of projects in community participation 82

Key players involved in water and sanitation management and assessment 84

The importance, challenges and the way forward to community participation 86

Importance of community participation 86

Challenges and the way forward to community participation 87

Other key findings from STMA, NGOs and CBOs 88

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS 95

Introduction 95

Summary 95

Conclusion 97

Recommendations 99

REFERENCES 101

APPENDICES 108

APPENDIX A: Questionnaire cover letter 108

APPENDIX B: Interview schedule for New-Takoradi households 109

APPENDIX C: Key informants questionnaires for STMA 114

APPENDIX D: Key informants questionnaires for NGOs and CBOs 119

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Sex of respondents 68

2 . Age of respondents 69

3 . Occupation of respondents 69

4 . Educational level of respondents from the community 70

5 . Religious affiliation 71

6 . Heard of community participation projects 73

7 . Types of community participation projects 73

8 . Community participation in water and sanitation projects 74

9 . Reasons for non-participation 75

10 . Reasons for unsustainability of projects 76

11 . The effect of community noninvolvement in projects 77

12 . Contribution of community participation to projects effectiveness 78

13 . Factors and strategies influencing participation in collective action 79

14 . Sectors and agencies in water and sanitation 80

15 . Types of water projects mostly patronized by the community 81

16 . Types of sanitation projects mostly patronized by the community 82

17 . Knowledge of scale and coverage level of projects in the community 83

18 . Scale and coverage level of projects in the community 83

19 . Key players involved in water and sanitation projects 84

20 . The reasons why community participation is important 87

21 . Challenges to community participation 88

22 . STMA information sharing mechanisms 89

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Ladder of community participation 29

2. Scheme of interaction of the three pillars of sustainable development 41

3. Representation showing society and economy bounded by the

environment 42

4. The basic sequence of community participation and its related

resultants to sustainability of water and sanitation projects 55

5. Map of Sekondi Takoradi Metropolis showing New-Takoradi

community 61

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ADB Asian Development Bank

CBOs Community Based Organisations

CSOs Civil Society Organisations

CHF Cooperatives and Housing Fund International

CODEPA Community Development and Environmental Protection

Association

FON Friends of Nation

FGD Focus Group Discussion

GSD Governance and Sustainable Development

HED Hart Environmental Data

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

IDWSSD International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade

IIED International Institute for Environment and Development

JAfED Joint Action for Environmental Development

NGOs Non Governmental Organizations

PDG

STMA Sekondi Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly

UNCED United Nation Conference on Environment and Development

UNDP United Nation Development Programme

UNICEF United Nation Children Fund

UNCHS United Nation Centre on Human Settlements

UNEP United Nation Environmental Programme

USAID United States Agency for International Development

UWEP Urban Waste Environmental Programme

WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

WCED World Commission on Environment and Development

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background of the study

People's participation in decision making and local ownership result in

effective and sustainable water and sanitation projects. This belief has played a

central part in the shift in institutional strategies from supply-driven to demand-

driven approaches, which respond to the felt needs and aspirations of users,

especially the poor. However, quantitative evidence of the efficacy of

participation in determining project effectiveness, relative to other factors, has

In the context of development, participation refers to an active process

whereby community members take part in decision making thereby influencing

the direction, management and execution of community projects rather than

merely receiving a share of project benefits (Arstein, 1969). It includes the

measure and notions of contributing, influencing, sharing, or redistributing power

and of control of resources, benefits, knowledge, and skills to be gained through

beneficiary involvement in decision making (Cohen & Uphoff 1977; Korten

1980; Paul 1987; Ghai & Hewit de Alacantara, 1990). There is also much debate

among practitioners and in literature about whether participation is a means or an

end, or both ( Picciotto, 1992).

For the purposes of this study, participation is defined as a voluntary

process by which people, including the disadvantaged (in income, gender,

ethnicity, or education), influence or control the decisions that affect them. The

essence of participation is exercising voice and choice. This conception does not

assume that there is an ideal level of participation to be achieved. The most

effective form of participation varies, but over the long run sustainability will

depend on minimizing transaction costs in horizontal and vertical interactions.

Participation is viewed as a means to defined ends, not as an end in itself; the goal

therefore is to optimize participation to achieve the desired project goals, not

simply to maximize participation. The desired goals in urban water and sanitation

projects include achieving improved water supply systems and developing the

human, organizational, and management capacity to solve problems as they arise

in order to sustain the improvements.

The importance and significance of community participation cannot be

underestimated. Community participation is important because it is an end in

itself for people have the right and duty to participate in the execution (i.e.

planning, implementation and management) of projects which profoundly affect

their lives. Participation is also a means to improve project results. If people

participate in the execution of projects by contributing their ingenuity, skills and

other untapped resources, more people can benefit and implementation is

facilitated and the outcome responds better to the needs and priority of the people

and also ensures sustainability of development outcomes (Arstein,1969). In

Colombia for example, the experience with water and sanitation projects has

responsibility for the facilities, it is necessary to involve the communities in every

phase of the project. These phases include planning and design; management of

resources; construction of facilities; administration; operation and maintenance,

and monitoring and quality control of the services. There should also include

information actions, training, and community building, and supervision, decision-

making and resource management. Institutions that are going through this process

assume the role of facilitators, and together with the communities they create

solutions according to local situations (Gustavo, 1993).

There is however some challenges associated with community

participation in most developing countries. In Kenya, South Africa, Senegal and

Ghana for instance, participation entails several costs and it is estimated that, to

achieve effective participation, will require about 2/3 of project community. The

costs associated are delays in project start up because of the need to solicit all

opinions, synthesize these opinions and arrived at acceptable strategies. This will

have to be undertaken at a higher cost to the community and its development

partners (Arstein, 1969).

In Ghana, one of the main problems in water and sanitation in the urban

areas is the inability of municipal authorities and public utilities to deliver and

maintain basic infrastructure services for the growing populations. The traditional

supply orientation of governments has tended to produce an over emphasis on

facilities rather than a focus on services and emphasis on public sector provision

rather than on effective approaches to complementary partnerships. The effect of

this is most severely felt in low-income urban areas which often remain outside

the reach of basic civic services. The result is an increased burden of health care,

a lowering of the quality of urban life and reduced urban productivity. In order to

improve the performance of water and sanitation projects in urban Ghana,

municipal authorities, public utilities, private and community partnerships in the

provision and management of water and sanitation services are being increasingly

promoted.

New Takoradi is a slum community located in the eastern side of the

Takoradi Harbour in the Sekondi Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly. The

population of the community is estimated at thirty thousand (30,000) and

households are four thousand (4,000). It is regarded as one of the low-income

communities within the Sekondi Takoradi Metropolis, because generally, it lacks

certain social and economic infrastructure. It is also plagued with high

unemployment, poor environmental condition and high incidence of diseases

(Enumeration, 2007)

Joint Action for Environment and Development (2002) report shows that

the community faces urban environmental problems and these are partly caused

by inadequate provision of basic services such as water supply, sanitation

facilities, transport infrastructure and waste collection. Due to a lack of financial,

human and technical resources, the Metropolitan Assembly is not able to provide

basic services to all neighbourhoods within the community.

As a result, major water and sanitation projects in the community do not

stand the test of time, this is because the community is not fully involved in the

identification of the projects, the designs, the implementation and benefit shared

of the projects. It is however not clear if projects in the community are now

moving towards community management because the city authorities are no

longer interested in assuming responsibility for these projects. Perhaps it is

because of the belief that management should occur at the lowest appropriate

level in order to ensure sustainability.

Statement of the problem

Today, community participation is considered a key component of

community management, not only because of its potential democratizing effect

but also because of its positive impact on governance. In the case of public

services, especially in urban areas and small municipalities, community

intervention contribute effectively to the establishment of policies and the

technical and economic sustainability of basic water supply and sanitation

services (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992).

Further, the Dublin Declaration (1992) and the Nordic Freshwater

Initiative (1991) recognize that participation and community management are

essential elements for the sustainability of water and sanitation projects.

However, this cannot be said of New-Takoradi community because participation

in water and sanitation projects has not been effective enough to sustain most

projects (PDG Focus Group Discussion, 2008). More so, studies conducted by

NGOs and CBOs to ascertain why the projects were not sustainable were skewed

in favour of attitudinal change instead of participation. This form of attitudinal

change which was promoted by NGOs, and city authorities did not produce the

expected results: a sense of ownership and responsibility by the communities.

Water and sanitation projects were consequently found abandoned and had

operation and maintenance problems. The lack of or minimal participation of the

users in the planning, design, construction and management of the systems is

considered the main reason for this failure (Koomson, 2008). It is against this

background that this study is being conducted to find out whether participation

would bring about a sense of ownership and responsibility to the community so as

to sustain water and sanitation projects.

Objective of the study

The main objective was to determine whether participation sustains water

and sanitation projects in the community. Specifically the study sought to:

Find out

Identify the factors and strategies that influence participation in collective

action

Find out which institutions and agencies had programmes involving

communities participation

Describe the types of water and sanitation programmes that had involved

community participation

Ascertain the scale/coverage level of these programmes

Identify the key players and their roles in water and sanitation project

management

Determine the importance, challenges and way forward associated with

participation

Research questions

The research questions posed were as follows:

How does community participation contribute to water and sanitation projects

effectiveness?

What factors and strategies influenced participation in collective action?

participation?

What types of water and sanitation programmes had involved community

participation?

What was the scale/ coverage level of these programmes?

Who were the key players and their roles in water and sanitation projects?

What were the importance and challenges associated with their participation

and way forward?

Significance of the study

The findings from the study would serve as a guide to policy makers in

their plans towards water and sanitation projects in the community. More

importantly, the study would inform and advice policy makers as to why water

and sanitation projects must be fundamentally redesigned in order to involve the

community members who lack sustainable water and sanitation supply. The

design must encompass a shift from supply-driven planning to demand-

responsive, participatory approaches to ensure beneficiary participation, control,

and ownership.

The study would also inform, guide and advice practioners operating in

the community the need to adopt community participatory approach in coming

out with water and sanitation projects in the community. Beneficiary participation

including participation by women-in water and sanitation is essential for project

effectiveness as well as for local capacity and empowerment of people for

sustainability.

The study would contribute to knowledge. For example all the studies

conducted on why water and sanitation projects are not sustainable in the

community were skewed towards attitude change instead of involving the

community in decision making, implementation, monitoring and benefits shared

of the projects. This study, which was focused towards participation and

sustainable development, will answer the question why such projects were not

participation in water and sanitation projects in the area.

Organisation of the study

The study is in five (5) chapters. With the first chapter introducing us to

the study, which deals with the background, the statement of the problem,

objective of the study, the research questions and the significance of the study.

The next chapter which is chapter two deals with the literature review of

the related works. Chapter three examines the methodological issues and explains

the research design used for the study. It further touched on the study area,

population, sample and sampling procedure, instrumentation, data collection and

analysis procedures.

Chapter four also presented and discussed the results of the study and

dealt with the analysis of data collected. The final chapter which is chapter five

looked at the summary, conclusion and recommendation.

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

This chapter concerned itself with the review of the stock of information

that is relevant to the study. The literature review is in nine (9) main aspects.

These include the concept of participation, stages of participation (project life

cycle), the concept of sustainability and sustainable development and project

sustainability and community participation. The rest include sustainable water and

sanitation management, factors in community based projects, benefits of

participation, challenges of participation and the conceptual framework of the

study.

Concept of community participation

In recent years, the concept of participation has assumed an increasingly

important role in development philosophy. This development philosophy

according to Whyte (1986) shows that best results are obtained only when

communities participate in the planning and running of the projects, and when

other sectors contribute simultaneously to the development effort. Thus, since

social, economic, educational, and other conditions differ from one community to

also vary. This makes it difficult to define participation precisely. However, since

it implies action by the people to solve their own problems, it can be understood

in terms of activities performed by the communities in development projects

(United Nation Conference on Human Settlements, 1991; Sheng, 1992; Korten,

1987; Garilao, 1987).

Whyte (1986) defines community participation as the involvement of

people in a community in development projects. These include: assessment of the

local situation, definition of the problems, setting of priorities, making decisions,

planning of action programmes to solve the problems, sharing responsibility in

project implementation, evaluating and modifying the projects.

Laura (2000) stressed that community participation in projects should

involve at least the following four areas:

The planning of projects;

The implementation, operation, and maintenance of the projects;

Share the benefits of the projects;

The evaluation and modification of the projects.

Conversely, Paul (1987) distinguishes among levels of participation, all

four of which may coexist in a project. The levels comprise information sharing,

consultation, decision making, and initiating action. The first two categories

present ways to exercise influence; the other two offer ways to exercise control.

Information sharing

Project designers and managers may share information with clients to

facilitate collective or individual action. The information flow is one-way, from

agencies to communities. Although it reflects a low level of intensity, information

sharing can positively affect project outcomes by enlarging clients' understanding

of specific issues. For example, by explaining hygienic practices or how

groundwater is polluted. Information sharing may also be one-way in the other

direction, in the form of baseline or feasibility studies wherein information, but

not necessarily opinion is gathered from beneficiaries. Many such studies tap

local knowledge but do not consult the local clients.

Consultation

When project designers and managers not only inform clients but also

seek their opinions on key issues, a two-way flow of information develops. This

two-way flow presents some opportunities for clients to give feedback to project

or managers, who can then use the information about preferences, desires, and

tastes to develop designs and policies that achieve a better fit between agency

programs and designers community demand. Examples of consultation include

methods that tap indigenous knowledge and organizational forms, such as

socioeconomic surveys, beneficiary assessments, and willingness-to-pay studies.

Decision making

Information sharing and consultation generally do not lead to increased

local capacity or empowerment of local people and institutions, although they can

lead to more effective programs. Client involvement in decision making,

however, either exclusively or jointly with the external agency, is a much more

intense level of participation which often promotes capacity building. Decision

making may be about policy objectives, project design, implementation, or

maintenance, and different actors may be involved at different stages of the

project. Thus, the decision to participate in a project may be made by the

community, and the choice of technology may be made jointly, after the costs and

benefits of the various technological options have been explained by the agency

and understood by the community.

Initiating action

Initiating action, within parameters defined by agencies, represents a high

level of participation that surpasses involvement in the decision making process.

Self-initiated actions are a clear sign of empowerment. Once clients are

empowered, they are more likely to be proactive, to take initiative, and to display

confidence for undertaking other actions to solve problems beyond those defined

by the project. This level of participation is qualitatively different from that

achieved when clients merely carry out assigned tasks.

Astein (1969) analysed participation and categorized them into eight

levels as manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership,

delegated power and citizen control as shown in Figure 1. These are further

grouped under non- participation, degree of tokenism and degree of citizen power

as illustrated in the ladder of community participation.

Figure 1: Ladder of community participation

Source: (Astein, 1969)

The eight levels of community participation are arranged to make sense of

the wide variety approaches that are lumped under citizen/community

participation. The first two steps of the ladder described some development level

of non-participation contrived by some development practitioners to substitute for

genuine participation. Their real objective is not to enable people to participate in

planning or conducting programmes, but to enable power holders to educate

participants. This is also described as community education or conscientisation

which could have positive long term implications if communities become aware

and organized and demand participation. Steps 3 and 4 (information and

consulting) progress to levels of tokenism that allow the people a say in program

or project activities. Citizens may hear and be heard but they still lack the power

to ensure that their views will be heeded in actual decision making. When

participation is restricted to these levels, there is no follow through, no ''muscle'',

hence no assurance of changing the status quo. Step 5, placation is simply a

higher level of tokenism because the ground rules allow citizen to advise, but

decision making is still outside community control. Further up the ladder are

levels of citizen power with increasing degrees of decision making power.

Citizens can enter into a partnership that enables them to negotiate and engage in

trade off with development agencies. At the top most steps of the ladder,

delegated power and citizen control, the community has influence and full

managerial power over project activities.

Gustavo (1993), analyzed participation from the point of view of the

relationship between the state and the community in terms of power, and

classifies it as:

A collaboration, in which the community is excluded from decision-making

(subservient) and its members are subject to institutional decisions

Joint management, which allows community intervention regarding decisions,

in other words, a degree of autonomy

Self-management, a form of participation that emerges independently within

the community and,

Negotiation, seen as the mechanisms and strategies used by the community to

fulfill its needs.

Thus, the emphasis on community participation in projects implies that

communities will be involved early in project planning and will be encouraged to

play an active and decisive role in them. Once a project is launched, the

community will be responsible for running and maintaining the facilities built as

part of the project. The importance being given to community participation is

further reflected by the fact that it will be one of the criteria by which national

programmes will be evaluated for support by external Aid agencies.

Reasons why people participate in community project

On why people participate, Narayan (1986) mentions project

effectiveness, project efficiency, empowerment and equity as reasons for

participating.

Project effectiveness

Project effectiveness is the degree to which stated project objectives are

achieved. Client involvement, direct or indirect, may result in a better match

between what users want and what an agency or project offers. They may

contribute to redefinition of objectives, better project design, and redesign,

beyond the site selection, resource mobilization, construction, implementation,

and maintenance of facilities of the project. Beneficiary ownership and control of

the project also are often seen as essential elements in establishing effective

projects.

Project efficiency

Project efficiency measures the relationship between a given output and its

cost and inputs. Because anticipatory decision making allows more timely

beneficiary inputs, as well as synchronization of agency and client inputs, it may

well lead to greater efficiency. Discussion, consultation, and information sharing

often produce greater consensus about goals and means and more clarity about

roles, authority, and ownership than would otherwise be possible.

Empowerment

Empowerment is essentially a political concept that means more equitable

sharing or redistribution of power and resources with those who previously lacked

power. Any activity that leads to increased access and control over resources and

to acquisition of new skills and confidence, so that people are enabled to initiate

action on their own behalf and acquire leadership, is an empowering activity. The

central argument for participatory processes is that involvement in decision

making enables people exercise choice and voice more broadly in their lives, as

well as in the more immediate context of development programs that benefit

them. Empowerment is thus, about the capacity building of individuals and the

organizations that support them.

Equity

A major purpose of development assistance is a more equitable

distribution of the benefits of development. It is well established that

development gains tend to be "captured" by those already better off. When

included in the pursuit of this broad goal, beneficiary participation-which

promotes transparency and accountability-may lead to less capture by the elites

and to more equitable access to improved water supply, thus, helping serve the

purpose of development assistance in general.

Further, Narayan (1996) listed the reasons behind participation as:

services can be provided more cheaply, there is an intrinsic value in participation,

there is a guarantee that a felt need is involved, ensures that things are done the

right way, valuable indigenous knowledge is used, people are freed from

dependence on others' skills, projects are more likely to be self-sustaining and

increase involvement of women.

Participants involved in community participation

A major consideration is who participates. Participation occurs at global,

national, sub national, community, and household levels. The primary focus is on

the participation of beneficiaries, those who are meant to benefit from the change

brought about by development projects. Hence, the characteristics of these users

(individuals and groups) are important because they influence the type of

participation that occurs (Whyte, 1986). In the past greater involvement in the

projects have come from the economically advanced regions and, communities

and their leaders. Others have remained more delivered to them.

These, however, are the very communities where a participatory approach

could bring the most benefits even though they have the least experience of

involvement in the development process (Whyte, 1986).

Ways people participate

Stressing on how people participate, Triche (1990) examines how outside

agencies and organizers can induce collective action when an issue deals with a

common interest of community groups. This process of organizing the poor so

that their voices are heard is a role that many NGOs have played effectively in

addressing a variety of needs. Examples include the Aga Khan Support Program

in Pakistan, Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, Amul in India, Wali and Dian Desa in

Indonesia, and Khaho in Kenya.

Further, Triche (1990) is of the view that, many of the roles currently

being fulfilled by public sector agencies can be more effectively and efficiently

carried out by the private sector. Various aspects of service delivery can be

fostering competition, and monitoring performance. Thus, it will ensure efficient

and effective services provision to communities.

However, the poor and the vulnerable groups will suffer if the private

sector takes control of the day to day running of the projects. For example in

New Takoradi, the water and sanitation projects have been given out to a private

individual to manage and the cost of usage of these facilities is so expensive that,

it deter the disadvantaged ones from patronizing them (Koomson, 2008).

Conversely, while it is clear that many NGOs can induce collective action;

financial resources including external assistance are channelled primarily through

government agencies. The central questions, therefore, are these: Can government

agencies induce collective action on a large scale? If so, under what conditions,

and with what mechanisms? The challenge to government agencies is to

restructure their policies, institutions, and organizational forms so that public

agencies are accountable for their performance and have the incentive to respond

flexibly and quickly to people's demand, either directly or through involvement of

their communities, including NGOs.

A major observation from the above is that, for projects to be accepted and

to continue to be utilized, their benefits must be clearly perceived by the users,

and the community must be able to meet on-going projects costs and maintain the

equipment. Much therefore depends on being able to mobilize community

participation successfully in sector projects and national programming in

communities.

Stages of participation (project life cycle)

Using grounded theory derived from beneficiaries and functionaries in a

coastal area project in Bangladesh, Mathbor (2008) explored the typology of

community participation and proposed a participative model. The community

participation model involves locals in four progressive stages.

information, education, and planning stage;

implementation, coordination, and monitoring stage;

ownership and control stage and

feedback stage.

Information, education, and planning (IEP) stage of participation

Education has always played a crucial role in the society as it disseminates

knowledge, provides necessary skills, and helps in forming attitudes (Rahman,

1999). It is evident that providing adequate and timely information, educating

people about the development initiatives and outlining a plan of action is critical

in generating a process of participation. Differences and similarities between

functionary and beneficiary perceptions of effective community participation

resulted with a series of elements that need to be considered at this stage of

participation. They are all related to the information, education, and planning

stage of community participation. Some of the significant findings are

summarized below. Both functionaries and beneficiaries reflect similar views on

the lack of transparency and invisibility of project- related documents and

information provided to the local people. It was observed in the project that most

beneficiaries could not answer questions about the coastal project budget, its

funding sources, policy determination procedures, evaluation, and needs

assessment procedures. It is evident that community participation in development

projects is a human creation because the questions of who will participate, how

they will participate, why they will participate, and what they will participate in,

is determined by the project officials and the funding agencies (Mathbor, 2008).

Implementation, coordination, and monitoring (ICM) stage of participation

Once local people are well informed about the development projects, they

are in a better position to plan activities by themselves to implement a project

(Mathbor, 2008). Close supervision of their work and having a monitoring system

in place will enhance the effectiveness of a development project. This system

takes place through identifying honest, sincere, dedicated leaders, involving them

in all stages of the development project, and maintaining sustained interaction

throughout the project period.

Several beneficiaries stated that the criteria set by the organizations for

including local people as beneficiaries of the project failed to safeguard the

interests of the poorer people. It is also evident that local people were only

involved at the implementation level of the development project, and not the

designing and planning stages. Mathbor (2008), further alluded to the fact that

local people must have the right to say no to things that they feel are against their

interests or ineffective, as well as to propose alternatives they believe are better.

The interests of people should be considered at the planning stage of a project

rather than including local people only at the implementation stage. Lack of an

on-going interaction between functionaries and beneficiaries created mistrust

between the parties concerned. Most beneficiaries said implementation is the

subsequent stage of the Information, Education, and Planning (IEP) stage of

participation.

Ownership and control stage

Rahman (1999) states that the development efforts of the last three

they had hardly shared in the benefits of development and have remained

economically poor and underprivileged. As a result, they have had little

participation in the development effort of their societies. In some cases, these

issues were outlined in project documents. Findings indicate, however, that a gulf

exists between project documents and field reality. Eventually, the elite people of

the locality gained exclusive control of development projects and resources. The

criteria for selecting poorer people as project beneficiaries require revision to

e development project.

Feedback

experiences, to assess their needs and evaluate outcomes of development projects.

This makes local people to be held accountable for successes and failures. It is

evident from findings that local people were consulted only after the project was

conceptualized, designed, and planned by project proponents and funding

agencies. It has been widely observed and accepted that indigenous knowledge

plays a significant role in sustainable resource utilization and conservation,

(Mathbor, 2008).

The concepts of sustainability and sustainable development

Rapid urbanization causes enormous pressure from urban areas on the

environment. Cities import natural resources which are transformed into goods

and services, and in the end are returned to the environment in the form of

emissions and waste. This leads to local, regional and global environmental

problems, such as resource depletion, deterioration of air, water and soil quality,

noise nuisance, lack of green space, waste generation, and many others (Stanners

& Bourdeau, 1995). These environmental problems also have socio-economic

consequences. Poor environmental quality of cities can deprive citizens of a good

quality of life as it affects their health and well being (Geenhuizen & Van

Nijkamp, 1995). To contribute to the solution of these problems, the concept of

sustainability and sustainable development was introduced.

Sustainability

Sustainability was employed to describe an economy in equilibrium with

basic ecological support system. Robinson (2004) defined sustainability as the

ability for humans to live within environmental constraints. It also involves

improving the quality of human life whilst living within the carrying capacity of

supporting ecosystem (WWF/IUCN/UNEP, 2002) and it involves the elements of

using methods, systems, and materials that would not deplete resources or harm

natural cycle (Rosenbaum, 1993). Thus, sustainability in its generic form could be

seen as a process which tells of a development of all aspects of human life

affecting sustenance.

Sustainability could be looked at in three dimensions: social, economic,

and environment. Social sustainability reflects the relationship between

development and current social norms. An activity is socially sustainable if it

conforms to social norms or does not stretch beyond the community's tolerance

for change. Social norms are based on religion, tradition and custom; they are

rooted in values attached to human health and well-being. Some have to do with

intangibles, such as deep seated beliefs about right and wrong or values that are

attached to the importance of different aspects of life and the environment

(Environment Canada, 1996).

There are several facets to economic sustainability. On one level,

economic sustainability focuses on development, not simply growth. This implies

economic activity that is conducive to, and supports sustainable urban

development. It also requires the use of appropriate technologies. Economic

sustainability encourages the use of renewable resources as inputs to production.

It actively discourages the generation of externalities arising from economic

activity, such as air, water and soil pollution. An environmentally sustainable

system must maintain a stable resource base, avoiding over-exploitation of

renewable resource systems or environmental sink functions, and depleting non-

renewable resources only to the extent that investment is made in adequate

substitutes. This includes maintenance of biodiversity, atmospheric stability, and

other ecosystem functions not ordinarily classed as economic resources as

illustrated in the three dimensions demonstrated in Figure 2. The dimensions of

sustainability are often taken to be: environmental, social and economic, known

as the "three pillars". These can be depicted as three overlapping circles (or

eclipses) to show that they are not mutually exclusive and can be mutually

reinforcing. While this model initially improved the standing of environmental

concerns, it has since been criticized for not adequately showing that societies and

economies are fundamentally reliant on the natural world as shown in 3

Figure 2: Scheme of interaction of the pillars of sustainable development

Source: WWF/IUCN/NEP (2002)

Figure 3: Representation showing society and economy bounded by

environment

Source: WWF/IUCN/NEP (2002)

Sustainable development

In the 1980s, the debates about the environment became more complex

and finally led to the dominant concept of sustainable development as a way of

balancing economic development and environmental conservation. This concept,

introduced by the (Brundtland Commission, 1987) can be considered as a starting

point of a new conceptual basis for urban development. The commission defined

sustainable development as the development that meets the needs of the present

without compromising the ability of the future generation to meet their own

needs. Here, the term is seen as a process of change where the exploitation of

resources, direction of resources, direction of investment, orientation of

technological development and the institutional change are all in harmony and

enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspiration

(WCED cited in Kendie and Martens, 2008).

Hart (1999), commenting on sustainable development argued that, most

reports focus on the environmental part of sustainable development, but

sustainability is a much broader concept than just environmental protection.

Sustainable development is related to the quality of life in a community, meaning

that the environmental, social and economic systems that form the community

must provide a healthy, productive, meaningful life for all community residents,

both in the present and in the future. It is against this background that Mitlin &

Satterthwaite, (1994) pointed out that sustainable development entails multiples

goals. This can be described in an original italic as Meeting the needs of the

Social, cultural and health needs include shelter which is healthy, safe,

affordable and secure, within a neighbourhood with provision for piped water,

sanitation, solid waste collection, drainage, transport, health care, education and

child development. Also they include a home, workplace and living environment

protected from environmental hazards.

control, like homes and neighbourhoods which they value and where their social

and cultural priorities are met. Economic needs mean access to an adequate

livelihood or productive assets and to economic security when unemployed, ill,

disabled or otherwise unable to secure a livelihood. Political needs mean freedom

to participate in national and local politics and in decisions regarding management

sustainable development in respect for civil and political rights and the

implementation of environmental legislation. This entails several goals presented

in original italic form as without compromising the ability of future generations to

meet their own needs. Also, minimizing use or waste of non-renewable resources

includes minimizing the consumption of fossil fuels in housing, commerce,

industry and transport and substituting renewable sources where feasible.

Furthermore, it entails minimizing waste of scarce mineral resources through

reducing use of resources, and re-using, recycling and reclaiming waste.

Sustainable use of renewable resources also refers to drawing on freshwater

resources at levels which can be sustained, and keeping to a sustainable ecological

footprint in terms of land area on which producers and consumers in any city

draw for agricultural crops, wood products and biomass fuels. Keeping wastes

from cities within absorption capacity of local and global sinks. These include

renewable sinks. For example capacity of rivers to break down biodegradable

wastes and non-renewable sinks for persistent chemicals.

Sustainable development related to projects

Related to development projects two meanings can be attached to the term

sustainable development. On one hand, the term refers to projects with

sustainability goals and on the other hand to the continuation of projects. Projects

with sustainability goals are projects that secure development objectives with a

sustainable use of natural resources both for productive inputs and waste

generation (Hardoy, Mitlin and Satterthwaite, 1992). Commenting on the

sustainability in an ecological sense, (Hardoy, Mitlin and Satterthwaite, 1992)

further mentioned two criteria that can be used to assess project sustainability.

Most projects that are judged to be sustainable meet one or more of the following

criteria:

The project does not damage natural resources significantly in such a way that

the same quantity and quality of natural resources are available for further use

as if the project had never been implemented.

The project does damage some natural resources but it has positive impacts on

other natural resources so that the net effect is assessed to be resource neutral.

Pal (1998), study on the impact of project sustainability on the local

people said, sustainability in a way refers to projects which can eventually

function without external assistance. And should have a long-term impact on the

environment and improve the lives of local people. Sustainable project must

vulnerability.

Project sustainability and community participation

Some studies have examined the relationship between community-based

development projects and capacity for collective action. Finsterbush & Van

Wincklin (1987), in their review of United States Agency for International

Development (USAID) projects, claim without ambiguity that projects with

participatory elements increased the overall effectiveness of projects particularly

in building capacity for collective action. They make no attempt, however, to

identify the causal direction of this claim, which they assert largely on the basis of

subjective assessment of project review.

Gugerty and Kremer (2000), also found that bringing in outside assistance

may change the composition of beneficiary groups. The formation and training of

village groups attracted richer and more educated men and women into leadership

positions within the group because of the outside fun

suggests that projects managed by communities are more sustainable than projects

managed by local governments because of better maintenance.

For projects in Sub-Saharan Africa, Cleaver (1999) found that even if

communities are initially successful in creating the project, they may lack the

material resources and connections to sustain their efforts. Mosse (1997) with a

similar conclusion in an in-depth examination of tank management in South India

finds that maintenance of community infrastructure is often crucially dependent

on external agents. Thus, the need for a well-functioning state apparatus does not

disappear with active community involvement. Though community participation

projects have the potential to be more sustainable than top-down projects, they

also appear to suffer from neglect by municipal authorities once they are

completed. Studies conducted by Joint Action for Environment and Development

(2002) in the New Takoradi Community suggest that unless communities can

lobby for continuing support for marginal inputs and training, their ability to

sustain such projects may be limited.

Sustainability of water and sanitation management

Most cities in developing countries face urban environmental problems

and these are partly caused by inadequate provision of basic services such as

water supply, sanitation facilities, transport infrastructure and waste collection.

Due to lack of financial, human and technical resources, municipalities are not

able to provide basic serv

the poor neighbourhoods are deprived of basic services and they end up paying

more for water to private providers than they would if the municipality delivered

those services (Klundert and Lardinois, 1995). Baud (1999) argued that apart

from environmental goals set by municipal authorities, a sustainable water and

solid waste management system should also include social and economic

objectives, like equivalent access to waste collection, and efficient and financial

viable waste services. These objectives entail: Waste services, like waste

collection and cleaning of public spaces should be provided to all strata of society,

regardless of income, ethnic group or social status.

that not all communities give priority to water and

sanitation for health purposes. However, proposals for projects on drinking-water

and sanitation should be made because they can serve as entry points for projects

in other sectors. For example, preliminary discussions regarding water supply

might help identify major concern for the care of animals or irrigation to extend

the growing season. However for this approach to work, it is necessary that

agencies concerned with water supply and sanitation have close links with other

sectors so that when people express concern about other development problems,

appropriate government departments can be informed about them.

Conversely, other sectors may identify communities with strong potential

for water and sanitation projects. These need to be referred to the appropriate

water and supply unit so that they facilitate community referral between sector

agencies and national planning committees for the project.

and solid waste

management and factors favouring the sustainability of community participation

stressed that many cities in developing countries suffer from environmental

problems due to rapid urbanization. The environmental problems are aggravated

by the fact that local authorities are not capable to deliver basic services, such as

water supply, infrastructure and solid waste management. In the last few decades

for example, many projects and other initiatives have been set up to provide

especially low-income areas with basic services. For such projects to have a

continuing impact, community participation is a precondition and this entails

involving the community at different stages and degrees of intensity in the project

cycle (Laura, 2000).

However, most water and sanitation projects are not sustainable and this is

attributed to non-involvement of community members at different stages and

degrees of the projects cycle. In solid waste management, for example,

community members can participate in different ways, such as paying collection

fees, offering waste at the appropriate time and separating recyclable materials.

Further, community members can be involved in awareness-raising activities,

participate in meetings to influence the process of the project or be part of

committees that manage waste services (Laura, 2000).

On factors that favour the sustainability of community participation in

water and sanitation management, Laura (2000) suggested communication

strategies, such as awareness raising campaigns as essential to generate a broad-

based understanding of water and solid waste issues among community members.

In addition, communication strategies can enhance the responsiveness of

stakeholders like NGOs or local authorities to the needs of the community. There

is also the need to involve local leaders and CBOs to ensure that community

needs are taken into account. This is because to be able to stimulate the

community, leaders and CBOs must be represented.

Benefits of community participation

Moser (1989) is of the view that community participation has several

benefits, which can be divided into benefits for the community and benefits for

the project. On the part of the community, community participation can be seen

as an end in itself and a way to strengthen the community. On the part of projects,

community participation can be seen as a means to execute projects in a more

efficient way. Possible benefits of community participation for projects according

to Moser are: Improvement of project design and effectiveness. If the community

is involved in the design of the project, it is possible to integrate its needs and

constraints in the objectives of the project and in this way lead to a more effective

implementation. It may also lead to enhancement of the impact and sustainability

of the projects. Involving the community in the project may increase local

ownership of projects and enhance a sense of responsibility for maintaining

services provided by projects. These aspects are essential because they lead to the

durability and continuity of projects in every community. Ensuring effective

community participation in projects may lead to improvement of project

efficiency. It also enhances the understanding and agreement of cost sharing both

financial and physical contribution.

On his part, Paul (1987) stressing on the benefit of community

participation to projects said community participation can be used to prevent

conflicts and to stimulate cooperation and agreement between different actors. In

this way delays in project execution can be reduced and overall costs minimized.

Commenting on the benefits of participation for communities, Moser

(1989), Mitlin and Thompson, (1995) said, possible benefits of participation for

communities include:

Building local capacities and capabilities. Community participation may for

instance increase awareness of knowledge and capacities. It may also improve

the ability to negotiate as equals with authorities and other stakeholders to

promote common objectives, and increase responsiveness to conflicts within

the community

Empowerment. Community participation may give people the opportunity to

devise and initiate strategies to improve their situation.

Whyte (1986), stressing on the benefits of community participation said

inorder to enjoy full benefits of community participation, projects should involve

communities in the planning of the project, in the implementation, operation and

maintenance of the project, let the whole community share in the benefits of the

project and include the community's opinion in the evaluation and modification of

the project. It must be borne in mind that community participation depends on the

degree of organization of the community. When a community is not organized or

only a small degree organized, it can form an obstacle to participation. It is

however necessary to investigate whether a community is organized or not. If not,

it is possible to strengthen the community.

Challenges of community participation

Gustavo (1993) argued that, although there is an opportunity for linking

community participation to water and sanitation projects, it must be recognized

that there are legal and cultural constraints that affect the performance of this

social action. For example, during a conference of water and sanitation projects

in Colombia, it was recognized that there are still many obstacles, such as the lack

of an appropriate legal framework for small municipalities and rural areas with

respect to among others, tariffs, tariff structures, invoicing and fee collection

(Asian Development Bank, 2003). Also, in the process of decentralization the

facilitating role of the municipality is not clear. This role should have been that

conditions are created so that communities have access to resources, supervise

municipal management, have the right to ensure the transparency of contracting

processes, and that there is a continuous flow of information to the community

(Gustavo, 1993).

The challenge to community participation according to Arstein (1969), is

pressure to raise level or range of services. This is because, awareness raising and

the experiences gained on the part of communities may empower them to demand

more and higher services from the sector/department. Such pressures can over tax

the department in terms of personnel, materials and finances if these were not

anticipated. Participatory approaches may also be more risky than bureaucratic or

technical management. This may occur for the following reasons: Hijacking of

project by certain groups in the community, especially the wealthy members and

the opinion leaders creation of conflict and losses of efficiency due to

inexperience associated with it.

Lack of resources is another challenge to community participation. Steven

and Jennifer (2002) argued that, in order for rural communities to play an active

role in the policy making process, it is necessary for their members to have access

to resources. These resources include adequate funding, government training

programs, education, leaders, and volunteers to support rural causes and

initiatives. Many communities tend to lack one or more of these resources, a

situation which interferes with their ability to effectively impact the policy-

ability to effectively influence and develop policy compared to other players in

the policymaking process. For example in Ghana, the policy makers, public

institutions, and professional organizations operating in communities often have

access to large amounts of financial and human resources, whereas members of

the community do not have such resources. This creates an inequity whereby

community organizations that may be equally or even more affected by policy

change do not have the same opportunity to participate in and influence the

process.

Conceptual framework of the study

Several Authors and Researchers have developed Conceptual Models

explaining how community participation would result in sustainability of

development projects. However that of Mathbor (2008), would be adopted for the

study. The reason for adopting this is its applicability. The Community

Participation Model involves locals in four progressive stages: 1, Information,

Education, and Planning Stage; 2, Implementation, Coordination, and Monitoring

Stage; 3, Ownership and Control Stage; 4, Feedback Stage. Central to the model,

which is systematically portrayed, is the empowerment, implementation, control,

and outcome of community participation. Overall, the model emphasizes the

inclusive approach, highlights participation, and focuses especially on the vital

role of community members developing projects. Secondly, the context of the

model which focuses on community participation in coastal development projects

is similar to what the researcher sought to establish in his area of study. For to

examine levels of participation in a development project, one must understand the

context in which it takes place. For example socio- economic factors such as

population numbers and density, economic conditions, religious traditions,

literacy, health status, nutritional benefits, political economy, land arrangements,

government structures, infrastructural development, educated unemployed youth,

and other factors are relevant variables that differ from community to community

and need to be taken into consideration. Thus the above variables are assumed to

be equal in terms of power sharing, information dissemination and level of

political and economic development.

The philosophy of this community participation model is grounded in a

horizontal relationship between beneficiaries and functionaries of the coastal

development projects in Bangladesh. The project proponents and the community

begin their dialogue and continue to work together until successes and failures of

the projects are fully evaluated and reintegrated into future planning. Community

participation in coastal development projects is therefore hypothesized to be

effective by involving local people in all four stages of the model as information,

education, and planning stage; implementation, communication and monitoring

stage; ownership stage; and feedback stages of participation. Each stage is the

result of a set of elements that emerged from the views, opinions, and

perspectives of the beneficiaries and the functionaries interviewed in the study.

Although these elements are separated in terms of different stages, they are often

interrelated and interwoven in practice. For example, consultation of local people

is required both at information, education, and planning and feedback stages and

may also be required to identify a genuine resource person at the implementation,

communication and monitoring stage. In essence, people are actively involved in

the elements that flow out of the four identified stages of the model. This results

to effective participation and sustainable development as illustrated in Figure 4 .

Figure 4: The basic sequence of community participation and its relatedresultants to sustainability of water and sanitation projects in New-Takoradi.Adapted from Mathbor (2008).

project has demonstrated that if the city authority and donor agency who are the

proponents of the projects involves the community members throughout the

stages of development process, it will lead to sustainability of the projects. For

example, in stage one if the entire community is informed, educated and be part of

the planning of community toilets and water projects conceived by the city

authority and donors, their involvement will be high and lead to sustainability of

the projects.

Projects Proponents Context Community Functionaries Beneficiaries

In stage two, if the community is part of the implementation, coordination

and monitoring of the projects, they would have control over the projects, thus

lead to sustainability of the projects. In stage three, it is required that the

community own the project so that the outcome would be beneficial to them. The

last stage is the feedback stage and the projects proponents need to see that the

community becomes empowered as a result of series of stages they have

undergone. This will lead to scalability and sustainability of the projects.

The implication of this model to New Takoradi Community in short, is

manifested when water and toilet projects are conceived for the community by

Sekondi Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly (STMA) and donor agencies. To ensure

that the projects continues to solve the problems their purposely meant to serve,

the four stages of community participation should be adopted to make them

sustainable. For instance in stage one, providing adequate and timely information,

educating the people about the development initiatives, and outlining a plan of

action is critical in generating a process of participation.

Secondly as in stage two, once the community is well informed about the

development projects, they are in a better position to plan activities by themselves

to implement the projects. Also close supervision of their work and having a

monitoring system in place will enhance the effectiveness of the projects. This

system takes place through identifying honest, sincere, dedicated leaders and

involving them in all stages of the projects, and maintaining sustained interaction

throughout the project period.

Thirdly as in stage three, the communities need to feel a sense of

ownership, or gain a sense of commitment to the project rather than being

alienated and kept at a distance. They should share the project costs; if not in

money, at least in time and effort. This sharing of cost will give them a feeling of

ownership and commit them to the project. Also, the legal framework set at the

nterests should be

complied with. This will enhance their participation by establishing rights of

ownership in the project. Finally as in stage four, consultation with the

community knowledge and experiences to assess their needs and evaluate

outcomes of development projects, and to hold them accountable for successes

and failures is very crucial in the sustainability of the projects.

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter describes how data required for the study have been

collected. These include the research design, study area, population, sample and

sampling procedure, instrumentation, data collection and data analysis.

Research design

The research design used was descriptive. Descriptive research design is a

scientific method which involves the use of surveys, observing and describing the

behavior of a subject without influencing it in any way. It also determines and

reports the way things are in the study area. The justification for using the

descriptive design is its suitability and applicability to the study area (Best, 1981).

On his part, Martyn (2008) said, the justification for using descriptive research

design is that, many scientific disciplines, especially social science and

psychology, use this method to obtain a general overview of the subject under

study. This is because, some subjects cannot be observed in any other way. For

example a social case study of an individual subject is descriptive research design

and allows observation without affecting normal behavior. It is also useful

because it enables researchers to test and measure a large number of samples

needed for more quantitative types of experimentation. Thus, this method was

chosen because it made it possible to observe natural behaviors without affecting

them during studies. It also made it possible to obtain a general overview of

situations under study.

Lastly, the results from the descriptive research in the New Takoradi

Community could not in any way be used as definitive answers, but if the

limitations are understood, they can still be a useful tool in many areas of

scientific research.

Study area

New-Takoradi is a slum community located in the Eastern side of the

Takoradi Harbour in the Sekondi Takoradi Metropolis as shown in Figure 5. It is

a low-income community because it lacks certain social and economic

infrastructure like water and sanitation and it is plagued with high unemployment,

poor environmental condition and high incidence of diseases. The reason for

choosing the community as a study area is that, most of the water and sanitation

projects in the community are poorly managed hence do not last longer. Also,

numerous studies by NGOs and CBOs to ascertain why the projects do not last

longer are skewed in favor of attitudinal change instead of community

participation to bring about sustainable development (PDG, 2008).

In the early parts of 15th Century, the people of New Takoradi migrated

from Techiman in the BrongAhafo Region of Ghana. Led by Nana Yaw Nketsiah

I, they entered New- Takoradi through the western side of Nzimaland and

settled at Apollonian, Princes town, Adiewaso and finally at Ahanta traditional

area where Nana Baidoo Bonsoe was the paramount chief of the area.

(now Atlantic Hotel and Butua River). The present New-Takoradi was initially

called Toworase, meaning a big tree where people sat to take decision. With the

arrival of the Europeans, it was changed to New- Takoradi/Takoradi due to the

difficulty in the pronunciation of the name (Obusuapanyin Aye of New -Takoradi,

2008). New Takoradi covers a land area of about 53.95sqmile or 34.571.25 acres.

It is bounded on the south by the Atlantic Ocean, on the west by Apowa stool

land, on the East by Sekondi Stool land and North by Odum Dominase (Wassa

fiase).

The major economic activity in New Takoradi is fishing. Although this

activity is seasonal, almost all the thirty thousand (30,000) people in the

community depend largely on this single source for their income. However, a few

particularly the young ladies, engage in petty trading such as hairdressing and

seamstressing after completing junior high school. It is therefore significant to

notice a large number of hairdressers and seamstresses in New Takoradi by

observation.

Figure 5: Map of STMA showing study area

Population of the study

According to Mugo (2000), a population is a group of individuals,

persons, objects, or items from which samples are taken for measurement. Thus,

the population of households in New Takoradi community, according to People

Dialogue Ghana Enumeration (2006) is four thousand. Although the average

household size according to the national statistics is 5.0, the study suggests that

the average household size at New-Takoradi is 7.5 (Enumeration Report, 2007).

This is due to the fact that the area is highly populated and slum community

plagued with high unemployment, poor environmental conditions and high

incidence of disease (Enumeration Report, 2007). Therefore, the target population

for the study was 4000 households. However, the accessible population was the

inhabitants in those households who were in one way or the other involved in

community projects in the study area.

Sample and sampling procedure

According to Webster (1985), a sample is a finite part of a statistical

population whose properties are studied to gain information about the whole.

When dealing with people, it can be defined as a set of respondents selected from

a larger population for the purpose of a survey.

The sample size used for the study was 278. This was in line with

guidelines provided by Sarantakos (1993) table for determining sample size.

According to the table, when a population is 1,000 households, 278 sample size is

the appropriate one to use. The study made use of both probability and non-

probability sampling techniques. The probability sampling applied was stratified

technique, simple random and systematic sampling whilst non probability was

purposive sampling.

The processes in getting the unit of enquiry (respondents) were in two

phases. Phase one, which involved the use of stratified sampling, started with

obtaining the accessible population of thousand (1000) by dividing the four

thousand (4000) households of the community into four clusters. That is Upper

town, Lower town, Poasi and Akoburom. The procedure involved in getting the

target zone was as follows: A list of 4000 households was put into four clusters

enumeration report (2006). Secondly, the numbers of the clusters were written on

cards and placed in a box. Thirdly, the cards were well mixed. A research

assistant was asked to pick one card from the box. Finally, the number on the card

picked was registered and the corresponding name in the list/frame was obtained.

Thus, Upper town with total household of thousand (1000) was picked for the

study. The reason for using this method was that, it ensured representativeness; it

was unbiased in that no cluster in the community had any more chance of being

selected than any other zone.

In phase two, a sample size of 278 was selected from the target households

of thousand (1000). The technique used in getting the units of enquiry (278

respondents) was systematic technique. The 1000 households were divided by

278 sample size and the result was a fraction of 3.5 or 4. Mathematically,

K=N/n, where K is the sampling fraction, N is the households and n is the sample

size. That is 1000/278=4. In summary, the steps in arriving at the units of enquiry

were: the sample frame of thousand households were constructed and given

names. Secondly, the sample fraction was obtained after dividing the target

population by the sample size. The process continued by counting from 1 to 4

repeated until the entire households were reached. Further, the names on the

sample frame that corresponded to the number drawn were picked to constitute

the sample. The reason for using this method is that, according to Moser and

Kalton (1971) it is used in large sample survey including household survey. Also

it is representative and avoids bias, because the selection of sample units is

independent from the selection of the previous one. The study also made use of

the services of key informants such as NGOs, CBOs and the Metropolitan

Assembly officials.

Data collection procedure

The type of data used were both secondary and primary. Secondary data

involved journals, articles, books and research works on community participation

in water and sanitation projects and the profile of the New-Takoradi Community.

The primary data was collected through the use of questionnaires and face

to face interview with the community. Of the six (6) questionnaires that were

given to the Assembly, elected representatives and non-governmental

organizations, two were given to the Sekondi Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly,

one given to the Assembly member of New Takoradi. The rest of the three were

shared among two non-governmental organizations and one community based

organization. Also, the interview, which was face to face with the community,

made use of two hundred and seventy eight (278) interview guide within the

upper town. The duration of the questionnaires administration lasted for one

month. Of the two hundred and seventy eight questionnaires sent to the field, all

of them, together with those of the key informants were returned.

Research instruments

The study made use of questionnaires and interview scheduled. Two (2)

questionnaires were constructed, one directed to the Metropolitan Assembly and

the community. The questionnaires directed to the Assembly and elected

-

Takoradi Community in Water and Sanitation Projects Management and its

sustainabili

structure, occupation, educational level and religious affiliation of the

respondents. The questionnaires directed to the NGOs and CBOs were also in two

GOs and CSOs Role in Water and Sanitation

Personal Data. It examined the sex issue, age structure, occupation, educational

level, religious affiliation and name of the organization.

The interview scheduled, which directly went to the community members,

which examined the sex issue, age structure, occupation, educational level and

religious affiliation. The choice of questionnaire was that, it is less expensive and

produce quick results cutting down the time used for the study. It can also be

nvenience, and avoid errors caused by the

presence of the interviewer. On the other hand, interview provides detail

information about the respondents and the unit of enquiry. It does not require

respondents to have the ability to read or handle long questionnaires. It provides

opportunity to observe non-verbal behavior, which questionnaire items do not

the part of respondents in the study.

Data analysis

The analysis was done on the basis of the primary data collected from the

field. Since the study employed a survey method of gathering data, the analysis of

the data gathered took the form of compiling respondent contributions on each

item/question. Tabulation was then established through the use of simple average

and percentages through the use of SPSS. Results were then used as bases for

either negating or validating whether a particular objective is being achieved.

Limitations

One major problem encountered during the data collection was with the

questionnaire. Some of the respondents in the study area were illiterates and semi-

from English however delayed the research process.

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Introduction

In this chapter, results and discussions are presented. The presentation

covers demographic data of respondents from the New-Takoradi Community. it

also covers the seven research questions: how community participation

contributes to water and sanitation projects effectiveness, factors and strategies

influencing participation in collective action, sectors and agencies that have

programmes involving community participation, types of water and sanitation

programmes, key players and their roles in water and sanitation projects

management, scale/coverage level of the programmes, the importance, challenges

and way forward associated with their participation.

Demographic characteristics of respondents

This section discusses the bio-data of respondents from New-Takoradi

Community. The sex analysis from households indicate that 167 (60.1%) were

males whiles 111 (39.9%) were females as shown in Table 1. This skewedness

implies that more males got selected in the study than females. Although the

national statistics suggests that female population is more than their male

counterpart, the study however shows that, the males are more than females in

this study. This is due to the fact that, the males are the household heads who take

decisions pertaining to community issues such as water and sanitation (Koomson,

2008).

Table 1: Sex of the respondent

Sex Frequency Percentage

Male 167 60.1

Female 111 39.9

Total 278 100.0

Source: Fieldwork, 2010

Age of respondents

Majority of the respondents chosen for the study were 18 years or older.

They were those who could make decision about community participation in

water and sanitation projects and sustainability in New-Takoradi. From the study,

-25 while 22 (7.9%) are

older than 40 years as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Age of respondents

Age Frequency Percentage

17 & below 29 10.4

18-25 100 36.0

26-35 72 25.9

36-45 55 19.8

46-55 22 7.9

Total 278 100.0

Occupation

The Occupational distribution shows that 138(49.6%) of the respondents

were employed, while 85 (30.6%) were unemployed as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Occupation of respondents

Occupation Frequency Percentage

Employed 138 49.6

Unemployed 85 30.6

Pensioners 14 5.0

Students 30 10.8

No respond 11 4.0

Total 278 100.0Source: Fieldwork, 2010

Educational level

The educational background of the respondents suggest that 77 (27.7%)

had senior high school and vocational qualification, 74(26.6%) had primary and

junior high schools qualification and 75 (27.0%) were tertiary graduates as

indicated in Table 4. The fact that majority of the respondents have had high level

education; suggest that there was the likelihood of high participation in

communal project in relation to those who were not educated. The basis of this

argument is that it is assumed that literate people are more discerning and that

may be willing to participate in such activities. This agrees with Rahman (1999),

study which noted that, education has always played a crucial role in the society

as it disseminates knowledge, provides necessary skills, and helps in forming

attitudes, which is critical in generating a process of participation.

Table 4: Educational level of respondents

Education Frequency Percentage

Primary/ JHS/Middle 74 26.6

SHS/Vocational/Technical 77 27.7

Post-secondary 45 16.2

Tertiary(University/Polytechnic) 75 27

Others 6 2.2

None 1 0.3

Total 278 100.0

Source: Fieldwork, 2010

Religious affiliation

Regarding religious affiliation, responses analysed suggest that 203

(73.0%) are Christians, while 64 (23.0%) represent Muslims. Other religions

constitute 7(2.5%) and those who did not respond constitute 4 (1.4%) as

demonstrated in Table 5. The implication is that, once the majority of the

respondents were Christian. There was the likelihood for poor participation in the

community programmes, if organized on Sundays. However, if the programmes

were held on Saturdays, and Tuesdays the turnout would be high. This was

because majority of them were Christians who worship on Sundays.

Table 5: Religious affiliation

Religion Frequency Percentage

Christianity 203 73.0

Muslims 64 23.0

Others 7 2.5

No respond 4 1.5

Total 278 100.0

Source: Field work, 2010

Community participation in water and sanitation projects management

The study sought to find out participation would result to

project sustainability. Hence research question one was on: how does community

participation leads to water and sanitation projects effectiveness. To answer this

question, items 1- 9 in the interview scheduled were used.

Awareness of community participation in water and sanitation projects

From the study, (99.3%) representing 276 had heard about the community

participation projects or programmes that had to do with water and sanitation. The

main channel through which they received the information was through social

contacts, particularly friends. Two persons (7%) did not hear about them as shown

in Table 6. The reasons mentioned were poor publicity and communication.

Types of projects heard about

There were mixed response on the types of projects or programmes they

heard about. 87 (31.3%) indicated toilet block, 80 (28.8%) mentioned water

reservoir, and 54 (19.4%) mentioned the activities of Zoom Lion as shown in

Table 7. This actually shows the extent to which the community attaches

importance to water and sanitation projects especially toilets. This may imply that

involving the community in the management of the toilets and water projects

would possibly lead to sustainability because of the degree of importance that the

people attach to water and sanitation project.

Table 6: Types of projects community participate in

Types of Projects Frequency Percentage

Toilet block 87 31.3

Pipe borne water 37 13.3

Water reservoir 80 28.8

Bole hole 2 .7

Refuse containers 11 4.0

Zoom lion activities 54 19.4

Others 7 2.5

Total 278 100.0

Community participation in water and sanitation projects

Regarding whether the community participates in the water and sanitation

project, 154 (55%) of the respondents indicated that, they participated and the

reasons given were project effectiveness, project efficiency, equity and

empowerment, whereas 123 (44.2%) said no as indicated in Table 8. These

clearly attest to the fact that, the community members participate in water and

sanitation projects for reasons of equity, effectiveness, efficiency and

empowerment so as to ensure sustainable development. This is in line with what

Narayan (1989) said, people participate for project effectiveness, empowerment

and equity.

Table 7: Community participation in water and sanitation projects

Respondents Frequency Percentage

Yes 154 55.4

No 123 44.2

No Respond 1 4

Total 278 100.0

Source: Field work, 2010

Reasons for non-participation

The reason cited for non-participation by sixty nine (24.8%) respondents

was poor education while twenty four (7.9%) cited cost as shown in Table 9. To

overcome this challenge, Steven & Jennifer (2002) conclude that, in order for

communities to play an active role in the policy making process, it is necessary

for their members to have access to resources. These resources include adequate

funding, government training programs, education, good leaders, and volunteers

to support the course and initiatives. However the New Takoradi community

tends to lack one or more of these resources, a situation which interferes with

their ability to effectively impact the policy-making process.

Table 8: Reasons for non-participation

Reasons Frequency Percentage

Poor education 69 24.8

Lack of time 22 7.9

Cost involved 12 4.3

Distance 56 20.1

Not applicable 84 30.2

No Respond 35 12.7

Total 278 100.0

Source: Field work, 2010

Sustainability of water and sanitation projects

There were mixed response on whether the water and sanitation projects

were viable and sustainable enough to meet the needs and wants of the

community. While one hundred and eighty nine (68%) of respondents said yes,

eighty nine (32.0%) said no. This actually shows the importance of

communication and education in participation to sustaining projects, especially

water and sanitation in deprived communities of developing countries. This

confirms Laur

participation in water and sanitation management will largely depend on

communication strategies, such as awareness raising campaigns to generate a

broad-based understanding of water and solid waste issues among community

members.

Unsustainability of water and sanitation projects

Eighty nine (32%) of the respondents who indicated that, water and

sanitation projects are not sustainable gave reasons as: non-involvement at all

levels and stages of project cycle, poor maintenance culture, and obsolete

equipment as shown in Table 9 0) study that

pointed out that most water and sanitation projects in developing countries are not

sustainable due to non-involvement of community members at different stage and

(2008), studies that, proposed a community participation model in which the

locals must be involved in all the four progressive stages for sustainable

development of coastal projects in Bangladesh.

Table 9: Reasons for unsustainability of project

Reasons Frequency Percentage

Non involvement 181 65

Poor maintenance culture 33 11.9

Obsolete equipment 11 4.0

Other 5 1.8

N/A 48 17.3

Total 278 100.0

The effects of community involvement on projects sustainability

As to whether involvement at all the stages of project life cycle will make

projects last longer, 244 (87%) of the respondents said yes, while 34 (12.2%) of

said no, as demonstrated in Table 10. This clearly indicates the importance of

New-Takoradi. For example in the Punjab District in India, participation of the

community from the identification stage, design, implementation, monitoring and

evaluation of the community water project led to its sustainability (Asian

Development Bank, 2003).

Table 10: The effects of community involvement on projects sustainability

Respondents Frequency Percentages

Yes 244 87.8

No 34 12.2

Total 278 100.0

Source: Field work, 2010

The contribution of community participation to projects effectiveness

Regarding how community participation contributes to project

effectiveness and sustainability. Majority of the respondents 255 (91.7%)

indicated involving the residents at all stages of project life cycle, and 1 (1.4%)

proper communication as shown in Table 11. This clearly demonstrates the need

for residents to be involved at all stages of the project life cycle for sustainable

development.

Table 11: Contribution of community participation to projects effectiveness

Reasons Frequency Percentage

Involvement at all stage of project lifecycle 255 91.5

Proper Education 13 4.7

Initiate Project that will benefit the community 3 3.2

Proper Communication 1 1.4

Total 278 100.0

Source: Field work, 2010

for beneficiary ownership and control of projects as an essential element for

establishing of project effectiveneness.

Factors and strategies influencing participation in collective action

The study sought to identify what factors and strategies influenced

participation in collective actions. Hence research question two was posed thus:

what factors and strategies influence participation in collective action? To answer

this question, item ten (10) in the interview schedule was used.

Respondents were asked to state factors that influenced participation

in water and sanitation in the community. The results suggest that 166 (59.7%)

respondents mentioned proper education, 77(27.7%) motivation, 29(10.4%)

proper education and motivation and 6(2.2%) remained silent as demonstrated in

Table 12. This implies that education and communication played a vital role in

influencing the community members to participate in projects. This assertion also

equate

and timely information and educating people about the development initiatives

and outlining a plan of action being critical in generating a process of

participation.

Table 12: Factors and strategies influencing participation in collective action

Factors Frequency Percentage

Proper education 166 59.7

Motivation 77 27.7

Proper education & motivation 29 10.4

No respond 6 2.2

Total 278 100.0

Source: Field work, 2010

Institutions and agencies in water and sanitation

The study sought to find out which sectors and agencies have programmes

involving community participation. Hence research question three was posed

thus: which sector and agencies have programmes involving community

participation? To answer this question, items 11 and 12 in the interview schedule

were used.

There were mixed response on whether the respondents had knowledge in

institution and agencies involved in water and sanitation in the New Takoradi.

While a few respondents 129 (46.4%) indicated their knowledge, the majority 145

(52.2%) did not know, and 4 (1.4) did not response as indicated in Table 13. The

few respondents who responded mentioned the agencies and sectors as CHF

Ghana Water Company Limited and Sekondi Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly

(STMA).

Table 13: Sectors and agencies in water and sanitation

Sectors & Agencies Frequency Percentage

GWC&CHF 120 43.2

Zoom lion & CODEPA 48 17.3

Sekondi Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly 6 2.2

No respond 44 15.7

Total 278 100.0

Source: Field work, 2010

Types of water and sanitation projects involving community participation

The study also sought to find out what types of water and sanitation

programmes had involved community participation. Hence research question four

was posed thus: What type of water and sanitation programmes that have mostly

involved community participation? To answer this question, items 13 and 14 in

the interview schedule were used.

With the types of water projects mostly involving community

participation, majority of them 117 (42.1%) mentioned water reservoir, 15 (5.4%)

mentioned water points, 106 (38.1%) mentioned communal water, 6 (6.1%)

mentioned mechanized devices as demonstrated in Table 16. With regard to

sanitation projects, the results suggest that 153 (55.0%) respondents indicated

communal latrine, 17(6.1%) mentioned household latrine, while 15 (15.4%)

indicated communal drainage as shown in Table 14. The fact that majority

mentioned water reservoir and latrine clearly indicate how the issues of water and

sanitation are important to the community members.

Table 14: Types of water projects mostly patronized by the community

Types Frequency Percentage

Communal water 106 38.1

Water kiosk 15 5.4

Borehole 17 6.1

Mechanized device 6 2.2

Water reservoir 117 42.1

Water purification 10 3.6

Others 3 1.1

N/R 4 1.4

Total 278 100.0

Source: Field work, 2010

Scale/ coverage of project that involves community participation

The study sought to ascertain the scale or the coverage level of the

projects and programmes. Hence research question five was posed thus: what is

the scale or the coverage level of the project or programmes? To answer this

question, items 15 and 16 in the interview guide were used.

Table 15: Types of sanitation projects

Types Frequency Percentage

Communal latrine 153 55

House hold latrine 17 6.1

Garbage collection points 67 24.1

Septic tank 15 .4

Communal drainage 15 5.4

N/R 11 4.0

Total 278 100.0

Source: Field work, 2010

Knowledge of scale/coverage of projects in the community

The knowledge of coverage level of projects has direct relation with

participation and sustainability. Of the respondents interviewed, 129(46.4%)

strongly indicated their knowledge, 148 (53.2%) said no and 1(.4%) did not

indicate as noted in Table 16. With regard to the scale/coverage of the project and

those who directly or indirectly benefit from it, majority of the respondents 106

(38.1%) mentioned the entire community as shown in Table 19. This implies that,

to a very large extent the community benefits from the project. This in essence

could be explained that the project affects the lives of the people in a positive

way.

Table 16: Knowledge of projects in the community

Respondents Frequency Percentage

Yes 129 46.4

No 148 53.2

No respond 1 .4

Total 278 100.0

Source: Field work, 2010

Table 17: Scale/coverage level of project in the community

Respondents Frequency Percentage

Benefits whole community 106 38.1

Some section of community 20 7.2

Benefits opinion leaders only 6 2.2

Benefits NGOs/CBOs only 4 1.4

Benefits elected representatives 100 36.0

Others 1 .4

No respond 41 14.7

Total 278 100.0

Source: Field work, 2010

Key players involved in water and sanitation management and assessment

The study sought to identify the key players and their roles in water and

sanitation projects management and assessment. Hence, research question six was

posed thus: who are the key players involved contributing to water and sanitation

projects management? To answer this question, items 17 - 30 in the interview

schedule were used. There were mixed responses on whether they had the

knowledge of key people involved in water and sanitation projects in New

Takoradi. The results show that, 139 (50%) of the respondents indicated their

knowledge, while 139 (50%) said they did not know. The key people mentioned

were the Assembly member, Chiefs, Opinion leaders and women group and

NGOs as demonstrated in Table 18.

Table 18: Key players involved in water and sanitation

Key players Frequency Percentage

NGOs/CBOs/Women group 124 44.6

Assembly member/Chiefs/Opinion leaders 154 54.3

Others 3 1.1

Total 278 100.0

Source: Field work, 2010

Women participation

As to whether women participated in water and sanitation projects in the

community, the results suggest that, 240 (86.3%) said yes, 37 (13.3%) said no and

1(.4%) did not respond. On whether their numbers were more than the men,188

(67.6%) said no, 87 (31.3%) said yes and 3(1.1%) did not indicate. The reasons

given were, work load, poor publicity, marginalization and ignorance. Closely

related to that, is whether it was necessary for women to be involved in water

and sanitation projects in the community, interestingly while 224(80.6%) said yes,

54(19.4%) said no. The reasons ascribed for this was culture in nature. However,

the reasons given for their involvements were, they are the prime users and also

ensured good projects management.

NGOs Involvement

Regarding Non-Governmental Organizations and Community Based

Organisations operating in the community. It emerged from the interview that

about eight NGOs and COBs existed and operated in the community. It also

emerged that, the organizations had supported the community with capacity

building, educational materials and technical assistance. Majority of the

respondents pointed out that, it is necessary for NGOs to participate in water and

sanitation projects, for they are the catalyst for community development and

capacity building of the residents. This is in lin

which noted that, NGOs play a key role since they work directly with the

community in the neighborhoods and can assist most effectively in the

implementation of the projects.

The importance, challenges and the way forward to community participation

The study sought to determine the importance, challenges and the way

forward associated with participation. Hence research question seven was posed

thus: what are the importance, challenges and way forward to participation? To

answer this question, items 31 -33 in the interview questionnaires were used.

The importance of community participation

Majority of the respondents 276 (99.3%) indicated that community

participation was importance in water and sanitation projects, for reasons of

sustainability 161 (57.9%) and community ownership 25 ( 9.0%) as shown in

Table 19, while 2 (7%) disagreed. This clearly shows how involvement can result

to sustainability of projects in the community. As pointed out by Laura, (2000),

for projects to have a continuing impact, community participation is a

precondition and this entails involving the community at different stages and

degrees of intensity in the project cycle.

Table 19: Reasons why community participation is important

Reasons Frequency Percentage

Sustainability 161 57.9

Project management 90 32

Community ownership 25 9.0

No respond 2 7

Total 278 100.0

Source: Field work, 2010

The challenges and way forward to community participation

The results indicate that 176 (63.3%) mentioned the challenges as poor

education and communication while 86(30.9%) mentioned distance, cost and lack

of time as shown in Table 22. It emerged from the interview that communication

among the residents, NGOs and STMA was not too good. All of the stakeholders

admitted that, there was little communication among them except when there was

a project to be implemented in the community. To this end, all agreed on the need

to increase the level of communication, consultation, education, and sensitization

in order to enhance the participatory process.

Other findings from key informants such as the planning officer, the waste

management officer of Sekondi Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly, the Assembly

member of New Takoradi community, and three project officers of Non-

governmental organizations operating in the community are discussed below.

and sustainability

STMA has agreed that, it has somewhat excluded the residents from

decision making processes for the past 9 years. The reasons they assigned for this

exclusion differ somewhat. All the respondents cited ineffective communication

that impeded full participation of the community in projects management.

Table 20: Challenges to community participation

Challenges Frequency Percentages

Poor education & communication 176 63.3

Distance, cost and lack of time 86 30.9

No respond 13 4.7

Not applicable 3 1.1

Total 278 100.0

Source: Field work, 2010

Other key findings

Information sharing mechanisms

The main channel by which information is disseminated in the community

is both official and unofficial, 2(66.7%) mentioned the unofficial means as friends

and social contacts whiles 1(33.3%) mentioned the official means through the

STMA mobile van, community forum, Assembly member engagement with the

community and the use of community announcement public address system as

shown in Table 23. It is significant to know that some of the community

members, who are aware of the participatory activities in the community, neither

knew where and when the programme took place. Therefore, the results were not

surprising.

Table 21: STMA information sharing mechanisms

Respondents Frequency Percentage

Official means 1 33.3

Unofficial means 2 66.7

Total 3 100.0

Source: Field work, 2010

Institutions and agencies in water and sanitation

On the issues of institutions and agencies in water and sanitation, the study

suggests that STMA had a good working relation with all the institutions and

agencies in water and sanitation projects in the community. The institutions and

agencies mentioned were Ghana Water Company Limited, CHF International,

Urban Environmental Sanitation Programme II, COLADEF, Peoples Dialogue

Ghana, Joint Action for Environment and Development (JAfED) and ZoomLion

Company Limited. The types of water and sanitation projects and programmes

mentioned were water kiosk, communal latrine, household latrine and garbage

collection and dumping points. The results also suggest that, the scale and the

coverage level of the projects was the entire community.

Projects sustainability

the key informants, on whether the projects were sustainable enough to meet the

needs and wants of the community. Two persons said yes, while one said no. The

reason given was non-involvement of the community by the Assembly. This to

some extent shows how non-involvement and ineffective communication could

stall project sustainability (Mathbor, 2008). Though it is difficult to pass judgment

on the responses of these three respondents because of their number however,

since majority, within the context of the study, had strongly agreed and few had

disagreed, there was the likelihood of projects sustainability to meet the needs and

wants of the community members.

Participation of key players and their roles in water and sanitation projects

The STMA admitted that, it is important for women to be involved in the

management of water and sanitation projects due to the role they played as prime

users and also contributed part of the maintenance cost of the facilities for

sustainable development.

need for women to be part of water and sanitation projects. This is because, for

many projects, women are often overlooked, while in many cases they are the

ones who have to take care of waste and therefore are most willing to participate.

STMA and NGOs relationship

Regarding STMA and NGOs relation, the STMA officials who were

interviewed mentioned that, STMA recognized the fact that a number of NGOs

acting in partnership with the community were involved in water and sanitation

projects for the past 9 years. The STMA pointed out that, there was the need for

regular interaction with the NGOs on quarterly basis to find out whether they

were really representing the interest of the community, although they had

extended some support to the community in areas such as capacity building,

educational materials and equipments and monitoring and evaluation to help

sustain the community projects. However due to budgetary constraints, there had

not been effective interaction among them.

Regarding how community participation could contribute to projects

sustainability, the Assembly indicated the need to involve community members at

all stages of the projects lifecycle. By way of information sharing on the relevance

of the project, contributing part of the project cost and making the community

owed and control the projects. The Assembly and the NGOs had also agreed to

frequently interact with each other quarterly and whenever there was project to be

implemented in the community. This was in line with what the study is aimed at

achieving so that, it could ensure sustainability of the projects.

project for the past 9 years

All the organizations interviewed indicated that, they have been involved

in community level water and sanitation projects for the past 9 years. However,

the length and period of involvement ranges from 3-5 years, 6-10 years and 10

years beyond. The programmes of involvement cited were communal latrine,

individual latrine, garbage collection point, house to house refuse collection,

water kiosk, water reservoir, stand pipes and capacity building on sanitation

education. All of the three organizations indicated that, their programme covers

the entire community. However, the duration of the programmes varied based on

the type of project being implemented. For example, the duration of the Slum

Communities Achieving Livable Environment with Urban Partners (SCALE-UP)

Project, funded by CHF International was 3 years, Youth Enterprise Service

Delivery Project (YES) was 2 years and JAfED/SNV Sanitation and Capacity

building project was 5 years. The organizations also indicated that they had

involved the community members in their programmes during the period and

areas of involvement mentioned were clean-up campaign, capacity building and

community development dialogue with the Assembly. On the issue of frequency

of involvement, they mentioned quarterly and the mode of consultation was

through meetings in schools, churches and community forums.

Effects of the community non-involvement in

There were mixed responses on whether they supported the view that the

non- involvement of the community in most of the programmes, may have

contributed to the unsustainability of the water and sanitation projects. While two

organizations indicated that they strongly agreed, one organization strongly

disagreed and the reason given was negative attitude of the community. Whether

a more comprehensive participation of stakeholders could enhance water and

sanitation projects sustainability, two organizations strongly agreed and one

organization strongly disagreed and the reasons given were behavioral in nature.

Regarding the issue of collaboration and activities of other NGOs in the

community, all of the organizations indicated that, they were aware of others

activities and they collaborated with them fully. However, it was not clear the

areas of collaboration. The NGOs mentioned were CODEPA, Friends of the

(PD), Joint Action for Environmental Development (JAfED) and CHF

International. One of the NGOs interviewed indicated that there was a platform

where they and the STMA met and share ideas on a monthly basis, however two

NGOs, strongly disagreed. The lack of effective platform for sharing ideas

among the STMA and NGOs risked hampered the process of effective

(1990) study that when there is no collaboration between the stakeholders,

effective participation and sustainable development is hampered. This is because

the organizations play a key role since they work directly with the community in

the neighborhoods and can assist most effectively in the implementation of the

projects.

Community participation contribution to project sustainability

All the NGOs interviewed pointed out the need to involve community

members at all stages of the projects lifecycle. By way of information sharing on

the project and making the community to contribute part of the project and

ownership. Further, they also indicated the need to frequently interact with the

community quarterly and whenever there was a project to be implemented for

sustainable development. This finding is in line with the Asian Development

Bank, (2003) study on community participation in water projects in Punjab

District in India. The participation of the community from the identification stage,

design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the community water

project led to its sustainability.

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

This chapter provides the summary, conclusions and recommendations in

relation to the objectives and research questions of the study. The chapter has

been organized into four sections. Section one dealt with the introduction of the

study, two with the summary, three dealt with conclusions and four dealt with the

recommendations.

Summary

The study sought to determine whether participation sustains water and

sanitation projects in the community. This is because participation in water and

sanitation projects in the New-Takoardi community has not been effective enough

to sustain the projects. As a result, water and sanitation projects were found

abandoned and had operation and maintenance problems.

Descriptive research design was used to collect data to answer the research

questions formulated. A sample size of 278 was chosen from the target

households of thousand (1000) in the community using Sarandakos table for the

determination of sample size. The study also made use of key informants such as

NGOs project officers and the Sekondit Takoradi Assembly officials.

Regarding research question one; it was revealed that ninety one point

seven per cent (91.7%) indicated that involving the residents at all the stages of

project life cycle would contribute to projects effectiveness and sustainability.

Research question two also revealed that, proper education was a key factor and

strategy influencing participation in collective action. With research question

three, it came out that majority of the people did not know the sectors and

agencies involved in water and sanitation. The few people who knew, mentioned

ODEPA,

Zoom Lion Company Limited, Ghana Water Company Limited and Sekondi

Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly (STMA)

Research question four also revealed that water reservoirs and communal

latrine were the types of water and sanitation projects mostly involving

community participation. With regard to research question five, it came out that,

the scale and the coverage levels of the projects were found to be the whole

community. In other words the whole community benefited from the projects.

Research question six revealed that, the key players involved in water and

sanitation projects management and assessment were the Assembly member,

chiefs and opinion leaders, women group, NGOs and CBOs.

Research question seven also revealed that sustainability was the most

important reason why community members participated in water and sanitation

projects. The challenges and reasons that deterred them from participating were

poor education, communication, distance, cost and lack of time. On the way

forward, all the stakeholders had agreed that, there was the need to increase the

level of communication, consultation, education, and sensitization in order to

enhance the participatory process.

Conclusions

The study assessed the role of community participation in water and

sanitation projects management for sustainable development in the New Takoradi

community. It is evident from the findings so far obtained in research question

one that, involving the residents at all stages of project life cycle would contribute

to projects effectiveness and sustainability.

Secondly, proper education was found to be a key factor in influencing

participation in collective action as inferred in research question two.

Thirdly, majority of them did not know the institutions and agencies

involved in water and sanitation. The few who knew, mentioned the institutions

and agencies as CHF International, CODEPA, Ghana Water Company Limited

and Zoom Lion Company Limited among others.

The implication is that, only the few people who were aware of the

institutions and agencies in water and sanitation were most likely to participate in

relation to the majority who did not know. This would no doubt impede

sustainability of the projects. Also, it is evident from the findings that, water

reservoir and communal latrine were the community participation projects mostly

patronized by residents, when the research question four was posed. This clearly

demonstrates the importance the community members have for water reservoirs

and communal latrines, as such there was the likelihood of those projects being

sustained than other projects in the community. From the finding of research

question five, it came out that, the scale and coverage of the project was the entire

community. This implies that, the water and sanitation projects were put there to

benefit the whole community. There was the likelihood that all members of the

community would support the management and sustainability of the projects.

On research question six, the key players involved in water and sanitation

projects were mentioned as chiefs, opinion leaders, and Assembly member,

NGOs, CBOs and women groups. This implies that, the opinion leaders, the

chiefs, the women group and the NGOs would lead the process of mobilizing the

community members for development programmes.

On research question seven, sustainability was mentioned as the important

reason for community participation. This implies that, if the community members

were involved in the planning, implementation, monitoring and the benefit shared

of the projects, it would lead to sustainability of projects. Some few challenges

such as distance, cost, lack of time and poor education and communication were

mentioned. To overcome the challenges, all the stakeholders agreed to increase

the level of communication, consultation, education, and sensitization in order to

enhance the participatory process in the New-Takoradi Community.

Recommendations

From the research findings, it appears community participation and

sustainable development can provide solutions to water and sanitation projects

management. The researcher therefore makes the following recommendations:

If STMA, NGOs and the CBOs operating in the community involves the

community members at all stages of the project life cycle, it would

contribute to projects effectiveness and sustainability. These stages are: 1,

Information, Education, and Planning Stage; 2, Implementation,

Coordination, and Monitoring Stage; 3, Ownership and Control Stage and

4, Feedback Stage.

There is the need for NGOs, CBOs and the STMA to do effective

education and sensitization about the essence of participation to enable the

residents participate fully at the right time and at the right place. This is

because one of the major outcomes of the study was that, information

usually reaches the community informally through social contacts, friends,

and relatives. There is therefore the need for STMA to institutionalize

their information sharing system, either through the mobile van,

community public address systems or house to house announcement.

There is also the need for education and sensitization on the institutions

and agencies in water and sanitation in the community so that residents

would be aware and participate fully. There is also the need for project

proponents to educate and sensitize the community on the need to sustain

the projects for future generations.

Civil society should advocate and institutionalized the use of communal

latrine and water reservoir as community participation concept in all water

and sanitation projects in the community.

There is the need to involve the community members at all stages of the

project for empowerment, equity, effectiveness and efficiency reasons in

order to sustain the projects.

REFERENCES

Asian Development Bank, (2003). Water and poverty, fighting poverty through

water management, background paper for the UMP workshop in Ittingen

10-12 April 1995. Gouda.

Arnstein, S. R.(1969). "A Ladder of Citizen Participation," JAIP, Vol. 35 (4),

216-224.

Brundtland Commission, (1987). Our common future, Oxford: Oxford University

Press. UK.

Best, J. W. (1981). Research in education. Operations research methods. Beverly

Hills: Sage Publications

Baud, I. (1999). Alliances in urban environmental management: a search for

indicators and contributions to sustainability (draft report). Amsterdam:

AGIDS/UWEP, civil society or reinforcing the status quo?

Environment andd Urbanization, 7

Cleaver, F. (1999). Paradoxes of participation: Questioning participatory

approach to development. Journal of International Development 11(4),

597-612.

Cohen, J. M, and Uphoff, N. T. (1977). Rural development participation: concepts

and measures for project design, implementation and evaluation. Rural

Development Monograph (2). Ithaca: Rural Development Committee

Center for International Studies, Cornell University.

Dublin Declaration (1992). The Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable

Development. International Conference on Water and Environment. UN

Document. Dublin, Ireland.

Environment Canada. (1996). Standing committee on environment and

sustainable development. Ottawa: Public Works and Government

Services.

Finsterbusch, K. W and Wincklin, V. (1987). The contribution of beneficiary

participation to development project effectiveness. Public Administration

and Development 7,1-23.

Garilao, E. (1987). Indigenous NGOs as strategic institutions: Managing the

relationship with government and resource agencies. World Development

15, 113-121.

Ghai, D. and Hewitt de. A. (1990). The crisis of the 1980s in Sub-Saharan Africa,

Latin America and the Caribbean: Economic impact, social change and

political implications. Development and Change 2 (1), 3a, 89-426.

Geenhuizen, M. V. and Nijkamp. P. (1995). Sustainable cities: Challenges of an

integrated planning approach. Amsterdam: VU.

Gugerty, M. K. and Kremer. M. (2000). Outside funding of community

organizations: Benefiting or displaying the poor? Working Paper 7896.

Cambridge: National Bureau for Economic Research.

Gustavo, D. (1993). Participación: Tutelaje o autonomía En. Taller de análisis

sobre dificultades de la planificación participativa, Alcaldía de Santiago de

Cali.

Hardoy, J.E. Mitlin. D. and Satterthwaite. D. (1992). Environmental problems in

Third World cities. London: Earthscan.

Hart, M. (1999).Guide to sustainable community indicators, 2nd ed. North

Andover, MA: Hart Environmental Data.

Joint Action for Environmental Development. Annual Report, (2002). Annual

progress report on water and sanitation. Unpublished report. New-

Takoradi.

Kendie, S. B. and Martens, P. (edit) (2008). Governance and sustainable

development, Cape Coast: Marcel Hughes Publication Group.

Khwaja, A. I. (2001). Can good projects succeed in bad communities? Collective

action in the Himalayas. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.

Kleemeier, E. (2000). The impact of participation on sustainability: An analysis of

the Malawi Rural Piped Scheme Programme. World Development 28(5),

929-44.

Klundert, A. Van de and Lardinois. I. (1995). Community and private (formal

and informal) sector involvement in municipal solid waste management in

developing countries: Background paper for the UMP workshop in

Ittingen. Gouda. Netherland.

Koomson, K. (2008). The role of community members in project management.

Seminar Paper prepared for community interface programme with the

Assembly. New Takoradi.Ghana.

Korten, D. (1987). Community organization and rural development: learning

process approach. Public Administration Review (September-October):

480-511.

Laura, M. (2000). Community participation in solid waste management: factors

favoring the sustainability of community participation. Urban Waste

Environmental Programme Occasional Paper.

Martyn, S. (2008). Survey research design. Retrieved from experiment resources:

http://www.experiment-resources.com/survey-research-design.html

Date retrieved: 24th January 2010.

Mathbor, G. M. (2008). Effective community participation in coastal development

Chicago, Illinois: Lyceum Books.

Mitlin, D. and Satterthwaite. D. (1994). Cities and sustainable development.

Background paper prepared for Global Forum. London: International

Institute for Environment and Development.

Mitlin, D. and Thompson. J. (1995). Participatory approaches in urban areas:

Strengthening preparedness for global forum London: Kogan Press.

Moser, C.O.N. (1989). Community participation in urban projects in the Third

World in, Progress in Planning, 32 (2), 73-133.

Moser, C. and Kalton. G. (1971). Survey methods in social investigation.

London: London Press.

Mosse, D. (1997). The symbolic making of a common property resource: History,

ecology and locality in tank-irrigated landscape in South India,

Development and Change, 28 (3).

Mugo, F. (2000). Social research methods. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon

Publishing.

Narayan, D. (1986). Toward participatory research. World Bank technical paper

(307). Washington D.C: World Bank.

Narayan, D. (1996). The c

121 rural water supply projects. Environmentally sustainable development

Occasional Paper Series (1). Washington, DC.

Nordic Freshwater Initiative (1991). Copehagen Report. Implementation

Mechanisms for integrated Water Resources Development and

Management. Background document for the UN Conference on

Environment and Development, Nordic Freshwater Initiative, Copehagen.

Pal, M. (1998). Taking sustainability from policy to practice: bringing poverty

concerns into the project cycle. Development and Practice, 8 (4), 454-465.

Paul, S. (1987). Community participation in development projects: the World

Bank experience. World Bank Discussion Papers (6). Washington: The

World Bank

tion Report (2007). Peoples' dialogue on

human settlement. Unpublished report. New-Takoradi.

Peoples' dialogue on human

settlement. Unpublished report. New-Takoradi.

Picciotto, R. (1992). Participatory development: Myths and dilemmas.

Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Rahman, A. (1999). Micro-credit initiatives for equitable and sustainable

development: Who pays? World Development Journal, 27(1): 67-82.

Robinson, J. (2004). Developing effective policies for sustainable development,

Ecological Economics, 48 (4), 369-384.

Roseubaum, W. P. (1993). The Secretariat of university presidents for a

sustainable future design and planning, London: Crisp Publications.

Sarantakos, S. (1993). Social research. London: Macmillan Press.

Sheng, Y. K. (1992). Community participation in low-income housing projects:

problems and prospects' Community Development Journal. 25 (1): 56-65

Stanners, D. and Bourdeau, P. (eds.) (1995)

assessment. London: Earthscan.

Steven, D. and Jennifer. T. (2002). Challenges and barriers to community

participation in policy development. Rural communities impacting policy

Project. Atlantic Health Promotion Research Centre.

Triche, T. A. (1990). Private participation in the delivery of Guinea's water

supply services. WPS 477. Water and Sanitation, Infrastructure, and

Urban Development Department, Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

United Nations (1991). Human settlements development through community

participation report. Nairobi: UNCHS- Habitat.

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992). Chapter

18. Protection of the quality and supply of fresh water resources. In:

Agenda 21.United Nations Conference on Environment and Development,

Geneva.

Webster, M. (1985). Webster`s ninth new collegiate dictionary. London: Merriam

- Webster Inc

Whyte, A. (1986). Guidelines for planning community participation activities in

water supply and sanitation projects. WHO Offset Publication (96).

Geneva.

WWF, IUCN, UNEP. (2002). World conservation strategy: Living resource

conservation for sustainable development, Gland, Switzerland.

APPENDICES

Appendix A (Cover letter)

Dear Sir/Madam, Habib Abubakar is a final year MA. Governance and

Sustainable Development (GSD) Student of the Institute for Development Studies

(IDS), University of Cape Coast Ghana. He is carrying out this study in partial

and Sustainable Development. The purpose is to determine whether participation

sustains water and sanitation projects in the New-Takoradi community. I shall be

grateful if you would complete the questionnaire to the best of your ability. Your

confidentiality is fully assured as the results are only for academic purpose.

Thank you in advance for your co-operation and understanding.

Appendix B

Interview schedule for New-Takoradi households

and Sustainability

1. Have you heard about any community participation programme/projects that

had to do with water and sanitation in the community?

2. If yes to 12 above, what type/s of community participation programme/projects

did you hear about? (a) Toilet Block (a) Pipe borne water, (c) Water reservoir(d)

Bore hole(e) Refuse container (f) Zoom Lion House to House collection (g)

3. Do you participate in water and sanitation projects in the community?

? (a) Poor education (a) lack of

time(c) cost involved (d) marginalized (e) distance (f) others, please

5. How in your view can community participation contributes to water and

6. Do you think the projects are sustainable enough to meet the community needs

and wants?

7. If no to 16 above, what do you think is the main reasons? (a) Non involvement

of community members in the management of the project (b) poor maintenance

8. Do you think by involving the community members in managing the projects

would make them last longer?

9. If no to 18 above, what do you think should be done to make the projects

su

10. In your view, what are the factors that will influence community members to

participate in community projects.............................................................................

11. Do you know of any sector and agencies that have project/programme

12. If yes to 21 above, mention two (2) sectors

13. What is the type of water projects/programmes involving community

participation most in the community? (a) Communal water supply (b)Water

point/kiosk (c) Borehole with hand pump(d) Well with mechanized device (e)

Water reservoir (f) Water purification (g)

14. What is the type of sanitation projects/programmes involving community

participation most in the community? (a) Communal latrine (b) Individual latrine

for each household (c) Garbage collection points (d) Septic tank (e) communal

drainage system (f) Others

15. Do you know the scale and coverage level of the projects/programmes that

16. If yes to 25 above, what is the coverage level? (a) The whole community (b)

Some section of community (c) Benefit opinion leaders only (d) Benefits CBOs

(e) Benefits elected representatives only (f) Others

17. Do you know of any key people involved in water and sanitation projects that

can best contribute to planning and assessment?.......................................................

19. Do women participate in water and sanitation projects/programmes in the

community?

20. If yes to 29 above, do their numbers exceed the men?

22. Do you think is necessary and important for women to be involved in water

23. If yes to 32 above, why?......................................................................................

24. Do you have CBOs, NGOs and other CSOs operating in the

community?..............

25. If yes to question 34 above, how many are they in this community?..................

27. Do you think the CBOs and the NGOs have been efficient in representing you

29. Do you think it is necessary and important for NGOs and CBOs to participate

30. If yes why............................................................................................................

31. Mention three reasons why community participation in water and sanitation

projects is

32. Mention three reasons that deters you from participating in water and

sanitation

33. Mention three solutions to improve community participation in future

33. Sex (a) Male (b) Female

35. Occupation (a) Employees job (b) Self employed (c) Unemployed (d)

36. Educational Level Attained, Please Tick. (a) Elementary( Primary, JHS,

Middle) (b)SHS/Vocational/Technical(c)Post Secondary (d) Tertiary( University,

Polytechnic) (e) Others, please

37. Religious Affiliation, Please Tick. (a) Christianity (b) Islam(c) Traditional (d)

Appendix C

Key informants questionnaire to STMA and elected representatives

-Takoradi Community in Water and

Sanitation Projects Management and its Sustainability

Please tick where necessary and write or state brief answers or responsewhere necessary

1. Has the STMA and its elected representatives been involving the New-

Takoradi Community in water and sanitation projects/programmes for the past

nine years? (a)Yes (b) No

2. If yes, mention the programmes/projects you have involved them?

4. Does the STMA and its elected representatives interact and communicate with

the New- Takoradi Community on water and sanitation projects? (a)Yes (b) No

5. If yes to 4 above, what is the frequency of such communication? (a) Once in

year (b) Once in a month(c) Once in a week (d) daily (e) when there is a project

6. How does the STMA and its elected representatives share information to the

New-Takoradi Community? (a) Official, through STMA Mobile Van, Community

Forum and use of Local Mega phone (b) Unofficial through friends, relatives and

social contacts

7. Does the STMA and its elected representatives know of any sector and

agencies that have project/programme involving water and sanitation in the

community? (a)Yes (b) No

9. What are the types of water projects/programmes involving community

participation most in the community? (a) Communal water supply (b)Water

point/kiosk (c) Borehole with hand pump(d) Well with mechanized device (e)

10. What are the types of sanitation projects/programmes involving community

participation most in the community? (a) Communal latrine (b) Individual latrine

for each household (c) Garbage collection points (d) Septic tank (e) communal

11. What is the coverage level of the projects/programmes that involves

community participation in the locality? (a) The whole community (b) some

section of community (c)

Benefits opinion leaders (d) Benefits CBOs (e) Benefits elected representatives (f)

12. Do you think the projects are sustainable enough to meet the community

13. If no to 12 above, what do you think is the main reasons? (a) Non involvement

of community members in the management of the project (b) poor maintenance

14. Do you think by involving the community members in managing the projects

would make the projects/programmes last longer? (a)Yes (b) No

15. If no to 14 above, what do you think should be done to make the projects

16. In your opinion what is the current level of involvement in projects between

the STMA and the community? (a) Very low (b) low (c) satisfactory (d) high (e)

very high

17. What do you think are the factors that will influence community members to

participate in projects................................................................................................

18. Do you think is necessary and important for women to be involve in water and

sanitation projects/programmes in the community? (a)Yes (b) No

20. Do you have CBOs, NGOs and other CSOs operating in the community?

(a)Yes (b) No

21. If yes to question 18 above, how many are they in the community? Please

name them

22. Do you interact regularly with them? (a)Yes (b) No

23. Do you think the CBOs and the NGOs have been efficient in assisting the

community programmatically? (a)Yes (b) No

24. If yes to 23 above, mention the kinds of assistance, duration and the coverage

level

25. Does the STMA and the NGOs have a forum within which they meet and

exchange ideas on a regular basis? (a)Yes (b) No

26. If yes, how often does it take place?...................................................................

27. How in your view can community participation contributes to sustainability of

27. Gender (a) Male (b) Female

29. Occupation (a) Employees job (b) Self employed (c) Unemployed (d) Others,

30. Educational Level Attained, Please Tick. (a) Elementary ((Primary, JHS,

Middle) (b) SHS/Vocational/Technical(c) Post Secondary (d) Tertiary

(University, Polytechnic) (e) Others, please spe

31. Religious Affiliation, Please Tick. (a) Christianity (b) Islam(c) Traditional (d)

Appendix D

Key informants questionnaire for NGOs and CBOs operating in the New-Takoradi Community

Management and Delivery to ensure Sustainability.

Please tick where necessary and write or state brief answers correspondswhere necessary

1. Has your organization been involved in community level water and sanitation

programmes at the New Takoradi Community within the past nine years? (a)Yes

(b) No

2. If yes to 1 above, for how long has your organization been involved in such

programmes? Can you please cite some examples of these programmes?

3. Does your organization support the New Takoradi Community with financial

and technical assistance towards water and sanitation projects during the period?

(a)Yes (b) No

4. If yes to 1 above, mention some of the assistance

5. What is the coverage level of the assistance? (a) Entire community (b) Some

section of the community (c) Only CBOs (d) Only elected representatives (e)

Only tradional author

6. What is the duration of the assistance (a) One month (b) Six months (c) One

7. Does your organization involve the Community in its water and sanitation

programming during the period? (a)Yes (b) No

8. If yes, mention the programmes/projects you have involved them?

9. What is the frequency of involvement? (a) Weekly (a) Monthly (c) Quarterly

10. How does your organization, consult and inform the community about water

and sanitation projects? Please mention five (5) ways..............................................

11. In your opinion, do you support the view that, the non-involvement of the

community may have contributed to the unsustainability of water and sanitation

projects in the community? (a) Strongly agree (b) Agree (c) Strongly disagree (c)

disagree

12. Do you think that a more comprehensive participation of stakeholders could

enhance water and sanitation projects sustainability? (a) Strongly agree (b) Agree

(c) Strongly disagree (c) disagree

13. Is your organization aware of the activities of other Non-Governmental

Organizations in the community? (a)Yes (b) No

14. If yes to 13 above, could you please name a few of such

NGOs?............................................................................................................

14. What is the level of cooperation between your organization and the other

NGOs? (a) Satisfactory (b) Unsatisfactory (c) fair (d) poor

15. Is there a platform on which your organization, the other NGOs and the

STMA meet and exchange ideas on a regular basis? (a)Yes (b) No. If yes, refer to

17. How in your view can community participation contributes to sustainability of

17. Gender (a) Male (b) Female

19. Occupation (a) Employees job (b) Self employed (c) Unemployed (d)

20. Educational Level Attained, Please Tick. (a) Elementary ((Primary, JHS,

Middle)

(b) SHS/Vocational/Technical(c) Post Secondary (d) Tertiary (University,

21. Religious Affiliation, Please Tick. (a) Christianity (b) Islam(c) Traditional (d)

Buy your books fast and straightforward online - at one of world’s

fastest growing online book stores! Environmentally sound due to

Print-on-Demand technologies.

Buy your books online at

www.get-morebooks.com

Kaufen Sie Ihre Bücher schnell und unkompliziert online – auf einer

der am schnellsten wachsenden Buchhandelsplattformen weltweit!

Dank Print-On-Demand umwelt- und ressourcenschonend produzi-

ert.

Bücher schneller online kaufen

www.morebooks.deVDM Verlagsservicegesellschaft mbH

Heinrich-Böcking-Str. 6-8 Telefon: +49 681 3720 174 info@vdm-vsg.deD - 66121 Saarbrücken Telefax: +49 681 3720 1749 www.vdm-vsg.de