Water Resour Manage (2010) 24:3333–3348

DOI 10.1007/s11269-010-9609-9

Water Management, Rainwater Harvesting

and Predictive Variables in Rural Households

David Baguma · Willibald Loiskandl · Helmut Jung

Received: 20 June 2009 / Accepted: 3 February 2010 /

Published online: 18 February 2010
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract Water management in rural domestic households plays an important role

in reducing water-related health risks. This study was conducted to examine the re-
lationships between the dependent variable (rural domestic rainwater management)
and the independent predictive variables (personal characteristics, tank size, years of
water harvest, rainwater harvesting associations, usage instructions including water
borne health risk, and tank operation and maintenance) in Uganda. Logistic regres-
sion techniques were used on a random sample of 301 respondents to ascertain the
influence of predictive variables on rural domestic rainwater management. Analyses
of the hypothesised relationship revealed three statistically significant results: years
of water harvest, rainwater harvesting associations and usage instructions. Overall,
the findings suggest that consideration of usage instructions including waterborne
health risks, years of harvest, and local water associations, will improve domestic
water management, in combination with progressive measures focused on water
quality and quantity. Moreover, medical expenses and time spent in hospitals or
health dispensaries will be minimised and saved through utilisation of usage instruc-
tions. Experienced harvesting households, those with few years of harvest, and non
participants as well in local water associations will easily enrich knowledge of how to
minimise contracting water-related diseases.

D. Baguma (B) · W. Loiskandl

Institute of Hydraulics and Rural Water Management, University of Natural Resources
and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Muthgasse 18, 1190, Austria
e-mail: bagusha2000@yahoo.com
W. Loiskandl
e-mail: willibald.loiskandl@boku.ac.at

H. Jung
Institute for Sanitary Engineering and Water Pollution Control, University of Natural
Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Muthgasse 18, 1190, Austria
e-mail: helmut.jung@boku.ac.at
3334 D. Baguma et al.

Keywords Associations · Rainwater management · Tank size · Usage instructions ·

Water-related health risk · Uganda

1 Introduction

Rainwater harvesting (RWH) is one possible appropriate technological option to

improve water supply (Heyworth et al. 2006; Pathak and Heijnen 2006). Moreover,
continuously communities frequently supplement and substitute household water
supply with rainwater focusing on reducing problems such as water salinity, reducing
time and energy taken off to fetch, and less risky compared sources e.g. ponds and
river (Mwenge Kahinda et al. 2007; Heijnen 2001). Most rural households income,
however, is low and installation of RWH systems is unaffordable (Thomas and
Martinson 2007). In Uganda, RWH is widely practised in most rural areas (Baguma
et al. 2009) and is supported by both government and donors promoting the practice.
Although RWH improves water supply, water-related risks and diseases still
occur, and the expected health improvements have not been achieved (Efe 2006;
Chang et al. 2004; Pinfold et al. 1993). At the some time, where interventions are
made to improve public water supply, particularly in developing countries, they
are marked by a poor record of sustainability (Davis et al. 2008), especially as
waterborne infectious diseases continue to create health risks (Baguma et al. 2009;
Suthar et al. 2008; Doocy and Burnham 2006; Wright et al. 2004; Pitkänen et al.
2008). In the context of economies and livelihoods aspects, water-related problems
continue to slow economic growth and perpetuate poverty (McGarvey et al. 2008;
United Nations 2006). This problem is not confined to the developing world where
water treatment and management may not exist or is inadequate, but is a worldwide
phenomenon. For instance, water in any geographical area can become a health risk
during collection as a result of pipe failure, during storage in shared water containers
or in packed bottles, and in cooking pots, or when there is scarcity of anti-microbial
soap and contaminated soap (Zamberlan da Silva et al. 2008; Haas et al. 2005; Wright
et al. 2004; Clasen and Cairncross 2004; Montville et al. 2002; Roberts et al. 2001;
Goma Epidemiology Group 1995; Briscoe 1984). Dropping of unhygienic substances
by birds on RWH catchments can also cause health risks (Pitkänen et al. 2008).
Much attention, therefore, is focused on global water shortage, and the water
needs of the poorest people (United Nations 2006; Sullivan et al. 2003). Indeed, in
countless communities, water scarcity causes great hardship to families, in particular
women and children, who must spend many hours each day collecting water from
distant sources (Gopaldas and Gujral 1995). In some instances, it is common to
experience longer queuing times for the poor, where few water sources are found,
given that the richer or the more influential people get priority (Sullivan et al. 2003).
However, water management is not adequately emphasised, as compared to the
importance attached to shortage and quality aspects of water in households.
Efforts to increase water supply, unfortunately, are not an end in themselves. This
paper seeks to add to the body of knowledge on household water management and
agrees with other studies (such as Fewtrell et al. 2005; Sobsey 2002; Esrey et al. 1985)
that household water management will reduce the persistent water-related problems
in addition to improving water quality and supply. The paper, however, goes further
than this. The investigation contributes to findings that seek to improve household
Water Management and Rainwater Harvesting in Households 3335

25
2006 2007

20
Morbidity in Percentage

15

10

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Time Period in Months

Source: Uganda Ministry of Health in 2008

Fig. 1 Morbidity for acute and persistent diarrhoea in Luwero–Wakiso Districts (Uganda)

water management, given that the interventions which strengthen household water
management produce a sustainable approach to reducing water-related problems,
such as diarrhoeal disease pandemics, which cause widespread morbidity in Uganda
(see Uganda Ministry of Health [MOH] records presented in Fig. 1, where the
morbidity was high in January 2006 and August 2007). The paper explores rural
domestic harvested rainwater management as a dependent variable, and examines
the influence of independent predictive variables (personal characteristics, tank size,
years of water harvest, rainwater harvesting associations, usage instructions, and tank
operation and maintenance), which potentially influence waterborne health risk in
rural households.

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Study Area

The respondents were resident in two Ugandan districts, Luwero and Wakiso
(Fig. 2). The mean annual minimum temperature in these districts is between 11◦ C
and 17.5◦ C, whereas the mean maximum temperature is between 27.5◦ C and 33.3◦ C.
These districts are characterised by a bimodal rainfall pattern with a mean annual
rainfall of 1,310 mm. Heavy rainfall is experienced in the districts, yet residents lack
sufficient water even after receiving government and donor support following several
decades of brutal internal conflict in the 1980s. Details of the entire population,
3336 D. Baguma et al.

Map of Uganda
Sudan

Kenya
DR Congo
Rwanda Tanzania

Source: Uganda Mapping & Inventory Centre - National Forestry Authority, November 2009

Fig. 2 Map of Luwero and Wakiso districts, the study areas in Uganda

segregated by gender, and main sources of income in the whole district are provided
by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS), which is the central data source (see
also UBOS 2002a, b).

2.2 Data Collection

The study was conducted among rural residents who had received support to
construct RWH tanks in homesteads, and others who had not. The survey used a
questionnaire, which was developed using water literature (Thomas and Martinson
Water Management and Rainwater Harvesting in Households 3337

2007; Davison et al. 2005; Info 2004). Modifications in the questionnaire were made
on the basis of a pre-test of 15 respondents. The first section of the final questionnaire
focused on the respondents’ background (e.g. gender, age, family size, occupation,
years of formal education, and number of years since the RWH system had been
installed). Items related to the current use of water collected in the RWH system
and the water management measurement components were requested in the second
section. These included membership of a rainwater harvesting association, usage
instructions including waterborne health risks, rainwater training, and the frequency
of visits by officials (Public health worker or development worker /non-governmental
organisation staff). The questionnaire then explored knowledge of societal opinion
about RWH (including seeking in-depth cultural beliefs that influence water man-
agement), tank operation and maintenance, and treatment options (use of water
treatments), and ask the respondents’ opinions from a list of statements, e.g. ‘What is
the societal opinion on the RWH system?’ with answers such as ‘Very good’, ‘Good’,
‘Fair’, ‘Bad’ or ‘Very bad’. Also included were open-ended questions involving ‘If
yes, why?’.
To overcome the intrinsic biases and the non-triangulation problems that come
from a single data collection method and single observations, the respondents were
visited twice, and used secondary data sources as well as investigations conducted on
MOH records of morbidity of waterborne diseases. The complete data were collected
between June–October 2007 and May–October 2008.
The selection of respondents was done using a simple random sample criterion
that guaranteed all residents an equal probability of selection (see Yates et al. 2008).
The questionnaire was administered personally via face-to-face interviews with
each respondent to reduce inaccuracies of inconclusive responses and difficulties
encountered in questionnaire item interpretations (Smith and Kemp 1998). Greater
time and effort were expended in the personal survey, but contributed to greater data
accuracy and reliability. Approximately 340 respondents were invited to participate
in the study, of whom 301 were available and agreed to participate, yielding a
response rate of 88.5%. The high response rate was probably due to the expectation
that the respondents would receive financial grants for tank construction, as had
happened previously.

2.3 Statistical Analysis

The data were coded and analyses performed using Statistical Package for Social
Scientist (SPSS), release 15.0.0: SPSS Inc., Chicago (SPSS 2006). A bivariate analysis
was done to determine whether there were correlations between the explanatory and
the response variables, or correlations among the explanatory variables. Random
effects models were used to allow for correlations between responses from the same
subject on different occasions (Diggle et al. 1996) because of the repeated measures.
Significant ( p) independent predictors of outcomes were assessed at p < 0.05 levels.
Chi-square (χ 2 ) test was used for the regression model.
Categorical explanatory variables with more than two levels, a subcommand cate-
gorical covariate in SPSS, was utilised to enable the creation of the necessary dummy
variables. Complementing the approach, are the annotated SPSS output explanation
produced by Academic Technology Services-Statistical Consulting Group (UCLA),
which focus on logistic regression results (UCLA 2009; Garson 1998). Arbitrary
3338 D. Baguma et al.

codes without intrinsic value such as ‘1’ were assigned to indicate the presence of
water management and ‘0’ used if no water management was practised. The method
is commonly used in logistic regression analyses where the dependent variable has a
dichotomous outcome (see Frew et al. 2008).
Multiple logistic regression models with an entry selection process were used
to analyse the independent contribution of predictive variables with stratification
by gender, occupation, rainwater harvesting associations, family size, and tank
operation and maintenance. The approach to display predictive variables adopted
in the model was adapted from Frew et al. (2008). Following statistical techniques
developed on the goodness-of-fit test, the ensured statistic level was at greater
than 0.05 (see Hosmer and Lemeshow 1989). To reveal patterns that could aid in
future interventions to improve rural domestic rainwater management, four models
were estimated in stages to allow for inferences about the potential confounding of

Table 1 Selected study respondents’ characteristics

Description Characteristics Number Percentage
(n = 301)
Age <18 6 2
18–65 230 76.4
>65 65 21.6
Years of water harvest (missing = 11) No tank 112 37.1
<1 48 15.9
1–4 91 30.1
>5 39 12.9
Gender Male 167 56
Female 134 44
Family size (missing = 9) <4 people 117 38.9
>5 175 58.1
Rainwater training No 159 52.8
Yes 142 47.2
Tank size No tank 113 37.5
<3,000 151 50.2
3,001–5,000 13 4.3
50,001> 24 8.0
Extension officer visit Not Available 61.5
Available 38.5
Occupation (missing = 11) Agriculture 117 38.9
Others 173 57.4
Rainwater associations (missing = 7) Not available 227 75.4
Available 67 22.3
Usage instructions (missing = 32) Not available 144 47.8
Available 125 41.5
Education (missing = 9) Junior education 220 73.1
High school or beyond 72 23.9
Society opinion (missing = 18) Very good 4 1.3
Good 173 57.5
Fair 101 33.6
Bad 1 0.3
Very bad 4 1.3
Usage instructions usage instructions including waterborne health risks
Water Management and Rainwater Harvesting in Households 3339

some of the relationships. The first model included domestic rainwater management
predictive variables: years of water harvesting, rainwater harvesting associations, and
usage instructions. The second model included gender, years of water harvesting,
family size, rainwater harvesting associations, and tank operation and maintenance.
The third model added occupation, societal attitude to rainwater harvesting, family
size, and rainwater harvesting associations. The fourth model considered family size,
occupation, and rainwater harvesting associations. The development of numerous
models further assisted in handling excluded predictive variables with missing values

Table 2 Results of the bivariate analysis on demographic and selected domestic rural rainwater
management predictive variables
Variables Years Age Gender Occupation Education Family Family
of water level size income
harvest
Rainwater r 0.263a 0.012 −0.010 −0.143b −0.147b −0.102 −0.028
training Sig. 0.000 0.829 0.856 0.015 0.012 0.080 0.634
(2-tailed)
n 290 301 301 290 292 292 286
Water r −0.318a −0.030 −0.122b −0.094 0.035 0.018 0.094
purchases Sig. 0.000 0.623 0.046 0.132 0.573 0.767 0.137
(2-tailed)
n 256 266 266 256 260 259 254
Time of care r 0.070 0.127b 0.184a 0.016 0.045 −0.011 0.000
Sig. 0.275 0.041 0.003 0.802 0.481 0.869 0.999
(2-tailed)
n 247 257 257 248 248 250 249
Extension r 0.244a 0.021 0.100 0.030 −0.004 −0.080 0.001
officer Sig. 0.000 0.733 0.104 0.636 0.943 0.199 0.986
visits (2-tailed)
n 255 265 265 255 260 257 252
Societal r 0.174a −0.043 0.066 0.268a 0.177a −0.044 −0.008
opinion Sig. 0.004 0.474 0.271 0.000 0.003 0.465 0.900
(2-tailed)
n 269 279 279 270 273 272 266
Local village r 0.443a −0.049 −0.047 0.326a 0.273a −0.254a 0.127b
association Sig. 0.000 0.403 0.426 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.034
(2-tailed)
n 283 294 294 283 285 285 280
Usage r 0.018 0.022 −0.014 −0.107 −0.026 0.058 0.006
instructions Sig. 0.778 0.722 0.824 0.087 0.680 0.347 0.919
(2-tailed)
n 259 269 269 258 262 261 255
Tank size r 0.680a −0.025 0.017 0.195a 0.265a −0.160a 0.105
Sig. 0.000 0.666 0.768 0.001 0.000 0.006 0.077
(2-tailed)
n 290 301 301 290 292 292 286
a Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
b Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Sig. Significance level, r Pearson correlation, Sig. (2-tailel) the p-value associated with the correla-
tion, n number of cases in the correlation, Family income family monthly cash income in Uganda
shillings (exchange rate: 1 US Dollar $ = 1,700 Uganda shilling)
3340 D. Baguma et al.

in the analysis. The statistics package has the option to replace the missing value
with the mean, and was used to include cases in the consecutive regression analyses,
as long as the predictive variables were adapted in the model development (see
Tabachnick and Fidell 1989).

3 Results

3.1 Characteristics of the Sample

Descriptive statistics of the respondents—age, gender, years of water harvest, family

size, rainwater training, tank size, rainwater associations, usage instructions, ed-
ucation, and societal opinion—are presented in Table 1. Cross-tabulations were
calculated for the predictive variables and rural domestic rainwater management in
Table 2. The study sample (n = 301) was comprised of 167 (56%) males and 134
(44%) females.

Notes:
Predicted Probability is of Membership for No Management
The Cut Value is .50
Symbols: M - Management
N - No Management
Each Symbol Represents 5 Cases.
Step number: 1

Fig. 3 Explains how well the model classifies difficult cases (i.e. observed groups and predicted
probabilities)—the cases near predicted probability (Prob = 0.5)
Water Management and Rainwater Harvesting in Households 3341

Table 3 Classification table (a, b): provides the assessment of the model performance
Observed Predicted
Rural rainwater Percentage
management correct
Step 0 Rural rainwater Rainwater Not managing Rainwater
management management management
Rainwater 0 114 0.0
management
Not managing 0 139 100.0
Overall 54.9
percentage
Cross tabulation of categories responses (actual values of the dependent [observed] and the pre-
dicted) are shown
a Constant is included in the model, b the cut value is 0.500, Observed actual values of the dependent,
Predicted predicted values of the dependent

3.2 Modelling Rural Domestic Rainwater Management

Logistic regression analyses of the responses on rural domestic rainwater manage-

ment and the independent predictive variables revealed three statistically significant
results regarding years of water harvest, rainwater harvesting associations, and usage
instructions. Goodness-of-fit tests were performed, and as the p-value was significant
(0.003 < 0.05), the null hypothesis was rejected, i.e. there was a difference between
the actual values of the dependent (observed values) and those predicted values of
the dependent (predicted) by the model. An explanation as to how well the model
classifies difficult cases (the cases near Predicted Probability [prob] = 0.5) is shown
in Fig. 3. The predictor does an acceptable job of explaining the variability, while the
actual model predicts rural domestic rainwater management with the overall value
of 54.9% (Table 3).
Odd ratios (OR) and confidence interval (CI) were calculated in the analyses.
Years of water harvest (OR = 1.84; 95% CI = 1.372–2.465), rainwater harvesting
associations (OR = 0.356; 95% CI = 0.176–0.719), and usage instructions including
water borne health risk (OR = 3.879; CI = 2.219–6.750) were significant for rural
domestic rainwater management (Table 4). Independent predictive variables that
were not statistically significant included personal household characteristics, family
size, societal opinion, occupation, tank size, and tank operation and maintenance.

3.3 Legal Aspects of RWH

The legal framework in the Government of Uganda (GOU), protection and manage-
ment of water supply and user association is provided in the Water Statute—statute
no. 9 of 1995—(GOU 1995a). Coordination of the management framework for the
environmental impact assessment of water resource projects and the establishment
of water quality standards is guided by the national environment policy, and National
Environmental Action Plan and Management Policy of 1994 (National Environment
Management Authority 2005). Article 39 of the Constitution of Uganda reinforces
both the National Environment Policy of 1994 and the Water Statute of 1995
(GOU 1995b). Sector reforms to harmonise existing laws and regulatory functions to
 3342

Table 4 Results of the four logistic regression models

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
LR χ 2 (4) = 301, 625 LR χ 2 (4) = 289, 008 LR χ 2 (3) = 292, 376 LR χ 2 (2) = 332, 698
p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001 p < 0.0001
OR OR OR OR
Years of water harvest 1.84 1.372–2.465 1.967 1.433–2.699 a a

Age a a a a

Gender a a a a

Occupation a a a 3.638 2.031–6514

Education a a a a

Family size a 2.200 1.210–4.001 3.159 1.711–5.831 a

Monthly income a a a a

Home buys water a a a a

Tank operation and maintenance a 1.696 1.212–2.375 a a

Extension officer a a a a

Societal opinion a a 1.912 1.181–3.095 a

Local association 0.36 0.176–0.719 0.393 0.185–0.834 6.664 3.321–13.37 0.137 0.064–0.294
Distance-Main rd a a a a

Usage instructions 3.87 2.219–6.750 a a a

Tank size a a a a

Water quality b b b b

a Excluded by the stepwise model building strategy

b Not included in the model
OR odd ratio, Exp(B) implies odds ratio(OR), χ 2 chi-square, p significance level, CI confidence interval, = 95% CI for Exp(B) lower-upper
D. Baguma et al.
Water Management and Rainwater Harvesting in Households 3343

improve participation are necessarily in the legal framework to achieve decentrali-

sation targets, user involvement, public-private sector partnership, and government
shift from service provider to facilitator through a demand-responsive approach (see
also Syngellakis and Arudo 2006).

4 Discussion

The goal of the study was to examine the influence of independent predictive
variables: personal characteristics (age, cash income, and sex), rainwater harvesting
associations, years of water harvest, tank size, and usage instructions including
waterborne health risks on rural domestic rainwater management. Analyses showed
a close relationship between rural domestic water management, years of water har-
vest, usage instructions including waterborne health risks, and rainwater harvesting
associations.
Years of water harvest was considered in relation to water management practices
in the investigation. The underlying hypothesis was that the more the years of harvest
the better the household water management. Years of harvesting was found to be
statistically significant with domestic rainwater management. This was partly due to
the contemporary belief that continuously affirms the value of experience as a pre-
dictor of effectiveness (Robbins and Judge 2007). Unfortunately, the investigation on
domestic rainwater management in this study is intriguing. The respondents practised
RWH for many years, i.e. in the previous four years, and the number of years of
rainwater harvesting had inadequate influence on domestic rainwater management
and subsequent knowledge of risk prevention measures. The underlying explanation
lies in the suggestion of the model, which reveals the need to combine years of
harvest with other predictive variables, such as water association and availing usage
instructions, in order to improve domestic water management. The investigation is
consistent with other studies, which suggest that experience alone is generally a poor
variable as performance is undoubtedly due to variations in situations (Fiedler 1970).
The finding provides information also for populations worldwide, particularly those
in which RWH is used as a substitute for water sources such as tap water, bottled
water, boreholes and protected springs.
Rainwater association in the context of the study refers to cooperation and
collective participation of RWH members with similar objectives. Rainwater asso-
ciation is found to be statistically significant in determining rural domestic rainwater
management. This happens most often in places where members with different
water management knowledge collaborate and learn from each other. Knowledge
of household water management can, thus, improve the use of various inputs from
various association members. This is consistent with other studies, which suggest that
organisations provide effective management of water systems (Subramanian et al.
1997). Moreover, knowledge is easily shared among members when they are working
together and training can more easily be conducted for many members than for a sin-
gle individual. The majority of the participants (75.4%), however, indicated neither
awareness nor membership of any rainwater association. This finding is surprising,
given that the Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE) encourages rural
residents to form water-user committees so as to benefit from either public water
supply points or advisory programmes (MWE 2007). The RWH households in this
3344 D. Baguma et al.

study, on the contrary, were not members of any water groups or user associations.
Furthermore, the benefits of forming water associations are explored by many,
both in Uganda and worldwide—including researchers and privileged people (high
income earners). Such benefits include the acquisition of new water insights. Unfor-
tunately, the number of rural participants in progressive and active water associations
is inadequate, and the possibility of acquiring membership is limited owing to low
household incomes, literacy problems and insufficient information flow. Conversely,
the tendency is usually to encourage participants in the same neighbourhoods to
form associations. However, proximity may not naturally generate cooperation, and
in some instances it is intermittent or context-specific (Cleaver 2000). Collective
membership, though important in rural rainwater management in this study, may
be inadequate to guarantee the operation of equitable, sustainable management and
regulatory systems (Blair 2000; Jagin 1995). The underlying finding suggested in this
predictive variable reveals the need to combine rainwater associations with other
predictive variables, such as usage instructions and years of water harvest to improve
water management in rural households.
Usage instructions including water-borne health risks were not sufficiently sup-
plied in rural RWH households. The study participants were not likely to have
information on water and sanitation user guides, as 47.7% of the respondents
indicated lack of access to information on common RWH prevalent diseases. Indeed,
61.5% of the respondents had not been visited by health extension inspectors
or project officers for health education since installations of the RWH system.
Rural domestic rainwater management was therefore affected by the inadequacy of
information, possibly caused by poor roads and insufficient resources such as lack
of rural electrification, shortage of computers or limited access to the internet. This
phenomenon is illustrated by the fact that donor agencies as well as governments
tend to put more emphasis on water supply (paying particular attention to the num-
ber of constructed RWH systems), than on usage instructions and their translation in
local languages. This happens most often as providing usage instructions to people
who don’t have sufficient water seems less important than supply, or spending on
RWH usage instructions (with indescribable short term gains) when people do not
have RWH systems seems difficult. Water management as a whole, especially in
communities where water shortage is severe, is not given priority. The implication
of this is that in places facing water supply shortages, the burden of more waterborne
health risks may appear more, as efforts are focused on water supply in response
to unfulfilled water demand, than on usage instructions including water borne
health risk.
Education is among the important variables in reducing the spread of diseases,
even in the presence of epidemics like AIDS, where education was found to
contribute to the reduction in infection by up to 70% in Uganda (Stoneburner
and Low-Beer 2004). In this study, however, the model indicated that the number
of years of education was not statistically significant in rural domestic rainwater
management. Indeed, more than 71% of the respondents had no secondary educa-
tion, and the majority had neither attended nor completed primary education. The
study revealed that respondents were generally not equipped with household water
management knowledge and skills, in addition to having low educational attainment.
Water-related diseases have persisted and can partly be explained by limitations in
households. The simple provision of improved water will not adequately minimise
Water Management and Rainwater Harvesting in Households 3345

waterborne health risks, especially diseases whose transmission is due to inade-

quate knowledge of water health risks for instance in domestic water collection,
storage, handling or hand-washing. Moreover, water can become dangerous during
collection, pipe failures, storage, in shared water containers, and in cooking pots.
Besides, scarcity of antimicrobial soap and use of contaminated soap can also cause
disease. The study envisages that improving household water management predictive
variables, such as provision of usage instructions—depending on water sources—
would strengthen interventions in combination with progressive efforts focusing on
water quality and quantity.
The survey included a range of predictive variables that could be linked to
household rainwater management in Uganda. The results provide a basis for future
analyses of household water management, which could strengthen interventions and
produce sustainable approaches to reducing waterborne health risk problems in
Uganda and worldwide. Predictive variables, such as water quality data and direct
effects of water management on health and sanitation, however, were beyond the
scope of this study, but could be investigated in future research.

5 Conclusions

This study focused on rural domestic rainwater management. The analyses revealed
that in addition to accessing reliable and affordable sources of safe water, there is
need to improve household water management as well to reducing water-related
health risks. The investigation found statistically significant predictive variables,
namely years of water harvest, the existence of a rainwater harvesting association,
and the availability of usage instructions including waterborne health risks. These
findings have implications for populations where water is sufficient in supply as well
as those where water supply is inadequate.
Statistical results relating to years of water harvest provide valuable information
about rural domestic rainwater management in this study, especially in cases where
the many years of harvesting provide the possibility of acquiring knowledge of
reducing waterborne health risks from either other participants, official channels
or the media. The findings also provide information for populations worldwide,
particularly those in which RWH is used as a substitute for water sources such as
tap water, bottled water, and protected springs.
Usage instructions including waterborne health risks are significantly related
to rural household rainwater management in the study. When translated in local
languages and provided such information can lead to increased safe water consump-
tion and improved hygiene and sanitation. The gains from providing basic usage
instructions in households worldwide as a method of reducing waterborne disease
outbreaks cannot be overstated. If rural households have access to usage instructions,
they are more likely to implement one or several of the precautions. Such instructions
include appropriate hand-washing, use of water treatments, use of antimicrobial
soap, and routine cleaning of water storage systems.
Policies fostering the creation of local water associations could positively affect
household water management, especially when aimed at disseminating management
innovations to meet the challenges posed by household water and sanitation. This
would be particularly effective given the set-up guidelines within the National Water
3346 D. Baguma et al.

Policy as a guiding framework for achieving decentralisation, user involvement,

and public-private sector partnership, including government efforts to shift from
service provider to facilitator through a demand-responsive approach. Furthermore,
water associations at both the international and local levels are traditionally con-
cerned with extrapolating findings on local case studies and disseminating results to
members in various audiences—such as conferences, policy meetings and scientific
publications—which improve information flow to members. This benefit, coupled
with a worldwide network of opportunities of association memberships, can play an
important role in general household water management.
Finally, development partners, public health workers, policy-makers and members
of the international community who are concerned with water quality and quantity,
could use the information in this research to reduce waterborne health risks. As
noted in water literature (Fewtrell et al. 2005; Sobsey 2002; Esrey et al. 1985), where
challenges of quality and quantity are minimised, the waterborne health risk gap lies
in household water management. Our investigation revealed important observations
related to underlying water management improvement interventions, such as con-
sideration of years of water harvest, usage instructions including waterborne health
risks and rainwater associations, which can be of great importance to international
audiences.

Acknowledgements The authors thank the members of Luwero district Caritas-kasanaensis project
and the community in Wakiso district for participation in data collection including provision of
authorization documents to project site and guidance to sample points. We greatly appreciate com-
ments from the two anonymous reviewers which substantially improved this manuscript. The project
was funded by Austrian Agency for International Cooperation in Education and Research (OeAD
GmbH)—Centre for International Cooperation and Mobility Unit (ICM) of Vienna (Austria).

References

Baguma D, Loiskandl W, Darnhofer I, Jung H, Hauser M (2009) Knowledge of measures to safe-

guard harvested rainwater quality in rural domestic households. J Water Health. doi:10.2166/
wh.2009.030 (in press)
Blair H (2000) Participation and accountability at the periphery: democratic local governance in six
countries. World Dev 28(1):21–39
Briscoe J (1984) Intervention studies and the definition of dominant transmission routes. Am J
Epidemiol 120(3):449–455
Chang M, Matthew W, McBroom MW, Beasley RS (2004) Roofing as a source of non point water
pollution. J Environ Manag 73(4):307–315
Clasen TF, Cairncross S (2004) Editorial—household water management: refining the dominant
paradigm. Trop Med Int Health 9(2):187-191
Cleaver F (2000) Moral ecological rationality, institutions and the management of common property
resources. Dev Change 31(2):361–383
Davis J, Lukas H, Jeuland M, Alvestegui A, Soto B, Lizárrage G, Bakalian A, Wakeman W (2008)
Sustaining the benefits of rural water supply investments: experience from Cochabamba and
Chuquisaca, Bolivia. Water Resour Res 44(12), art. no. W12427
Davison A, Howard G, Stevens M, Callan P, Fewtrell L, Deere D, Bartram, J (2005) Water
safety plans: managing drinking-water quality from catchment to consumer: sanitary in-
spection forms: Appendix C. WHO/SDE/WSH/05.06. Available at http://www.who.int/water_
sanitation_health/dwq/wsp0506/en/index.html . Accessed 21 Nov 2008
Diggle P, Liang K, Zeger S (1996) Analysis of longitudinal data. Oxford Science Publications, Oxford
Doocy S, Burnham G (2006) Point-of-use water treatment and diarrhoea reduction in the emergency
context: an effectiveness trial in Liberia. Trop Med Int Health 11(10):1542–1552
Water Management and Rainwater Harvesting in Households 3347

Efe SI (2006) Quality of rainwater harvesting for rural communities of delta State, Nigeria. Environ-
mentalist 26(3):175–181
Esrey SA, Feachem RG, Hughes JM (1985) Interventions for the control of diarrhoeal diseases
among young children: improving water supplies and excreta disposal facilities. Bull WHO
63(4):757–772
Fewtrell L, Kaufmann RB, Kay D, Enanoria W, Haller L, Colfold JM Jr (2005) Water, sanitation,
and hygiene interventions to reduce diarrhoea in less developed countries: a systematic review
and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 5(1):42–52
Fiedler FE (1970) Leadership experience and leadership performance: another hypothesis shot to
hell. Organ Behav Hum Perform 5:1–14
Frew PM, de Rio C, Clifton S, Archibald M, Hormes JT, Mulligan MJ (2008) Factors influencing
HIV vaccine community engagement in the urban south. J Commun Health 33(4):259–269
Garson GD (1998) Logistic regression. North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina.
Available at http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/logistic.htm. Accessed 3 Mar 2008
Goma Epidemiology Group (1995) Public health impact of the Rwandan refugee crisis: what hap-
pened in Goma, Zaire, in July 1994? Lancet 345:339–344
Gopaldas T, Gujral S (1995) Girl child and environment. Soc Change 25(2–3):226–234
GOU (1995a) Government of Uganda 1995: water statute, 1995 (statute no. 9 of 1995). Uganda
Gazette 56. Available at http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/uga5251.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2010
GOU (1995b) Government of Uganda 1995: the constitution of the Republic of the Uganda. Avail-
able at http://www.parliament.go.ug/images/constitution_1995.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2010
Haas CN, Marie JR, Rose JB, Gerba CP (2005) Assessment of benefits from use of antimicro-
bial hand products: reduction in risk from handling ground beef. Int J Hyg Environ Health
208(6):461–466
Heijnen H (2001) Towards water quality guidance for collected rainwater. Proceedings of the 10th
International conference on rainwater catchment systems. Mannheim, Germany, pp 1–6. Avail-
able at http://www.eng.warwick.ac.uk/ircsa/abs/10th/3_02.html. Accessed 16 Jan 2010
Heyworth JS, Glonek G, Maynard EJ, Baghurst PA, Finlay-Jones J (2006) Consumption of untreated
tank rainwater and gastroenteritis among young children in South Australia. Int J Epidemiol
35(4):1051–1058
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (1989) Applied logistic regression. Wiley, New York
Info (2004) The pilot domestic rainwater harvesting project in shuuku, Kitagata and Bugongi Sub-
county. Unpublished baseline survey report. ACORD/UWASINET/DWD, Kampala
Jagin S (1995) Gestion urbaine partagée a Ouagadougou: pouvoirs et périphéries (1983–1991)
Kartthala, Paris
McGarvey ST, Buszin J, Reed H, Smith DC, Rahman Z, Andrzejewski C, Awusabo-Asare K, White
MJ (2008) Community and household determinants of water quality in coastal Ghana. J Water
Health 6(3):339–349
MWE (2007) Ministry of Water and Environment 2007: Uganda water and sanitation report, sector
performance report september, 2007. Kampala. Available at http://www.danidadevforum.um.dk/
NR/rdonlyres/94B047D5-F8C9-46C9-B56D-7A43367ED141/0/WSSperformanceReportUganda.
pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2010
Montville R, Chen Y, Schaffner DW (2002) Risk assessment of hand washing efficacy using literature
and experimental data. Int J Food Microbiol 73:305–313
Mwenge Kahinda J, Taigbenu AE, Boroto JR (2007) Domestic rainwater harvesting to improve
water supply in rural. South Afr Phys Chem Earth 32(1–18):1050–1057
National Environment Management Authority (2005) Review of the existing poverty
reduction policies, plans, programmes and projects for their adequacy in addressing
environmental concerns. Sustainable Development Centre. Kampala. Available at
http://www.unpei.org/PDF/UG_final_rpt_prsp.pdf. Accessed 27 Jan 2010
Pathak N, Heijnen H (2006) Health and hygiene aspects of rain water for drinking. In: Proceedings of
the 32nd WDEC international conference on sustainable development of water resources, water
supply and environment sanitation, Colombo, pp 393–396
Pinfold JV, Horan NJ, Wirojanagud W, Mara D (1993) The bacteriological quality of rain jar water
in rural northeast Thailand. Water Res 27(2):297–302
Pitkänen T, Miettinen IT, Nakari UM, Takkinen J, Nieminen K, Siitonen A, Kuusi M, Holopainen
A, Hänninen ML (2008) Faecal contamination of a municipal drinking water distribution system
in association with campylobacter jejuni infections. J Water Health 6(3):365–376
Robbins SP, Judge TA (2007) Communications: information overload, chapter 11. In Organisational
behaviour, 12th edn. Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, p 384
3348 D. Baguma et al.

Roberts L, Chartier Y, Chartier O, Malenga G, Toole M, Rhodka H (2001) Keeping clean water in
as Malawi refuge camp: a randomised intervention trial. Bull WHO 79:280–287
Smith MA, Kemp R (1998) Small and the environment 1998: a ground report. Groupwork,
Birmingham
Sobsey MD (2002) Managing water in the home; accelerated health gains from improved water
supply. WHO/SDE/WSH/02.07. World Health Organisation, Geneva. Available at http://www.
emro.who.int/ceha/pdf/Doc-managing.pdf. Accessed 16 Jan 2010
Subramanian A, Jagannathan NV, Meinzen-Dick R (1997) User organisations for sustainable water
services, Technical paper no 354. The World Bank, Washington
Sullivan CA, Meigh JA, Giacomello AM, Fediw T, Lawrence P, Samad M, Mlote S, Hutton C, Allan
JA, Schulze RE, Dlamini DJ, Cosgrove W, Delli P, Gleick J, Smout I, Cobbing J, Calow R, Hunt
C, Hussain A, Acreman MC, King J, Mlomo S, Tate EL, O’Regan D, Milner S, Steyl I (2003) The
water poverty index: development and application at the community scale. Nat Resour Forum
27(3):189–199
Suthar S, Chhimpa V, Singh S (2008) Bacterial contamination in drinking water: a case study in rural
areas of northern Rajasthan, India. Environ Monit Assess 159(1–4):43–50
SPSS (2006) Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) 2006 Reference Manual. Release 15.0.0
(6 Sep 2006), SPSS 15.0 for Windows. SPSS Inc., Chicago
Stoneburner RL, Low-Beer D (2004) Population-level HIV declines and behavioural risk avoidance
in Uganda. Science 304:714–718
Syngellakis K, Arudo E (2006) Uganda water sector policy overview paper. European Commission.
Available at http://www.enable.nu/publication/Water_Policy_Overview_Uganda.pdf. Accessed
14 Jan 2010
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (1989) Using multivariate statistics, 2nd edn. HarperCollins, New York
Thomas TH, Martinson DB (2007) Roofwater harvesting; a handbook for practitioners. IRC Inter-
national Water and Sanitation Centre. Technical paper, series no 49. Delft, The Netherlands.
Available at http://www.irc.nl/page/37471. Accessed 16 Jan 2010
UBOS (2002a) Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2002: Population and housing census, Luwero District
Local Government, District Planning Unit Analytical Report. February 2007, Kampala
UBOS (2002b) Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2002: Population and housing census, Wakiso District
Local Government, District Planning Unit Analytical Report. February 2007, Kampala
UCLA (2009) Academic Technology Services-Statistical Consulting Group (UCLA) 2009: Anno-
tated SPSS output: logistic regression: academic technology services, statistical consulting group.
Available at http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/Spss/output/logistic.htm. Accessed 29 Dec 2009
United Nations (2006) Beyond scarcity: power, poverty and the global water crisis. Human
Development Report. United Nations Development Program, New York. Available at
http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR06-complete.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2010
Wright J, Gundry S, Conroy R (2004) Household drinking water in developing countries; a systematic
review of microbiological contamination between source and point-of-use. Trop Med Int Health
9(1):106–117
Yates DS, Moore DS, Starnes DS (2008) The practice of statistics, 3rd edn. Freeman. ISBN 978-0-
7167-7309-2
Zamberlan da Silva ME, Santana RG, Guilhermetti M, Filho IC, Endo EH, Ueda-Nakamura T,
Nakamura CV, Filho BPD (2008) Comparison of the bacteriological quality of tap water and
bottled mineral water. Int J Hyg Environ Health 211:504–509