5.2.6 willingness and ability to connect to central water supply … · 2006. 10. 29. · kostanai...

65

FINDINGS OF SOCIAL SURVEY ON EVALUATION OF THE SAFE ACCESS OF THE POPULATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF

KAZAKHSTAN TO DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION

5.2.6 Willingness and Ability to Connect to Central Water Supply and pay Service Fees

Willingness to connect to CWSSA considerable number of respondents not connected to a CWSS noted that they want to connect (77%) . This figure amounted to 78% for rural residents (Table 5 .7) .

table 5.7. Percentage of surveyed population not connected to a central water supply system with intention to get in-house connection

Yes No% of households willing to receive water by pipeline

City of Astana 17 4 80 .95

City of Almaty 19 11 6� .��

Oblast centers 147 58 71 .71

Towns �70 109 71 .�4

Settlements 1,968 541 78 .44

total 2,421 723 77.00

The survey evinced the high demand of the rural population for a central water supply . Over 90% of rural respondents in Atyrau and West Kazakhstan oblasts and 80% in Aktubinsk, Zhambyl, Pavlodar, South Kazakhstan, and Almaty oblasts indicated that they would like to get water into their houses by means of a central water pipe . Between the respondents willing to connect to a central water supply, a slight variation appears according to gender (women--77 .�5%; men--75 .8%) and age context (under and over 65 years) . The share of people aged 65 and over willing to connect to a central water supply amounts to some 70% .

‘Yes, all settlement residents would like to connect.’(Respondent, settlement in West Kazakhstan)

‘Certainly, we would like to connect (to a central water supply). We are tired of carrying water.’

(Female respondent, City of Zheskazgan)

However, some respondents do not believe that they will ever be connected . A respondent from a North Kazakhstan settlement which was cut off from an in-house pipeline water supply 15 years ago provided the following comment:

‘Certainly we would like to connect to a water supply, but we doubt this possibility.’

(Female respondent, settlement in West Kazakhstan)

Ability to pay for connectionNearly 8�% of all respondents willing to connect to an in-house water supply system affirmed that they could pay for the connection .

The amount that people are willing to pay for connection varies from less than 500 tenge to over 10,000 tenge, though most respondents (58%) noted that they could pay slightly over �,000 tenge . The amount people are willing to

77% of households unconnected to a CWSS wish to connect .

Figure 5 .10 Amount of money (in tenge) to be willingly paid by respondents for CWSS connection (number of respondents=1,784)

under 500 tenge501-1000 1001-�000�001-50005001-10000over 10001 tengeDK

66

UNDP ProjectNational Plan for Integrated Water Resources Management and Water Efficiency in Kazakhstan

ACCEss to DRINKINg WAtER AND sANItAtIoN IN thE REPUblIC of KAzAKhstAN

pay differs across the country (Figure 5 .10) . Nearly 40% of respondents in West Kazakhstan oblast, for example, are willing to pay �,000 tenge or more for connection, while in Akmola oblast most people who are willing to pay for connection cited the sum of �,000 tenge or less .

The main reason for people’s unwillingness to pay for connection is the price (59%) . A considerable part of respondents believed that connection costs should be covered by the state . Obviously, the price is the main issue for many people who cannot afford to pay for such costs .

‘All settlement residents would like to connect, but not all of them agree or could afford to pay for connection. There is a high unemployment rate in the settlement, and over half of residents survive by their subsidiary plots.’

(Female respondent, settlement in East Kazakhstan)

‘We would pay, but not all our neighbors can afford it.’(Female respondent, City of Zheskazgan)

‘We would like to pay, but we couldn’t. We have low salaries.’(Respondent, City of Uralsk)

Some respondents deem that the cost of the service should be shared, and one respondent from Kostanai noted that the connection cost should be covered:

‘…partly by owners, but mostly by the state.’

‘All residents of the settlement are willling to be connected to CWSS, but not all of them are able to pay for connection. There is a high level of unemployment in the settlement. More than half of the population survive by the means of their garden plot and subsidiary farm.’

(Female respondent, settlement in Eastern Kazakhstan)

Water tariffOf the 4,1�1 questionnaire respondents connected to a central water supply, only 1�� do not pay for water supply services . Of the remaining �,988 respondents, ��% pay �00 tenge or less for water each month, �1% pay �01-�00 tenge, and another �0% pay �01-500 tenge a month . Nearly 500 of the surveyed households (nearly 11%) pay the amount of 500 tenge a month for water supply services .

The sum paid by households for tap water depends on two main factors: the number of household members and the presence or absence of water meters.

table 5.8. the sum paid monthly by households with/without water meters

Amount paid by households

With cold water meter % Without cold

water meter %

0 tenge 1 4 .55 �1 95 .45

1-100 tenge �18 74 .47 109 �5 .5�

101-�00 tenge 414 4� .81 55� 57 .19

�01-�00 tenge �67 �� .54 5�9 66 .46

�01-400 tenge 16� �0 .6� �67 69 .�8

401-500 tenge 1�1 4� .�7 158 56 .6�

Over 501 tenge 1�5 �9 .80 �18 70 .�0

DK ��0 �8 .7� �48 61 .�7

67



The sum paid by households for tap water depends on two main factors: the number of household members and the presence or absence of water meters .

In view of the presence or absence of water meters, it is obvious that households with water meters pay considerably less for water than households without water meters (Table 5 .8) . To illustrate, 75% of households with meters pay 100 tenge or less for water, and slightly less than �0% pay over 500 tenge a month . Clearly, the size of the household, monthly water fee, and the meter all demonstrate that small households (of 4 members or less) with meters pay less than same-sized households without meters . In the case of larger households, this correlation is not very clear: it is noted that larger households with meters pay more for water than same-sized households without meters .

Slightly over �8% of households not connected to a CWSS pay for water supply services . The survey findings demonstrated that households dependant on central water supply services are likely to pay for water, and they include a considerable part (nearly 64%) of respondents who receive water from common standpipes, for which they pay . Nearly 60% of households that use delivered water also pay for it . A considerably lower number of people that use water from individual sources pay for water .

The sum that households were able to pay differs significantly . On average, households pay �00 tenge or less each month for water supply services . However, people that use delivered water pay more for water (Figure 5 .11) .

In addition to the water fee, some people bear related costs . As shown, a considerable part of people boil water for drinking, and pay for the coal or gas used to fulfill this goal . Though it is impossible to count the real cost of water boiling, the questionnaire survey shows that electricity costs are the largest for many families . In the city of Almaty, households without gas meters pay some 180 tenge per person for gas . With the average size of a household consisting of three people and the assumption that �5% of this cost goes into boiling water, this adds some 1,600 tenge to annual water pay .

An even more expensive option resorted to by many households is the purchase of drinking water .

Willingness to pay for improved quality of water supply servicesAs in the questionnaire survey, participants of focus groups and in-depth interviews were asked whether they would pay extra for improved water supply services . Slightly over 4�% of questionnaire respondents answered that they would be able to do so . The percentage of respondents that expressed their willingness was lower in Astana and Almaty, and greater in Akmola oblast . It is not surprising that residents of two major cities are less prone to pay more . Residents of Astana now pay more for water than in most parts of the country . In Almaty, the security of the water supply is rather good, and it is unlikely that respondents would think that they should pay for any improvements to it .

Though many respondents (19%) who expressed their wish to pay for an improved water supply failed to answer the amount they could pay, 81% did provide an answer . Most of them cited the sum of �00 tenge or less per household per month, though a considerable part (�4%) of respondents indicated that they could pay �00 tenge or more for supplied water delivery in the quantity demanded (Figure 5 .1�) .

The main reasons for any unwillingness to pay for system improvements are additional costs and the availability of a sustainable water supply . However, a considerable part (15 .5%) believe that the state should cover the cost of the services, and another 1� .7% stated its lack of trust in the central water supply or secured water supply .

Figure 5 .11 Monthly tariff paid by residents, subject to water supply type

OtherDelivered waterDitch, irrigation channelSpring, river, lakePublic water reservoirIndividual water reservoirPublic open wellPublic well with electric pumpPublic well with sucker-rod pumpIndividual open wellIndividual well with electric pumpIndividual well with sucker-rod pumpCommon stand-pipeIndividual stand-pipeWater pipe connected to the house

50 а

з�1

-100

101-

150

151-

�00

�01-

�50

�51-

�00

�01-

�50

�51-

400

401-

500

5001

көп

Біл

мйе

мін

68



Figure 5 .1� Amount (in tenge) that the population of Kazakhstan is willing to pay for permanent water access (number of respondents =�,�41)

table 5.9. the percentage of respondents in each oblast willing to pay more for water supply in the quality demanded

Oblast %

City of Astana �4 .61

City of Almaty �9 .8�

Akmola �� .78

Aktubinsk 60 .�4

Atyrau 44 .10

East Kazakhstan �8 .��

Zhambyl 57 .89

West Kazakhstan 51 .8�

Karaganda 4� .��

Kostanai �4 .9�

Kyzylorda 55 .41

Mangistau 50 .86

Pavlodar �8 .�4

North Kazakhstan 51 .48

South Kazakhstan �8 .00

Almaty 47 .95

Kazakhstan 4� .6�

table 5.10. Reasons for unwillingness to pay more for a secure water supply

Reasons for unwillingness to pay more for permanent water supply %

The state should pay 15 .5�

I would like to pay more but cannot afford it �4 .86

There are more important things to spend money on 8 .59

I have no faith in the reliability of the central WSS 1� .70

CWSS reliability does not concern me �4 .69

Water quality is more important � .�6

Other � .6�

No answer 8 .65

under 100101-�00�01-�00�01-400over 401DK

69



Willingness to pay more for improved water qualityThe willingness to pay for improved water quality was also considered within the questionnaire and interviews . Overall in the country, over 45% of respondents expressed their willingness to pay for improved water quality . As regards a secure water supply, this figure was higher among respondents not connected to a central water supply . Respondents from Aktubinsk oblast are prone to pay more than respondents from Astana, Almaty, and Kostanai (Table 5 .11) . Of the people not connected to a central water supply, the figure significantly differed, and slightly over 71% of respondents in this category from Taraz expressed their willingness to pay; the corresponding figure in Atyrau came to 1�% .

As with a secure water supply, a large percent of respondents (�7%) who expressed willingness to pay for improved water quality could not cite which sum they would be willing to pay . For 50% of respondents, nevertheless, the affordable price was �00 tenge or less, and another ��% of respondents mentioned the sum of �00 tenge or more . Therefore, respondents are inclined to pay slightly more for improved quality than for a secured water supply .

A considerable number of respondents cited the main reason for their unwillingness to pay for improved water quality as being their inability to evaluate whether the water quality would actually be improved . This concern was expressed by a number of interviewees .

‘I would agree to pay, but as always, I’m afraid. The company may raise the fee but the quality would remain the same or worse and it would not justify the company’s actions.’

(Male respondent, City of Aksai)

‘I simply don’t believe that the water supply can be improved.’(Female respondent, settlement in North Kazakhstan)

Some people are not only unwilling to pay, but they think that they pay enough for water already .

‘We would like to improve water quality but we don’t want to pay extra money… We already pay for the operation of the water department and for unused water and untreated water flows. Who would give us a breakdown of the fee?’

(Male respondent, City of Rudniy)

Therefore, most people pay directly or indirectly for water supply services . Though it is hard to provide the exact sum paid by individuals, the amount is relatively high . Annually, household payment amounting to 10,000 tenge seems to be the norm . Coupled with indirect costs, this figure is higher in many households . Despite this, people have a strong desire to pay for water and, in particular, for improved water supply and water quality . However, people have no idea how much this service should cost . Individuals unwilling to pay see no problem with water supply, cannot afford extra costs, or believe that the state should cover such costs . All this should be taken into account when developing a comprehensive strategy . It is also important to note that the country’s water users have regular information on the net costs of water supply services as well as the measures taken to improve the system . Moreover, people should realize that if they do not pay for water directly, they pay for it indirectly anyway .

45% of respondents noted their intention to pay more for improved water quality.

table 5.11. the percentage of respondents in each oblast willing to pay more for improved water quality

Oblast %

City of Astana �0 .47

City of Almaty �� .54

Akmola 41 .��

Aktubinsk 64 .69

Atyrau 57 .64

East Kazakhstan 45 .�1

Zhambyl 5� .4�

West Kazakhstan 5� .15

Karaganda 50 .90

Kostanai �7 .07

Kyzylorda 50 .8�

Mangistau 41 .71

Pavlodar 4� .51

North Kazakhstan 5� .85

South Kazakhstan �9 .�9

Almaty 5� .4�

Republic of Kazakhstan 45 .�6

70



5.2.7 Sanitary Conditions in Kazakhstan

table 5.12. the share of respondents in each oblast connected to a Css

Oblast Connected % of connections Not connected

City of Astana ��8 89 .06 �8

City of Almaty 48� 81 .69 108

Akmola 150 �9 .89 ��6

Aktubinsk 178 5� .8� 159

Atyrau 116 50 .66 11�

East Kazakhstan �7� 51 .10 �57

Zhambyl 1�1 �4 .49 �7�

West Kazakhstan 90 �9 .70 �1�

Karaganda 50� 75 .�0 165

Kostanai 19� 4� .14 �65

Kyzylorda 8� �7 .�1 ��

Mangistau 111 6� .4� 64

Pavlodar 17� 46 .�6 �01

North Kazakhstan 71 �1 .01 �67

South Kazakhstan 159 14 .74 9�0

Almaty 104 1� .95 699

table 5.13. the percentage of respondents from various types of settlements connected to a Css

Oblast City of

national status (%)

Oblast center (%) Town (%)

Rural settlement

(%)

City of Astana 89

City of Almaty 8�

Akmola 81 74 7

Aktubinsk 97 74 5

Atyrau 84 87 5

East Kazakhstan 90 70 1�

Zhambyl 54 57 0

West Kazakhstan 67 70 1

Karaganda 96 8� 4

Kostanai 71 81 �

Kyzylorda 65 � 0

Mangistau 98 57 7

Pavlodar 74 66 1

North Kazakhstan 70 0 0

South Kazakhstan 61 0 0

71



The second important goal of the questionnaire was the data on the sanitation level in Kazakhstan . The survey findings demonstrate that 4�% of respondents are connected to a central sewage system (CSS) . As with water supply, the level of sewage connection differs by oblast . In the major cities of Kazakhstan–Almaty and Astana--the sewage connection level is high . In other oblasts, the sewage connection level is below �0%; in South Kazakhstan oblast this level is below 15% (Table 5 .1�)

Respondents without sewage systems were asked if they wished to connect . Over 46% answered in the affirmative . Ninety percent of the population not connected to a CSS answered in the affirmative in North Kazakhstan oblast and 16% in South Kazakhstan oblast .

Respondents not wishing to connect to a CWSS basically cited lack of demand as the reason . For some respondents, there was the issue of payment, especially for residents of Aktobe, East Kazakhstan, and Pavlodar . In some oblasts, the main reason was the fact that the region has no sewage networks and it is impossible to connect .

Most interviewees (81%) wishing to connect to a CWSS stated their willingness to pay even partly for the connection . The amount they were prepared to pay was 100 tenge .

Lavatory typeCurrently, the most common type of toilet is a cesspool: 58% of respondents use such toilets; another 40% have toilets connected to a CWSS .

A greater number of toilets connected to a CWSS and sewage are available to the populations of cities of national status . To illustrate, 90% of respondents from the cities of Almaty and Astana have such toilets . In oblast centres, this figure amounts to 75%, and in towns to 60% . For comparison, only �% of interviewed residents of rural settlements have access to toilets with waste tanks connected to sewage . Even though a large number of people have modern toilets, 8�% of them suffer from irregular water supply, at which time their toilets dysfunction . Respondents said that they always take in water, but when water disconnections last, hygienic and sanitary conditions deteriorate, thus increasing the risk of diseases .

During the survey, it was discovered that 150 respondents (�%) share toilets with several families . Twenty-eight respondents stated that they have no toilet at all or use public toilets . The situation looks very pessimistic here .

‘The toilet in the yard is disastrous. It is used by 12 families… The toilet has no doors, and it is always overfilled. It was cleaned only once.’

(Male respondent, City of Uralsk)

‘We share a toilet with 8 families (24 people). It is a nightmare.’(Female respondent, City of Pavlodar)

Those with individual toilets would basically like to improve sanitary conditions . This is a topical issue for the northern region of Kazakhstan, where people mostly have outside cesspools . For many of these people, toilet use in the winter is difficult .

‘We would like to have an in-house toilet. We live in the 21st century but we do not have a sense of civilization.’

(Female respondent, rural settlement of Akmola oblast)

‘We would like to have an in-house toilet. It is very convenient to have an in-house toilet, especially in the winter time… A warm toilet is important for a woman in the winter, as there is every possibility of

Figure 5 .1� Available lavatory types among the population of Kazakhstan

Modern lavatory connected to sewage and a CWSSLavatory connected to a CWSS but not to sewageCesspool

Lavatory connected neither to a CWSS nor to sewageOther

Figure 5 .14 Lavatory type subject to settlement type across Kazakhstan

Cap

ital

Obl

ast

cent

er

Smal

l tow

n

Rur

al

sett

lem

ent

Other

Pit latrine

Toilet, connected to CWS, but not connected to sewage

Modern toilet, connected to sewage system

7�



getting chilled. Children also suffer; they are afraid to go to the toilet at night.’

(Female respondent, settlement of North Kazakhstan oblast)

Bath/showerOut of the entire sampling, 1,�50 people have no shower or bath . They mainly use conveniences at neighbors’ or relatives’ places or boil water in order to wash at home . A large percent use public baths, and some out of this number pay 50 to 100 tenge to do so .

5.2.8 public participation in Water resource Management

One section of a questionnaire asked respondents if they think that the public should have a share in water management issues . Overall, 68% agreed with the need to involve the public in the management process . This indicator came to 50% in South Kazakhstan oblast and 88% in Aktubinsk oblast . Responses did not differ by settlement type or respondent age, although it was expected by the authors that young people would be more actively involved than elderly people .

table 5.14 the percentage of respondents in each oblast with the view that the public should influence the management of water resources

Oblast %

City of Astana 74 .��

Akmola 6� .8�

Aktubinsk 87 .8�

Atyrau 79 .91

East Kazakhstan 77 .�6

Zhambyl 80 .77

West Kazakhstan 77 .89

Karaganda 78 .44

Kostanai 6� .��

Kyzylorda 66 .��

Mangistau 69 .14

Pavlodar 75 .1�

North Kazakhstan 66 .�7

South Kazakhstan 50 .4�

Almaty 58 .�8

City of Almaty 54 .41

Kazakhstan 67 .57

Respondents outlined a number of possibilities for the public to participate in the management process . The most common were the submission of letters to the government, the conduction of thematic meetings, and the participation of representatives in official committees . (Figure 5 .15)

Respondents who believe that public participation is not needed in the management process explained that the government would take notie of the water users’ interests .

Figure 5 .15 How water users can be involved in water management issues (number of respondents=4,�89)

Letters should be sent to authorities

Thematic sessions should be organized

Officially authorized committees should be appealed to

Other

No answer

Figure 5 .16 Main causes for public inactivity in water management issues (number of respondents=1,8��)

Water users are not specialistsWater users are not concernedGovernment will not pay attentionOtherNo answer

7�



5.3. An Estimation of Safe Access to Drinking Water

After an analysis of the data, a general figure indicating the number of people without access to a safe, sustainable, and quality water supply system was obtained for Kazakhstan .

the share of the population connected to a central water supply system. The survey demonstrated that 55% or 4,14� respondents obtain water at home by central water pipe . Of these, 1,��1 people (17%) have water �4 hours a day, i .e ., sustainable water access . Of the surveyed population, 1�% or 96� respondents have sustainable water access and they think the water is of good quality . In summary, in Kazakhstan, some 1 .9 million people connected to a central water supply system have permanent access to quality drinking water (Figure 5 .17) . Table 5 .15 shows the situation in the oblast context .

The population that uses water from unprotected open sources such as public reservoirs, rivers, springs, lakes, or ditches, as well as delivered water may only be considered to have no access to drinking water . Therefore, of the 6 .7 million people not connected to a CWSS, 1 .58 million have no access to safe water .

Of the 1 .68 million that consume water from common standpipes, 6�% have periodical water cuts and consequently cannot be considered to have sustainable access to water . Coupling this fact with the water quality issues, the share of the population without sustainable access to quality drinking water increases from 6�% to 70%, thus adding another 1 .1� million people to the total number .

Of the 440,000 people that use water from public sources, 59% (�00,000) reported problems with sustainable water supply and water quality .

Of the nearly � million people that use individual water supply sources (standpipes and wells), some 50% indicated that their water is of poor quality . It follows that another 1 .5 million people have no access to drinking water . Moreover, this figure may be understated, as it is likely that underground waters are contaminated, especially when cesspools are located close to standpipes or wells . Therefore, it is likely that an individual source should not be considered an access to drinking water .

Consequently, nearly 4 .5 million people of 6 .7 million people not connected to a CWSS have no sustainable access to drinking water (Figure 5 .18) .

In Kazakhstan, 4 .0� million people (1 .9+� .1�) or �7% of the country’s population has sustainable access to drinking water .

Approximately 27% of the population or 4.45 million people across Kazakhstan have access to drinking water.

Figure 5 .17 Evaluation of permanent access to potable water by households connected to a central water supply system

Figure 5 .18 Evaluation of sustainable access to potable water of households not connected to a central water supply system

Sust

aina

ble

wat

er

supp

ly a

nd p

ositi

ve

view

s on

pot

able

w

ater

qua

lity

Sus

tain

able

wat

er

supp

ly (�

4 hr

s a

day)

Hou

seho

lds

conn

ecte

d to

ce

ntra

l wat

er s

uppl

y

Pos

itive

eva

luat

ion

of w

ater

qu

ality

and

dis

tanc

e of

und

er

100

m (p

riva

te w

ells

) P

ositi

ve e

valu

atio

n of

qua

lity

and

wat

er s

uppl

y st

abili

ty

(and

oth

er p

ublic

sou

rces

) P

ositi

ve e

valu

atio

n of

qua

lity

and

wat

er s

uppl

y st

abili

ty

(pub

lic w

ells

)

Use

wat

er fr

om p

rote

cted

so

urce

s

Hou

seho

lds

not c

onne

cted

to

cent

ral w

ater

sup

ply

74



table 5.15. the share of the population in each oblast (connected to a central water supply system) with sustainable access to high-quality drinking water

Oblast

Num

ber

of

resp

onde

nts

with

su

stai

nabl

e ac

cess

to

qua

lity

drin

king

w

ater

, peo

ple

Tota

l num

ber

of

inte

rvie

wee

s, p

eopl

e

% o

f res

pond

ents

w

ith a

cces

s

Pop

ulat

ion

(tho

usan

ds o

f peo

ple)

Pop

ulat

ion

of

Kaz

akhs

tan

with

su

stai

nabl

e ac

cess

to

qual

ity d

rink

ing

wat

er

(tho

usan

d pe

ople

)

City of Astana �5 �56 1� .67 50� .00 68,6��

City of Almaty �57 590 60 .51 1,147 .5 694,��5

Akmola 0 �76 0 .00 748 .� 0 .000

Aktubinsk 47 ��7 1� .95 668 .� 9�,�05

Atyrau 15 ��9 6 .55 45� .00 �9,607

East Kazakhstan 46 7�0 6 .�0 1,466 .00 9�,�78

Zhambyl 7� 494 14 .57 979 .5 14�,761

West Kazakhstan 8 �0� � .64 601 .9 15,89�

Karaganda �5 668 � .74 1,�� .6 49,910

Kostanai �0 458 4 .�7 919 .1 40,1�5

Kyzylorda �0 �05 6 .56 60� .8 �9,59�

Mangistau 6 175 � .4� ��8 .5 11,606

Pavlodar �� 74 5 .88 748 .7 44,041

North Kazakhstan 8 ��8 � .�7 68� .1 16,144

South Kazakhstan 15� 1,079 14 .09 �,110 .8 �97,�51

Almaty 1�0 80� 16 .19 1,560 .5 �5�,6�4

Republic of Kazakhstan 96� 7,515 1� .81 14,86� .00 1,904,47�

5.2.6 willingness and ability to connect to central water supply … · 2006. 10. 29. · kostanai...

Documents