1

Study

Citizen’s Perceptions of the Quality of Water and

Sewerage Services

Preapred by

June 2012

2

Team of Authors

Institute for Contemporary Studies (ISB)

Artan Hoxha

Elira Jorgoni

Mimoza Agolli

Sabina Ymeri

3

Table of Contents

I. Purpose of the study ......................................................................................................................................................... 9

II. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 10

III. Description of the methodology .............................................................................................................................. 15

III. Field work results - main findings from survey and focus groups ................................................................... 19

III.1. Analysis of survey findings .................................................................................................................................. 19

III.1.1. Access and Usage................................................................................................................................................. 22

III.1.2. Quality of Service ................................................................................................................................................. 28

III.1.4. Interactions with the Water Utility ................................................................................................................. 39

III.1.5. Community Participation .................................................................................................................................. 46

III.1.6. Water and Sewage Company Ranking as per Customers Evaluation ................................................. 48

III.2. Findings from the Focus Groups......................................................................................................................... 53

III.2.1. Pogradec .................................................................................................................................................................. 53

III.2.2. Tirana ....................................................................................................................................................................... 55

III.2.3. Vlora ..................................................................................................................................................................... 58

III.2.4. Shkoder ..................................................................................................................................................................... 60

III.2.5. Lezha ......................................................................................................................................................................... 62

III.2.6. Elbasan/Shushice .................................................................................................................................................. 64

IV. Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 67

V. Appendixes .......................................................................................................................................................................... 72

4

Index of Figures and Tables Figure 1: Household sample distribution per each water utility area ...................................................................... 20 Figure 2: Private companies sample distribution per each water utility area ....................................................... 20 Figure 3: Sample distribution per customer type and area of residence ................................................................ 20

Figure 4: Connectivity level to the public network of water supply ................................................................ 22 Figure 5. Coverage rate by water supply system across utilities ...................................................................... 23 Figure 6: Frequency of yes/no answer to the question “is the customer interested to be connected to the

public network of the water supply” ................................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 7: Main source of water used per type of customers ...................................................................................... 24 Figure 8: Distribution of customers using “other” water supply sources by type of location ......................... 25 Figure 9: Frequency of using water pumps by water utility area. ............................................................................ 26 Figure 10: Level of access to the sewage system per utility ................................................................................. 27 Figure 11: Frequency of interruptions in water supply by type of customer ........................................................ 28 Figure 12: Frequency of experiencing water supply disruption per each water utility area ............................ 28 Figure 13: Frequency of customers experiencing 24h running water supply per each water utility area .. 29 Figure 14: Distribution of average water disruption times per year, by water utility ........................................ 30 Figure 15: Source of drinkable water by utility ............................................................................................................. 31 Figure 16: Quality of water supplied by the public network, as per customer perception ............................... 32 Figure 17: Frequency of problems with the sewage system per water utility area ............................................. 32 Figure 18: Frequency of customers having contracts and water meter provided by the water utility

company ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 19: Frequency of customers having paid for setting up the contracts and water meters..................... 33 Figure 20: Frequency of customers having installed water meters per each utility area .................................. 34 Figure 21: Main category of problems faced by customers with invoicing .......................................................... 35 Figure 22: Frequency of customers considering price of water supply high, per water utility area ............. 36 Figure 23: Frequency of customers considering price of sewage system high, per utility area .................... 36 Figure 24: Average amount of payment for water supply (in ALL). ...................................................................... 37 Figure 25: Household average amount of payment for water supply (in ALL). ................................................. 37 Figure 26: Customers willingness to face increased prices of water system to cause improved quality ..... 38 Figure 27: Customers willingness to face increased prices of sewage system to cause improved quality . 38 Figure 28: Nonpayment frequency per each water utility area ................................................................................. 39 Figure 29: Frequency of customers making an enquiry/complaint about water or sewage system per

customer type ............................................................................................................................................................................ 40 Figure 30: Frequency of customers making an enquiry/complaint about water or sewage system per

customer type and water utility unit .................................................................................................................................. 40 Figure 30: Frequency of customers reporting their complaints or enquires to the water and sewage

company ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 32: Customer service desk ...................................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 32: Employees level of helpfulness across water utility service areas ..................................................... 42 Figure 32: Typology of problems reported by the customers ................................................................................... 42 Figure 33: Level of customers’ satisfaction with the company reaction to their problem reporting (scale 1

– very dissatisfied; 5 very satisfied) .................................................................................................................................. 43

5

Figure 34: Level of customers’ satisfaction with the company reaction to their problem reporting per each

water utility ............................................................................................................................................................................... 44 Figure 35: Frequency of answers “no actions were taken by the company after problem made present” .. 45 Figure 36: Measures to improve customer satisfaction ............................................................................................... 46 Figure 37: Customers participating in community meetings per water and sewage service Provider

Company .................................................................................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 38: Frequency of customers’ knowing/not knowing about existing customer protection

organizations ............................................................................................................................................................................. 48 Figure 39: Customer satisfaction with water supply service by utility .................................................................. 49 Figure 40: Customer satisfaction with quality of water supplied per each water utility area company ....... 49 Figure 41: Customer satisfaction with quantity of water supply .............................................................................. 50 Figure 42: Customer satisfaction with schedule of running water supplied per each water utility area

company ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 43: Customers perception on the company performance .............................................................................. 50 Figure 44: Diagnosis of company performance based on customer satisfaction level indicators .................. 51 Table 1: Poverty rate measures from the sample survey (household level) .......................................................... 21 Table 2: Main reasons of using alternative water sources than public network of water supply ...... 23 Table 3: Average water tank volume used per type of customers (in Liter) ......................................................... 26 Table 4: Water supply quality measured by time of having undisrupted supply, per type of customers ... 29 Table 5: Main source of drinkable water used by households .................................................................................. 31 Table 6: Customers perception regarding pricing of connection to the main public network of water

supply and water meter .......................................................................................................................................................... 34 Table 7: Customer perception on the invoice clarity and understandability ......................................................... 36 Table 8: Water payments per type of customers (in ALL) ......................................................................................... 37

List of appendixes

Appendix 2: Sample comparison of the household survey on water and sewage system providers............. 72 Appendix 3: Sample Comparison of business/institutions survey on water and sewage services ................. 72 Appendix 4: Sample distribution per each water utility (in %) ................................................................................ 72 Appendix 5: Sample distribution per each water utility (in number) ...................................................................... 73 Appendix 6: Household sample characteristics ............................................................................................................. 73 Appendix 7: Households dwelling characteristics ........................................................................................................ 74 Appendix 8: Households Respondent Characteristics ................................................................................................. 74 Appendix 9: Business and public institutions sample characteristics ..................................................................... 75 Appendix 10: Business respondent characteristics ....................................................................................................... 75 Appendix 11: Alternative source of water source used by households and private companies ..................... 76 Appendix 12: Connectivity to water supply network and water sources used by poor/non poor families 76 Appendix 13: Frequency of reasons why not connected to the public water supply network per household

type of dwelling and year of dwelling construction ..................................................................................................... 76 Appendix 14: Comparison of connectivity rate to public network and frequency of using water from

public network as the main source of water .................................................................................................................... 77 Appendix 15: Main source of water used by area of location and customer type .............................................. 77

6

Appendix 16: Customer perception on the quality of water supplied by the public net ................................... 77 Appendix 17: Average monthly family expenditures on drinkable bottled water (in ALL) ........................... 77 Appendix 18: Distance from an alternative source of water (in min, if you walk) ............................................ 78 Appendix 19: Distance to an alternative source of water (in min) .......................................................................... 78 Appendix 20: Frequency of those having/not having individual tanks per type of customers and area of

residence ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 79 Appendix 21: Frequency of those having individual tanks per each water utility area..................................... 79 Appendix 22: Usage of Water Tanks (per volume category and type of users) ................................................. 79 Appendix 23: Companies usage of water tanks (in Liter) ......................................................................................... 79 Appendix 24: Frequency and duration of using water pumps per type of customers, area of location and

poor/non poor families ........................................................................................................................................................... 80 Appendix 25: Water pump usage per type of dwelling and are of living .............................................................. 80 Appendix 26: Duration and frequency of poor/non poor household usage of water pumps ........................... 80 Appendix 27: Duration and frequency of water pumps usage per each water utility area ............................... 81 Appendix 28: Type of toilettes per category of customers and area of location ................................................. 81 Appendix 29: Frequency of customers being connected to the public system of sewage system per type of

customers ................................................................................................................................................................................... 82 Appendix 30: Frequency of customers not connected to the public system of sewage system but wanting

to have a connection to the net, per type of customers ................................................................................................ 82 Appendix 31: Distribution of companies saying they want/not want a connection to the main network of

public sewage management per sector of operation ..................................................................................................... 82 Appendix 32: Frequency of water supply disruption per type of customers and area of location ................. 82 Appendix 33: Duration in hour of consistent water supply per each water utility area .................................... 83 Appendix 34: Seasonal patterns of water supply disruptions .................................................................................... 83 Appendix 35: Frequency of customers experiencing cases of epidemic caused by water pollution (water

contamination) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 83 Appendix 36: Frequency of customers experiencing cases of epidemic caused by water pollution (water

contamination) per water utility area ................................................................................................................................ 84 Appendix 37: Frequency of customers being notified/not notified about water supply planned/unplanned

disruptions per type of customers ....................................................................................................................................... 84 Appendix 38: Frequency of customers being notified/not notified about water supply planned/unplanned

disruptions per type of customers per each water utility area ................................................................................... 85 Appendix 39: Mean and max. frequency of water supply disruptions per season and type of customer .... 85 Appendix 40: Frequency of customers confirming the mentioned quality of water provided by the public

network ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 86 Appendix 41: Frequency of having problems with the Sewage system by type of customers ....................... 86 Appendix 42: Frequency of having problems with the Sewage system by type of customers ....................... 86 Appendix 43: Frequency of customers having contracts and water meters per area of location ................... 87 Appendix 44: Contract and water meter per type of customers, per each water utility area ........................... 87 Appendix 45: Customer perception on pricing of setting up a new connection with the public network of

water supply per water utility area ..................................................................................................................................... 87 Appendix 46: Customer perception on pricing of setting up a new connection with the public network of

water supply per household type ........................................................................................................................................ 88

7

Appendix 47: Perception of customers on pricing level of water supply and sewage system per type of

customers ................................................................................................................................................................................... 89 Appendix 48: Perception of customers on pricing level of water supply and sewage system per each utility

area ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 89 Appendix 49: Frequency of payment/non payment rate per type of customer, area of location, poor-non

poor households ....................................................................................................................................................................... 89 Appendix 50: Households water invoice payment per location and poor/non poor classification (in ALL)

....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 90 Appendix 51: Agency of customer payment of water and sewage system ........................................................... 90 Appendix 52: Frequency of knowing/not knowing where to report in case of having enquiries or

complaints about water supply or sewage system ......................................................................................................... 90 Appendix 53: Where do customers place their complaints or enquires regarding problems with water and

sewage system management per type of customers ..................................................................................................... 90 Appendix 54: Where do customers place their complaints or enquires regarding problems with water and

sewage system management per area of residence ....................................................................................................... 91 Appendix 55: Existence/inexistence of an office for customers’ relations .......................................................... 91 Appendix 56: Easiness in finding the customers service unit (desk) and staff helpfulness............................ 91 Appendix 57: Pattern of problems raised by customers per customer type and areas of residence ............. 91 Appendix 58: Pattern of problems raised by customers per each water utility area ......................................... 92 Appendix 59: Addressed reports/complaints as reported by groups of stakeholders ....................................... 92 Appendix 60: Addressed reports/complaints by area ................................................................................................. 92 Appendix 61: Frequency of no measures taken answers per each water utility area ........................................ 93 Appendix 62: Frequency of experiencing “corruption” by you or someone you know when dealing with

the Water and Sewage Company ........................................................................................................................................ 93 Appendix 63: Frequency of corrupted cases ................................................................................................................. 93 Appendix 64: Time and efforts devoted to connect to the main network, installing water meter and

preparing the contract ............................................................................................................................................................. 93 Appendix 65: Measures that will improve customer satisfaction ........................................................................... 94

8

Acknowledgments

This Report has benefited greatly from the generous support and valuable contributions received

from many individuals and organizations. Others contributed to the report either directly, through

feedback on drafts, discussions, background papers, or indirectly through their research.

We are particularly grateful to the Joint United Nations Programme on Economic Governance,

Regulatory Reform and Pro-Poor Development, implemented in Albania from UNDP for the

good cooperation, technical input and the overall guidance in the whole process of the study

implementation.

The presented analysis is a result of research, discussions and consultations with experts and

practitioners. The team authors also wishes to gratefully acknowledge the support from the

Water Regulatory Authority for their helpful comments and contributions. Particularly, we

would like to thank Mr. Avni Dervishi , Chair of the National Regulatory Commission of the

Water Regulatory Authority and all the commissioners for their active involvement and valuable

contribution input during all the phases of project implementation.

9

I. Purpose of the study

The objective of this report is to provide hard data on citizens’ perceptions of the quality

of water supply and sewerage services. Such hard data can constitute: 1) an input into a dialogue

between utility providers and customers with a view to improve the quality of services; 2) a tool

for the stakeholders and in particular the Regulatory Authority to obtain hard data/document the

current situation and monitor the impact of reforms on the quality of this public service and take

steps for consumer protection; 3) a tool which the utility providers can adopt to set targets and

monitor themselves their customers’ perception of the quality of the services they provide.

This report was prepared under the auspices and with the support of the Water Regulatory

Authority, in the framework of the Programme for Economic Governance of UNDP. It lays out

the findings of survey based on the Citizens Report Card (CRC) approach. The purpose of the

study was to design and implement a survey of citizens’ perceptions of the quality of water and

sewerage services and analyze the results with the intention to provide a set of evidence-based

policy recommendations aimed at improving citizens’ satisfaction with the services they receive.

The intention of this survey is to collect the feedback of three user groups: business

entities, public institutions and households on the access, use, quality of service, transparency,

community participation and interaction with the water and sewage companies. This is more than

just a simple data collection exercise as the CRC is an instrument aiming to make public delivery

more accountable.

A key element of the CRC approach is that the survey findings are exposed to the public

through the use of media and public meetings in an attempt to instill transparency and promote

responsiveness and public accountability. It is expected that the relevant institutions would take

the CRC findings into consideration in adjusting their policies, programmes and performance to

improve service delivery.

When CRCs are applied over regular intervals of time, they can also help benchmark the

changes over a period of time. Hence, hopefully this will not be a one-time exercise as the CRC

approach yields better results if applied periodically to assess any improvements in the service

delivery from the perspective of user groups. Therefore, CRC ought to be institutionalized for a

meaningful analysis of the electricity provision.

10

II. Executive Summary

This study on citizen perceptions on the quality of water supply and sewerage services,

prepared in accordance with the Citizen Report Card methodology, was undertaken in the

context of ongoing reforms in the water sector. The study was made possible in the framework of

the Economic Governance Programme implemented by UNDP, with special support by the

Water Regulatory Authority.

The rapid development and uncontrolled urban growth in the last two decades has put

increased pressure on utilities for expanded services. This, together with poor governance,

management inefficiencies as well as lack of a clear institutional division of responsibilities have

led to poor service levels and the need for comprehensive reform. Public service consumers in

Albania have not traditionally engaged with service providers on management of services, and

increased engagement would be important in order to improve public services. Hence the Water

Regulatory Authority supported the preparation of a large scale study to gather citizen’s

perceptions on the quality of water supply and sewerage services and provide a set of evidence

based policy recommendations.

The methodology for the study has followed the CRC methodology, which is a simple

but efficient tool to provide utilities and regulators with feedback from service users and identify

strengths and weaknesses in their service. It was based on the result of a randomized sample

survey of the users of the public services, carefully designed based on detailed specifications on

the sector and geographic area to be included in the survey; as well as size, location and

composition of sample.

It is important to point out that this is a CRC report and not a technical study in the sense

of providing factual information on service standards. It provides information on consumers

perceptions on services: consumers rate the access to the service, its quality, price as well as

other aspects based on their own experiences.

Methodology

The research phase – including survey implementation, data cleaning, processing and

analysis was completed between September - December 2011. Field interviews were carried out

from 12 September to 4 November 2011 for a total of 2 550 valid interviews. The sample for the

water sector study was predetermined by the terms of reference, ensuring coverage of ten

operators across Albania: Shkodër, Mirdite, Lezhë, Tiranë, Durrës, Pogradec, Vlorë, Sarandë,

Tepelenë and Elbasan (village). All operators are publicly owned commercial companies. The

survey included three different types of consumers: households, businesses, and public

institutions. The sample for each utility was between 200 and 300 users depending on the size of

utility, for the three different categories of users. The sampling technique used for the water

sector study followed the principles of multi-stage probabilistic sampling with designing

elements depending on the aim of the survey and population of interest. Sample identification in

the filed was based on random selection. Distributional properties of the population were

identified through data secured by WRA, National Institute of Statistics Living Standards

Measurement Survey (LSMS 2008). In addition to the survey, a series of focus group discussions

were designed and carried out in order to gain further insight on issues related to the quality of

services provided by water supply and sewerage companies.

11

Access and use of services

Data indicates that approximately 94% of citizens have access to the water supply

system. Connectivity level to the main public water supply network is on average quite good, but

there are significant variations in access to the system by area and type of customer. Rural and

suburban area customers as well as poor households have lower rates of access to the system.

The percentage of business having no access to the public network of water supply is

considerable. A surprisingly high rate of these businesses prefers alternative water sources.

The lack of consistency and reliability in water supply has prompted citizens to make use

of alternative solutions, such as use water tanks and pumps. More than 60% of respondents use

water tanks, but the percentage is lower in rural areas and for poor families. The high incidence

of pump and water tank installation suggests that households and businesses alike have incurred

significant costs to ensure uninterrupted water supply.

The connectivity of customers to the sewerage system is at an average of 84% for the

overall sample across all utilities. However there are significant variations by area: only 35% of

respondents in rural and suburban areas have access to the sewerage system.

Quality of service

The study investigated the perceptions of citizens on the quality of water supply service

by further exploring their experiences related to issues of continuity in water supply, any

disruptions faced, characteristics of water supplied and information of shared with customers.

Less than 20% of customers across all utilities receive continuous running water supply.

All utilities, with the exception of Pogradec supply water on a schedule. The majority of

customers across all utilities receive less than four hours of running water per day (41.9%), and

over 65% of citizens receive less than ten hours of running water supply daily.

Significant variations in the patterns on interruptions in water supply are observed for

each of the ten utilities. Only the Pogradec utility has a remarkable performance most probably

due to recent major investments in the water network, with only 6% of respondents having

experienced cuts. With the exception of Pogradec, which is an obvious outlier, only the Shkoder

and Tepelena utilities supply water for 24 hours a day to at least 30% of their citizens Incidence

of continuous water supply is higher among businesses and institutions; as well as higher for

urban households as compared to rural households.

Disruptions of water supply are reported to be the most severe during the summer season.

Interruptions are also frequent during winter, and somewhat less frequent during spring and

autumn. Respondents suggest that the increased frequency and severity of cuts during the

summer season are primarily due to the shortage of natural water supply and increased water

demand during this season; combined with informal connections, obsolete network and poor

management. The seasonal pattern of water supply disruptions reported highlights the high

dependency of water supply on natural conditions and indicates that management of water

reserve is inadequate.

12

Almost all utilities provide water to their customers on a schedule due to the scarcity of

water resources and inability of the utility to provide the service around the clock. However,

utilities fail to inform customers on the schedule of water supply disruptions. Over 60% of the

respondents report they have no information on the schedule of water provision. Rural area

customers are less informed on average than urban area customers.

Water provided by the water utility network is regarded as appropriate for many uses

outside of drinking by the majority of customers. However, quality may be improved: half of the

customers in the overall sample think the water is supplied at a low pressure; it is not so safe to

be used for drinking and the taste is not acceptable. Around 80% of the customers’ consider the

water clean and with no special odors.

The majority of respondents do not use tap water for drinking purposes. The most

common substitute for tap water is bottled water or water from unprotected and uncontrolled

sources such as wells for drinking. The perceived quality and safety of the water supplied is

highly variable across utilities. Urban area and non-poor households are more likely to use

bottled water for drinking. The average monthly cost of purchasing bottled water is 1,013 ALL, a

cost generally twice the average value of the water invoice. Those boiling the water for drinking

also incur further costs for being supplied with drinkable water.

22.5% of the respondents report having experienced problems with the sewage system in

the last twelve months. The main types of problems reported by customers are uncovered

sewages; bad smells and contamination of the environment. According to citizens, bad

management and the obsolete network are the main reasons for the shortcomings in the system.

Payments and transparency

Customer satisfaction with service quality, as well as their perception on the “value” they

get for the prices paid is among the most important features that determine the market share and

profit of firms. This is slightly different in the case of utilities operating in a monopolized

environment, where the customer is a price taker and their level of satisfaction has little impact

on the provider’s behavior. The study sheds light into the relations between the costumers and

utilities as well as facilities available with regard to payment, invoicing and service costs.

Data indicates that over 90% of respondents state they have a regular contract with the

water, indicating that the frequency of illegal connections may not be very high. However, this

figure must be interpreted with reservation, as it is possible that a percentage of those illegally

connected to the system are not aware of the fact and/or have not admitted the fact.

Although over 90% of citizens have regular access to the water system, 30% less are

equipped with a water meter. Household customers are less likely to have meters installed. Rural

area customers as well as poor households are less likely to have a contract with the water utility

and an even lower percentage are equipped with water meters. This indicates that water utilities

should make extra efforts in identifying all customers and installing meters in order to enforce

payment of invoices. Consumers are charge by utilities for establishing new connections and

water meters: on average 60% of consumers state they have made such payments. These costs

are considered too high for a considerable share of households and even more so for the poor.

Water providers have a primary interest in ensuring that customers are formally registered and

consumption is measured, whereas extra charges for the contract and meter constitute a further

13

burden to regularization. The customer perception on cost of connection and meters may provide

insight to the water utilities and regulator in order to identify suitable solutions especially for the

poor households.

Clarity of the water bill is satisfactory overall, with the exception of the ability to

understand the charges for used water collection. This indicates that utilities and the regulator

should make some efforts in informing customers about the composition of the water fee and

calculation of the used water collection charge.

There is no clear pattern of reasons for failure to pay the water bill. In general, weak

management of the companies and obsolete network conditions become a barrier to the ability of

the provider in generating revenue.

Considerable variations are observed in the distribution of opinions on pricing by utility

area, which most probably reflects the economic development and purchasing power of areas, as

well as the customer perception on the quality and adequacy of water supply and sewage system.

However, it is meaningful that less than half of customers feel water pricing is high, despite the

typically poor quality of service reported for the majority of services. More importantly, over

70% of households are willing to pay more for improved service delivery. These data may be

used by the utilities and regulator to consider increasing tariffs with a special attention to the

introduction of subsidies targeting the poor and needy alone; rather than wasting resources on

subsidizing the whole system. The new fee methodology prepared by WRA, fees are applied in

accordance with volumes of water used, applying lower fees for lower volumes. This mechanism

aims at providing an advantage to the poorer households, which usually consume less water.

Water utilities should consider increases tariffs if possible in order to cover costs and improve

service; based on careful examination of the customers’ willingness to pay as well as improve

management and show for the extra money collected by customers.

Interaction and communication with consumers

The interaction between the Water Company and customers remains an important

element in improving service quality. The frequency of customers placing a complaint or an

enquiry at the public company of water and sewage system management is not necessarily linked

with the quality of service. A low share of customers reports their complaints to the responsible

bodies because they are skeptical that their problem would be addressed following a complaint.

Urban area customers are more likely to report problems, probably due to the fact that urban area

residents are likely to have more information on opportunities to file complaints. This suggests

that the regulator should undertake a public information campaign to inform customers of their

options to complain.

Around 50% of customers state that they do not believe a complaint would lead to a

solution for their problem. A considerable percentage indicate that it is not easy to “access” the

company office that deals with the customers complaints and not easy either to communicate

with the employers of the company. Many customers also think the problems are well known and

there is no need to complaint or let the company know about that, it is just time and efforts

consuming.

Only about half of customers having reported complaints indicate there were dedicated

customer care desks. This rate is lower for households, and it manifests a declining tendency for

14

rural households and poor ones. When such offices exist customers have found it easy to access

them but they are not always satisfied with the way the case was handled. Around 90% of those

that have submitted complaints or request at customers service offices felt it was very easy to

access the offices and only 60% have been satisfied with employees help and support

The most frequent problems customers are likely to report include quantity of water

supply, disruptions of water supply and damaged connections to the main network of water

supply; as well as invoicing.

Most household customers are dissatisfied with the clarity of information provided by the

company regarding the problem reported, dissatisfied with company following up the problem

and updating the customer on the status of its problem, dissatisfied with personnel service and

the easiness of getting an answer or an explanation. Institutions and businesses are more likely to

be satisfied than households probably due to their knowledge of procedures and steps to follow

when facing problems Customers are also dissatisfied with information provided on further

actions or steps to be taken for their reported problem to be solved.

In most cases no measures are taken for the reported problems – this is true for almost

60% of customers who have filed a complaint. This rate is higher for problems reported by

households. The incidence of customers saying company did not do anything regarding their

complaint is also higher in rural areas – 92% of customers from rural areas have declared so.

Only 1.6% of the overall sample were contacted by the water and sewage utility during

the last 12 months. The communication between the water supply company and its customers

seems to be just one way – customers knocking at the door of the company reporting their

problems, little communication flows from the company to the clients in order to communicate

important messages for report on the problems that concern customers.

15

III. Description of the methodology

This study on water supply and sewerage services, prepared in accordance with the

Citizen Report Card methodology, was undertaken in the context of ongoing reforms in the water

sector, with special support by the Water Regulatory Authority. The rapid development and

uncontrolled urban growth in the last two decades has put increased pressure on utilities for

expanded services. This, together with poor governance, management inefficiencies as well as

lack of a clear institutional division of responsibilities have led to poor service levels and the

need for comprehensive reform.

The study is part of a larger package of activities encompassed under the joint WB and

UNDP Economic Governance programme, which aims at strengthening capacities of regulators

in the utilities sector to better monitor service delivery on one hand; as well as strengthen the

consumers’ voice and their active engagement through various forms of association; while

promoting pro-poor policies. Water sector governance is largely characterized by lack of

transparency and accountability by service providers. Recent developments towards

decentralization and/or regionalization of utilities are unlikely to strengthen accountability in the

medium term, in the absence of a strong consumer voice. Public service consumers in Albania

have not traditionally engaged with service providers on management of services, and increased

engagement would be important in order to improve public services. The objective of this study

was to design and implement a large scale survey to gather citizen’s perceptions on the quality of

water supply and sewerage services and provide a set of evidence based policy

recommendations.

Advantages of a Citizen Report Card

The methodology for the study has followed the CRC methodology, which is a simple

but efficient tool to provide utilities and regulators with feedback from service users and identify

strengths and weaknesses in their service. It was based on the result of a randomized sample

survey of the users of the public services, carefully designed based on detailed specifications on

the sector and geographic area to be included in the survey; as well as size, location and

composition of sample.

It is important to point out that this is a CRC report and not a technical study in the sense

of providing factual information on service standards. It provides information on consumers

perceptions on services: consumers rate the access to the service, its quality, price as well as

other aspects based on their own experiences.

The outcomes of this study will be used by the Economic Governance project and other

stakeholders as appropriate to advocate with the concerned utilities as well as regulatory bodies

on eventual improvements in accordance with customers levels of satisfaction with the quality of

services. Moreover, the results of the survey may be further used as a baseline study for both the

Regulator as well as utilities to monitor performance of such services. Indeed, the current

situation in the sector warrants the use of this instrument to go beyond merely collecting

quantitative feedback on user perceptions; but support public accountability processes through

clear recommendations, and advocacy. In Albania, as is the situation in many countries where

16

Citizen Report Cards have been used, demand side data is missing. Furthermore, in the situation

of monopolies, CRS are the best incentive for increased responsiveness to consumers’ needs, by

creating a collective and credible voice that eventually exerts pressure for improved

performance.

The process of preparing the Citizen Report Cards

The Terms of Reference for the study contained detailed specifications on the distribution

of consumers to be included in the survey by geographic areas of water utility coverage. The

Terms of Reference had determined the areas and utilities to be covered by the study, as well as

size, location and composition of sample; which were developed by the Economic Governance

project in consultations with and based on data provided by WRA.

The design of the questionnaire was a critical precondition for the success of the

assignment, and it was designed in a way to include as much detail as possible bearing in mind

the trade-off between detail and time.

The questionnaire was designed using the CRC approach and methodology and was

developed in consultations with stakeholders. WRA and EG Programme experts have provided

their suggestions in common discussions with regard to the content of the questionnaire and its

use in the future. Questionnaires were designed in a way that supported information gathering on

the focal issue – which is the perception of consumers on the quality of water and sewerage

services. They were drafted in such way as to enable cross checking/validation of respondent

answers and provide options for data screening and differentiated analyses for policy

recommendations.

Based on WRA’s suggestions as well as preliminary desk review and consultations with

sector experts it was decided to develop separate questionnaires for the household sample and the

non-household sample, including businesses and public institutions. All questionnaires were

organized in separate sections covering the main issues of concern for the sector in accordance

with the Citizen Report Card methodology; taking into account i) the needs/objectives of the

survey; ii) the context of developments in the field of water/sewerage services in the country, as

well as iii) adaptation with survey methodology standards. The National Commission of WRA as

well as the project team approved the final questionnaires.

The research phase – including survey implementation, data cleaning, processing and

analysis is another critical stage for similar studies. The sample for the water sector study was

predefined in the terms of reference, providing for the coverage of ten different water utility

areas: Shkoder, Mirdite, Lezhe; Tirane; Durres; Pogradec; Vlore; Sarande; Tepelene and Elbasan

(rural), located across Albania. All water utilities are publicly owned commercial companies. It

was required that the sample for each utility was between 200 and 300 users depending on the

size of utility, for the three different categories of users (households; businesses and public

institutions).

Based on these requirements, the sampling technique used for the water sector study

followed the principles of multi stage probabilistic sampling, with some designing elements

17

depending on the aim of the survey and the population of interest. The distributional properties

of the population were identified through data from the Living Standards Measurement Survey

(LSMS) 2008 as carried out by INSTAT.

The domestic users sample was designed in such way as to mimic the geographical

distribution of the entire population in each of the ten utility coverage areas, in order to ensure

representativeness of the sample for each of the ten water utilities. The sample was stratified as

per geographical distribution (urban/rural), as well as household size, using weighting factors to

define sample size per strata.

The sampling technique for the business sample was based on annual turnover and

number of employees data provided by the Tax authorities. The business registry provides

information on location of the business, the sector it operates as well as turnover. The whole

business population for each utility area was stratified according to the sector and weighting

factors were applied to ensure representativeness of the business sample in each of the utility

areas.

In a similar fashion, the public institution sample was designed using data from the

Department of Public Administration on the number of public administration employees per

sector and public institution, complemented by data from the Ministry of Finance on public

financing per sector. Data on the name of the public institution, location; number of staff and

type of institutions ((i) education (ii) health (iii) local governance and (iv) law and order

services), together with the share of public spending per field of public services were used to

define the number of selected institutions.

In addition to the survey, a series of focus group discussions were designed and held with

the aim to gain further insight on issues surrounding the quality of services provided by the water

and sewerage utilities. The organization of focus groups was also important in light of the

methodology used for the survey in the water sector, which was based on ten different regional

samples rather on national sample. The purpose was to capture citizens’ perceptions on the

differences in service quality between small and large utilities and urban/rural providers, type of

system and structural problems. Six focus groups were organized in Lezha, Elbasan (rural),

Vlora, Tirana, Pogradec and Shkoder in late November 2011, in order to ensure a good balance

in geographic terms as well as size of areas/utilities.

Focus groups are particularly effective for analyzing issues such as the satisfaction level

on services provided. While, satisfaction level on services provided can be a tricky concept that

is difficult to quantify and to ask about it in a conventional questionnaire-style survey. The use of

focus groups was intended to provide richer understanding about consumers’ perceptions, as well

as explore a variety of issues or concerns that motivate respondents’ answers in regular survey

questions about overall satisfaction with the utility companies’ performance (and other relevant

institutions) may also be hard to interpret.

Furthermore, in order to make sure that the focus groups served not only the purpose of

gathering qualitative and more in-depth information, but also validated any survey findings, the

project team built on intermediate survey data that were available at the time. The composition of

18

focus groups participants was designed with particular attention on diversity, in order to ensure a

wide range of opinions and experiences.

Implementation of the survey

Interviews in the field were carried out between September 12, 2011 and by November 4,

2011. A total of 2550 valid interviews were completed. The total field staff engaged in the

survey was 72 interviewers and 17 supervisors, each assigned to different enumeration areas.

Field staff were previously trained by the project team on the interviewing technique and

better understanding of questionnaires; aiming at ensuring familiarity of the field staff with the

general objectives of the project and the expected outcome of the survey, interviewing

approaches that better fit the information and perception targeted by this survey.

Household sample identification was based on the sample quota distribution per region,

urban/rural location and household size. Sample identification in the field was also based on

random selection. The basic rule followed was to select through the random route sampling

techniques 8 households per zone, where zones were defined based on INSTAT GIS map

classification of areas.

The main criterion followed for the household quotas were the household size, a

characteristics that influences the consumption of water. Households were classified in two

groups’ households with less than 4 members and households with more than four members. The

interviewers were asked to interview only adult person’s members of the household, in particular

cases they were allowed to interview non-household members who were staying with the family

temporarily.

Business identification as per sample specification was based on the list of businesses

provided by the Tax authorities (General Tax Directorate and Business Registration Center).

Quotas in this category needed to comply with the size of business (small/large) and with the

sector of classification. Public Institution sample identification was based on the list of public

institutions provided by the Department of Public Administration. Quotas in this category needed

to comply with the type of public institution. Interviewers were advised to interview the

head/administrator of the business, or the economist/accountant, who are more likely to be

informed about the quality of services. Likewise, interviewers were advised to interview the

manager or the service department, who are more likely to be aware of quality of services and

administrative issues.

The fieldwork was closely supervised by supervisors and every interviewer reported back

to the supervisor at the end of each day, also submitting the compiled questionnaires. Completed

questionnaires were held back to supervisors for quality checks and logical control at the end of

each day. SPSS was used for data entry and cleaning in a computer network. 20% of the

completed questionnaires were physically checked against data inputted.

All questionnaires underwent the process of logical control, whereas 20% of the sample

was checked again in the quality control phase. Telephone checks were performed with

respondents to check accuracy of interviews and responses.

19

III. Field work results - main findings from survey and focus groups

III.1. Analysis of survey findings

Sample characteristics

The methodology of defining the sample for the Citizens Report Card on water and

sewerage services was mainly based on the number of customers of each of the ten water

utilities. The sample was proportional to the population size of the coverage area for each

water utility (in terms of number of customers served). The size of the sample for the smaller

utilities was adjusted in order to ensure that enough observations are covered in order to

ensure statistical significance of the findings. The sample size per water utility area as per

pure proportionality and its adjustment is summarized in table 1. The total sample size equals

to 2 550 interviews (including households, businesses and public institutions), on average 255

surveys per water utility area.

The total number of households surveyed amount to 2000 and the ratios between

urban and rural populations as well as distribution of the sample per family size are defined

based on the distribution of the national population among rural/urban areas and family size

according to LSMS 2008 data (see appendix 2 for sampling parameters). The urban/rural

division of the sample was important for purposes of this survey in terms of differing

lifestyles and the household size in terms of the water consumption level.

Public institutions and business sample selection was based on identified lists of

businesses and public institutions per each water utility area. Around 100 public institutions

and 450 private companies were interviewed. The set of information on public institutions

and private businesses includes the sector of operation and size of institution/business.

The distribution of the whole sample among rural/urban and newly established

suburban areas was based on the distribution of customers of each water utility area as

provided by the Water Regulatory Authority (WRA). 81.6% of the interviewed customers are

located in urban areas, 16.2% in rural areas and only 2.2% of the whole samples are

customers that operate in sub-urban areas. This composition varies per type of customers

surveyed and it also varies noticeably among each water utility area. Households and public

institutions surveyed are mostly located in urban areas, representative of suburban areas are

mostly businesses operating in the newly established industrial areas.

20

Figure : Household sample distribution per each water

utility area

Figure : Private companies sample distribution per

each water utility area

The common family profile interviewed is a family with 4 members, with on average

2 female members, 3 adults and one child member. A quarter of the families interviewed

have in their composition elderly people. The average size of rural households is larger than

the urban household, with higher incidence of children and elderly people (see appendix 1).

In the overall sample 5.6% of the households have members with special needs; in rural areas

the incidence of families with special needs members is higher (around 2 percentage points

higher, 6.9%).

Figure : Sample distribution per customer type and area of residence

The household income size as well as the main source of income were the two

interlinked variables used to identify the poor households in the sample. Households with up

to 10000 ALL monthly income, where the main source of income is non-labor generated

Durres UK

Sh.a, 13.7

%

Elbasan

Fshat U

Sh.a, 9.9%

Lezhe UK

Sh.a, 5.9%

Mirdite

UK

Sh.a, 5.9%

Pogradec

UK

Sh.a, 7.9%

Sarande

UK

Sh.a, 7.9%

Shkoder

UK

Sh.a, 9.8%

Tepelene

U

Sh.a, 5.9%

Tirane UK

Sh.a, 23.5

%

Vlore U

Sh.a, 9.8%

Durres UK

Sh.a, 27.6

%

Elbasan

Fshat U

Sh.a, 22.3%

Lezhe UK

Sh.a, 13.2

%

Mirdite

UK

Sh.a, 11.6%

Pogradec

UK

Sh.a, 16.7%

Sarande

UK

Sh.a, 11.9%

Shkoder

UK

Sh.a, 17.2%

Tepelene

U

Sh.a, 11.2%

Tirane UK

Sh.a, 47.8

%

Vlore U

Sh.a, 20.6

%

82.1% 84.0%78.9% 81.6%

.0%4.0% 11.3% 2.2%

17.9% 12.0% 9.8% 16.2%

.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Households Public Institutions Private Companies Overall Sample

Urban Areas Suburban areas Rural areas

21

were considered as poor, and were used to identify poor voices regarding access and quality

of service.

The majority of households on the sample live on income generated from employment

and self-employment: around 85% of the interviewed households in the urban areas and 81%

of the rural households live on labor generated income. Those living on pensions and social

transfers represent a share of around 11.7% of the overall sample, with higher incidence of

observation in rural areas where families living on pensions or social transfer represent

around 12.04% of the rural household interviewed. Families where remittances constitute the

main source of income are also higher in rural areas, 7% of the interviewed families live on

income sent from emigrants. Households identified as poor (non labor generated income

category and income level less than 10 thousand ALL monthly) constitute 15% of the total

household sample, with rural families at a higher risk of poverty when compared to urban

families (twice higher, see table 2). 73% of urban families have income falling in the range of

25 000 ALL to 100 000 ALL, while the majority of the rural families live at income that does

not exceed the amount of 50 000 ALL per month (73% of rural families have declared to

have income level that falls in the third and fourth category of income).

Table : Poverty rate measures from the sample survey (household level)

Poverty

Rate

Overall Sample 12.7%

Urban 10.4%

Rural 23.2%

Family Size with equal or less than 4 members 14.0%

Family Size more than 4 members 9.2%

Poverty Rate per regions

Durres 1.5%

Elbasan 36.5%

Lezhe 9.3%

Mirdite 10.3%

Pogradec 29.3%

Sarande 5.1%

Shkoder 18.9%

Tepelene 19.5%

Tirane 4.9%

Vlore 9.2%

Public Institutions interviewed do mainly operate in sector of education and health

mostly, administration and general services are a share of 17% of the whole sample and the

rest of the interviewed public institutions are operation in defense and security public sector.

Private companies are classified in three sectors – service, trade and manufacturing and

industry, a more detailed classification would make difficult identification of companies to be

surveyed. Companies operating in manufacturing and industry represent 33% of the surveyed

companies, 22% of the companies operate in trade sector and 45% in service sector. Small

and medium sized companies with turnover between 8 to 250 Mio Lek and number of

employees between 5 to 50, operating in Albania for 10 years is the most common profile of

the surveyed companies. Large companies are around 10% of the whole sample, mainly

located in Tirana area (see appendix 7).

22

For the interviewed public institutions 60% of the respondents are females, 41% of

the respondent are responsible for management of the institution, employees or representative

form administration departments have responded in 59% of the case, 88% of the respondent

has an university degree (see appendix 8). The share of male respondents in private

companies is higher if compared to public institutions, 56% of the respondent are male,

mainly in management position (68% of respondent are at management position) and having

either secondary education level or tertiary education level.

III.1.1. Access and Usage 1. Access to the water system

Access to and usage of the public network of water supply for the different types of

customers and for each water utility area was carefully examined by using a set of questions

and indicators, which explore the issue in depth. While data shows a full rate of customer

connectivity to the main network of water supply and sewerage, supply parameters such as

consistency and adequacy appear to be far from a satisfactory level.

Data shows almost a full coverage ratio of the water network in the ten surveyed

utility areas, with 94% of those interviewed being connected to the water utility network. The

frequency of households, institutions or businesses not connected to the mains water supply

network appears different by type of customers and area of location. The frequency of

customers not connected to the main network of water supply in urban areas is around 2%,

while the incidence of those not connected in rural areas ranges from 18% for businesses to

13% for households (see figure 4). Suburban areas also have lower connectivity rates as

compared to the general average.

Figure : Connectivity level to the public network of water supply

Households that are not connected to the public network of water supply get their

water supply by using mainly private wells and privately set up connections to water supply

network (these are most probably illegal connections). Businesses also get their water from

wells when not connected to the network. The connectivity to the water utility network for

poor families is 8 percentage points lower than non-poor household connectivity. The most

frequent source of water used by poor families not connected to the water network is by

setting up wells: 9.1% of poor families state they use wells as alternative water source.

97%

76%

95%

75%

42%

98%

76%68%

1%11%

2% 0%

25%

0%16% 14%

2%

13%

2%

25%33%

2%8%

18%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

Urban Areas Rural Areas Urban Areas Sub-Urban Areas

Rural Areas Urban Areas Sub Urban Areas

Rural Areas

Households Public Institutions Private Companies

Public Network Provided by the Water Supply Utility Water provided by the Local Government

None of these option

23

There are no significant variations in consumer coverage across utilities. The majority

of utilities have access rates that only slightly deviate from the general average of the sample.

(Figure 5)

Figure . Coverage rate by water supply system across utilities

Reasons for lack of access

The majority of households and businesses that do not use water from the water

network as their main source of water supply state that the reason is the lack of coverage in

the area they are located (55% of households and 64% of businesses). 23% of the respondents

state that they are not connected to the water network, although there is coverage for the area.

Private houses and newly constructed buildings typically have lower coverage or access to

the public network of water supply – this may be attributed partly to informal constructions,

as well as delays in getting connected to the network for new buildings. A considerable

percentage of those theat do not use the water network as their primary source despite being

connected state that supply is not good and the network does not functions properly: this is

true for 23% of households (mainly in rural areas) and 60% of public institutions.

Table : Main reasons of using alternative water sources than public network of water supply

Reasons of not using water supply network as the main water

source Household

s

Public

Institution

s

Private

Companie

s Total

The public network of water supply does not cover our area 55.4% .0% 64.3% 54.4

%

Public network exists, but our premises are not connected to it 21.5% 40.0% 28.6% 22.8

%

We are connected, but the network does not function properly 23.1% 60.0% 7.1% 22.8

%

Households and public institutions that are not connected to the public network of

water supply would like to have access to this service, while businesses are not so willing to

establish a connection to the water supply network (only 55.9% of businesses not having a

working connection to the public water supply network are interested in having it). Most

probably the inadequacy of water supply quality and expenditures already incurred to

establish an alternative water source influences their willingness.

96.8%

77.2%

100.0%

97.3%

99.5%

96.0%

96.4%

97.3%

92.3%

95.1%

.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

UK Durres Sh.a

U Elbasan Fshat Sh.a

UK Lezhë Sh.a

UK Mirditë Sh.a

UK Pogradec Sh.a

UK Sarandë Sh.a

UK Shkodër Sh.a

U Tepelene Sh.a

UK Tirane Sh.a

U Vlore Sh.a

24

Figure : Frequency of yes/no answer to the question “is the customer interested to be connected to the public

network of the water supply”

Main sources of water

Respondents were asked to identify the main source of water they use in their activity

or everyday life. Lack of reliability or low quality of the water supply may compel customers

to use alternative water sources despite being connected to the network.

Figure : Main source of water used per type of customers

Data shows that water supplied by the public network is the main source of water

used by households, institutions and private companies. Water is supplied within dwellings or

premises of companies/institutions. A small percentage of customers have access to the

public network but are served outside their dwellings or premises (see figure 3). The second

most important source of water, mainly for rural households, institutions and private

companies are wells (7.1% of interviewed companies, 5.5% of households and 8.1% of

institutions declared they use wells as main source of water supply).

Yes, Households, 86.7%

Yes, Public Institutions, 83.3%

Yes, Private Companies, 55.9%

NO, Households, 13.3%

NO, Public Institutions, 16.7%

NO, Private Companies, 44.1%

Yes NO

91.2%86.9% 87.3% 90.3%

5.5% 8.1% 7.3% 5.9%

.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Households Public Institutions

Private Companies

Overall Sample

Running water within dwelling/premises

Running water outside the dewlling/premises

Public Drinking- Fountain

Tank/bottled water

Wells

Open source of water

25

Connectivity across utilities

Data indicates that access to the system across all utilities is satisfactory and that the

main source of water used by citizens is provided by the water utility. Looking at access data

based on the connectivity of customers to the public network and its usage as the main source

of water, all utilities perform well, with only the Elbasan rural utility falling below the

threshold of 90% connectivity level (see appendix 4). As stated above, connectivity in rural

areas is lower than in urban areas: the percentage of rural area customers being connected to

the system is lower that 90% for all utilities1. (Appendix 14, figure 4)

Figure : Distribution of customers using “other” water supply sources by type of location

Suburban areas in Saranda seem to have the lowest rate of usage of the water supplied

through the public network as the main source of water. Customers in rural areas have a

frequency range of minimum 14% (Durres) to 47% (Vlora) of using alternative source of

water than the public supply.

Data on access and usage of public water supply as well as data on the customers’

main source of water, indicates that businesses and poor households have the lowest access

indicators (Appendix 11). This fact also may explain why businesses are not eager to gaining

access to the public network of water supply. Almost half (49.6) of the respondents think that

water provided by the public network is good for drinking, 48.2% think that water is good for

other purposes but not for drinking and 2.2% think that water is not suitable for any purpose

(see appendix 15).

Usage of water tanks and pumps

Access to alternative sources of water is not easy for the majority of customers: 46%

of the households, 39% of poor families and 54% of businesses need to walk between 5 to 30

1 Survey for Lezha UK Sh.a and Miredita UK Sh.a covered only urban areas.

25%

27%

0%

0%

0%

78%

25%

0%

21%

27%

14%

22%

0%

31%

43%

29%

47%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Durres UK Sh.a

Elbasan Fshat U Sh.a

Lezhe UK Sh.a

Mirdite UK Sh.a

Pogradec UK Sh.a

Sarande UK Sh.a

Shkoder UK Sh.a

Tepelene U Sh.a

Tirane UK Sh.a

Vlore U Sh.a

Rural Area Suburban Area Urban

26

minutes to get to another source. These distances are more significant in some of the more

mountainous regions such as Mirdita and Saranda.

Water tanks are a common solution to the interruptions in running water supply. Over

65% of respondents use water tanks to ensure 24 hours of running water. The patterns of

alternative water source usage reflects the deficiencies in access observed – they are more

often used by households and businesses located at suburban areas (see appendix 10). Usage

of water tanks is lower for poor families. Customers in Durres area, Tirana, Vlora, Saranda

and Elbasan make more heavily use of water tanks ensuring running water (see appendix 21).

The volume of individual water tanks ranges from 500 to 1000 Liter, with an average

of 528 Liters per household (see table 3). Businesses invest in larger water tanks in order to

cover needs for supporting business operations: the average volume of water tanks for

businesses equates 2,300 Liter with a maximum of 10,000 Liter (Appendix 20).

Table : Average water tank volume used per type of customers (in Liter)

Household

Public

Institutions

Private

Businesses

Overall

Sample

Average (at mid point value

of the answer category range) 504 655 656 528

Average Water Tank volume (evaluated at

min category value) 305 500 491 335

Average water tank (evaluated at max

value of the category) 958 1,122 1,150 988

Another common remedy to problems in the quality of water supply is the usage of

water pumps to pump water from the main water source, typically where supply is weak and

water wouldn’t otherwise get to the higher floors. 67.8% of respondents report using water

pumps to ensure continuous supply of water; this frequency is higher among households

living in apartments (74.9% of those living in apartments use water pumps) and in suburban

locations. The frequency of using water pumps is higher in Durres, Shkoder, Saranda, Tirana

and Vlora area.

Figure : Frequency of using water pumps by water utility area.

93.7%

45.2%

39.9%

44.6%

40.1%

82.5%

85.1%

36.4%

79.7%

68.0%

.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Durres UK Sh.a

Elbasan Fshat U Sh.a

Lezhe UK Sh.a

Mirdite UK Sh.a

Pogradec UK Sh.a

Sarande UK Sh.a

Shkoder UK Sh.a

Tepelene U Sh.a

Tirane UK Sh.a

Vlore U Sh.a

27

2.1 Access to the sewerage system

Data indicates that coverage of the sewerage systems is lower than water supply

network. The frequency of dwelling/premises connected to the main network of public

sewage system is 83.7% for the overall sample and it varies greatly across customers and

especially across areas of residence. In urban areas above 90% of dwellings/premises are

connected to the main network of discharge system, in rural areas only 37.4% of dwellings

are connected to public system of sewage system management. Coverage of the sewerage

system for businesses and public institutions is better than for households (81.4% of

households, 92.9% 0f public institutions, 92.3% of businesses are connected, Appendix 27).

Figure : Level of access to the sewage system per utility

Respondents that are not connected to the sewage system indicate that this is due to

the fact that their areas of residence s not yet covered by the service (78.8%). The remainder

(21.2%) states that the network exists in the area but they are not connected. The majority of

respondents wish they would be connected to the sewerage system (89%).

The majority of those saying they would not want to connect to the system falls into

the business category of customers. 31% of businesses not connected to the public network,

have declared not to want a connection. These are mainly business from the production and

trade sector, located in suburban areas. This reflects the inefficiency of public companies to

provide solutions to the businesses wherever they are located. Private businesses have often

invested in a solution of their own.

71.3%

40.9%

91.5%

96.6%

77.7%

88.0%

86.3%

93.4%

94.3%

86.4%

.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Durres UK Sh.a

Elbasan Fshat U Sh.a

Lezhe UK Sh.a

Mirdite UK Sh.a

Pogradec UK Sh.a

Sarande UK Sh.a

Shkoder UK Sh.a

Tepelene U Sh.a

Tirane UK Sh.a

Vlore U Sh.a

28

III.1.2. Quality of Service 1. Quality of Water Supply Service

The study investigated the perceptions of citizens on the quality of water supply

service by further exploring their experiences related to issues of continuity in water supply,

any disruptions faced, characteristics of water supplied and information of shared with

customers

Water supply interruptions

Almost three quarters of the total respondents report that they face frequent cuts in the

water supply. 72.4% of the overall sample has experiences interruptions during the last year.

The frequency is higher among households (Figure 11, appendix 30).

Figure : Frequency of interruptions in water supply by type of customer

Significant variations in the patterns on interruptions in water supply are observed for

each of the ten utilities included in the study. Only the Pogradec utilility has a remarkable

performance most probably due to recent major investments in the water network: here only

6% of respondents report having experiences water supply cuts. The worst performing

utilities in this regard are reported to be the Saranda and Durres utilities, where over 90% of

customers experience frequent cuts. Figure : Frequency of experiencing water supply disruption per each water utility area

75.1%61.0% 62.7%

20.9%

28.0% 29.6%

4.0%11.0% 7.8%

Yes, we have faced water supply cuts in the last 12 months

No water supply cuts in the last 12 months

I do not know

91.1%

83.3%

77.8%

75.0%

6.1%

91.0%

72.3%

60.3%

71.4%

77.2%

.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Durres UK Sh.a

Elbasan Fshat U Sh.a

Lezhe UK Sh.a

Mirdite UK Sh.a

Pogradec UK Sh.a

Sarande UK Sh.a

Shkoder UK Sh.a

Tepelene U Sh.a

Tirane UK Sh.a

Vlore U Sh.a

Overall sample

frequency of yes

answer 74.8

29

The majority of customers across all utilities receive less than four hours of running water per

day (41.9%), and over 65% of citizens receive less than ten hours of running water supply

daily. (Table 4) However the length of running water supply provided differs significantly

across the ten utilities observed. The Durres and rural Elbasan utilities are again identified as

the worst performing, where the overwhelming majority of customers receive only up to four

hours of running water daily. (Appendix 32).

Table : Water supply quality measured by time of having undisrupted supply, per type of customers

Households

Public

Institutions

Private

Companies Total

1-4 h per day 43.9% 34.0% 33.1% 41.6%

5-10 h per day 26.8% 19.0% 24.7% 26.1%

11 or more h per day 7.7% 6.0% 5.6% 7.2%

Continuous running water supply 16.1% 25.0% 29.1% 18.7%

Do not know 5.6% 16.0% 7.6% 6.4%

In general, for the overall sample, only 18.7% of the respondents report having

continuous water supply. With the exception of Pogradec, which is an obvious outlier, only

the Shkoder and Tepelena utilities supply water for 24 hours a day to more than 30% of their

citizens. Incidence of continuous water supply is higher among businesses and institutions; as

well as higher for urban households as compared to rural households.

Figure : Frequency of customers experiencing 24h running water supply per each water utility area

Disruptions of water supply are reported to be the most severe during the summer

season. Interruptions are also frequent during winter, and somewhat less frequent during

spring and autumn. Respondents suggest that the increased frequency and severity of cuts

during the summer season are primarily due to the shortage of natural water supply and

increased water demand during this season; combined with informal connections, obsolete

network and poor management. The seasonal pattern of water supply disruptions reported

highlights the high dependency of water supply on natural conditions and indicates that

management of water reserve is inadequate.

4.3%10.7%

5.9%6.1%

90.9%2.0%

30.1%31.8%

12.8%14.0%

.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Durres UK Sh.a

Lezhe UK Sh.a

Pogradec UK Sh.a

Shkoder UK Sh.a

Tirane UK Sh.a

30

Figure : Distribution of average water disruption times per year, by water utility

Data indicates that all utilities2 provide water to their customers on a schedule,

probably due to the scarcity of water resources and inability of the utility to provide the

service around the clock. It would be advisable for the companies to share the schedule of

water provision with customers by area. However, data shows that the degree of customers’

information on the schedule of water supply disruptions is extremely low. Over 60% of the

respondents report they have no information on the schedule of water provision. Households

are less informed as compared with businesses and institutions; however it is likely that this

indicators scores worse among households given that the issue of running water supply is

typically more sensitive where one lives (Appendix 36). Rural area customers are also less

informed on average than urban area customers in the overall sample. Variations are observed

in the level of information on schedule of water provision by utility as well: the Durres,

Tirana, and Tepelena utilities perform worst in this aspect (Appendix 37).

Water quality and uses

Roughly half of the respondents indicate that they do not use tap water for drinking

purposes. The most common substitute for tap water is commercial bottled water, followed

by unprotected and uncontrolled sources such as wells. Almost 38% of the household sample

uses bottled water for drinking. This percentage is much higher in urban areas (43%) than in

rural areas (14%), as well as higher for the non poor population (40.5% of the non-poor and

only 19% of the poor). 11% of households well water as the main source of drinkable water:

the incidence is higher for rural areas at 20.1% and poor families (15%). 455 of households

use running water from the system for drinking, this percentage is higher for rural areas

958%) and poor families (59%). About 9% of the households using the water provided

through the system boil the water before drinking it.

2 With the exception of the Pogradec utility, where almost 95% of citizens report they experience no water

supply cuts.

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Durres UK

Sh.a

Elbasan Fshat

U Sh.a

Lezhe UK

Sh.a

Mirdite UK

Sh.a

Pogradec UK

Sh.a

Sarande UK

Sh.a

Shkoder UK

Sh.a

Tepelene U

Sh.a

Tirane UK

Sh.a

Vlore U Sh.a

Winter_Maintanace Summer_Maintanace Winter_Emergency

Summer_Emergency Winter_Planned Summer_Planned

31

Table : Main source of drinkable water used by households

Overall HH

Sample

Urban

Area

Rural

Area

Non Poor

HH

Poor

HH

Bottled Water 37.8% 42.9% 14.5% 40.5% 18.9%

Running water inside dwelling 45.1% 42.3% 58.4% 43.2% 58.7%

Running water outside dwelling 4.4% 4.5% 4.2% 4.4% 4.7%

Public drinking fountain 1.3% 1.1% 2.0% 1.0% 2.8%

Tank .5% .4% .8% .5% .0%

Wells 11.0% 9.0% 20.1% 10.4% 15.0%

Open sources (lakes, .0% .0% .0% .0% .0%

Customers of the Saranda, Vlora, Tirana and Durres utilities seem to be the most

skeptical about drinkability of water provided through the network, with the most families

incurring extra costs in using bottled water. One factor that affects the use of the network

water for drinking purposes is the wide use of water tanks. Individual water tanks that are

used to ensure continuous running water, hamper the water quality and make it

inconsumable.The overwhelming majority of customers in Shkodra and Lezha drink the

network water, indicating that the perceived quality and safety of the water supplied is highly

variable across utilities.

Figure : Source of drinkable water by utility

Data shows that families have an average monthly cost of purchasing bottled water of

1,013 ALL (10 USD/month), a cost up to twice the average value of the water invoice as

reported by consumers. Those boiling the water for drinking also incur further costs for being

supplied with drinkable water.

The majority of respondents in the overall sample think that water provided by the

water utility network is appropriate for many uses outside of drinking. Only 2.2% believe that

water is unsafe to use for any purpose. Almost half of the interviewed customers in the

overall sample think the water is supplied at a low pressure; it is not so safe to be used for

drinking and the taste is not acceptable. Around 80% of the customers’ consider the water

clean and with no special odors. There are no significant variations in the perception of the

66%

12%

10%

15%

59%

3%

23%

64%

49%

33%

60%

86%

53%

24%

93%

48%

29%

29%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

1%

28%

0%

29%

17%

4%

25%

6%

18%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

UK Durrës Sh.a

U Elbasan Fshat Sh.a

UK Lezhë Sh.a

UK Mirditë Sh.a

UK Sarandë Sh.a

UK Shkodër Sh.a

U Tepelenë Sh.a

UK Tiranë Sh.a

U Vlorë Sh.a

Bottled Water Water form the Net Deposits Wells

32

quality of water rural-urban poor/non poor distribution. Significant variations across utilities

are also observed, with Pogradec obviously scoring excellent scores for all of the indicators.

(Appendix 35

Figure : Quality of water supplied by the public network, as per customer perception

A small percentage of customers mention cases of water contamination leading to

health problems. Almost 4% of the total sample mention similar cases have occurred; with

the lion share of the respondents located in urban areas and for the Vlora, Tepelena and

Lezha utilities (See appendix 33)

Quality of Sewerage System Services

22.5% of the respondents report having experienced problems with the sewage system

in the last twelve months. Households report problems at a frequency twice higher than that

of the other customers – this is likely so because this sort of problem is more worrying at

home (Appendix 40). Significant variations across utilities are also observed, with Mirdita

scoring best and Elbasan worst (Figure 17). The main types of problems reported by

customers are uncovered sewages; bad smells and contamination of the environment.

According to citizens, bad management and the obsolete network are the main reasons for the

shortcomings in the system.

Figure : Frequency of problems with the sewage system per water utility area

55.3%

85.1%

42.5%

81.8%

48.6%

74.4%49.0%

100.0%

51.0%

68.0%

48.0%

76.0%47.8%

100.0%

51.8%

73.6%

58.9%

77.3%

.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

Low Pressured

Safe for usage Safe for Drinking

Clean Taste No odor

Households Public Institutions Private Companies

26.6%40.1%

37.3%2.7%

26.4%9.0%

16.1%24.5%

16.1%30.0%

.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Durres UK Sh.a

Elbasan Fshat U Sh.a

Lezhe UK Sh.a

Mirdite UK Sh.a

Pogradec UK Sh.a

Sarande UK Sh.a

Shkoder UK Sh.a

Tepelene U Sh.a

Tirane UK Sh.a

Vlore U Sh.a

33

III.1.3. Payment and Transparency

Customer satisfaction with service quality, as well as their perception on the “value”

they get for the prices paid is among the most important features that determine the market

share and profit of firms. This is slightly different in the case of utilities operating in a

monopolized environment, where the customer is a price taker and their level of satisfaction

has little impact on the provider’s behavior. This section of the study sheds light into the

relations between the costumers and utilities as well as facilities available with regard to

payment, invoicing and service costs.

Invoicing

Over 90% of respondents state they have a regular contract with the water provider,

which indicates that the frequency of illegal connections may not be as high as often blamed

for inefficiencies in service provision and network losses. However, this figure needs to be

taken with caution as it is likely that a share of those being informally connected to the

system are not aware of the fact or have failed to declare it. However, a significantly lower

share of customers are equipped with a water meter: – in the overall sample only 60% of the

customers have water meter installed, with households having the lowest rate of having water

meters. The frequency of customers being equipped with water meters is lower in rural areas

and suburban areas (see appendix 44), 74.4 % of the customers at rural areas have contracts

with the water supply company, but only 50.43% are supplied with water meters. Only 86.2%

of the poor families have a contract with the water utility (non poor rate is 92.7%), 49.2% of

the poor have water meters installed (60.2% is the share of non poor household being

supplied with water meters).

Figure : Frequency of customers having contracts

and water meter provided by the water utility

company

Figure : Frequency of customers having paid for

setting up the contracts and water meters.

91.9% 90.0% 93.3% 92.0%

58.8%

72.0%64.7%

60.3%

.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Yes, have a contract with water supply company

Yes,have a water meter installed (dwelling/premises)

39.6%

22.2%

39.5% 39.1%

40.3%

72.0%

64.7%

48.5%

.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Households Public Institutions

Private Companies

Total

Have paid to have a contract

Have paid to have a water meter installed

34

There are considerable variations in the rate of customers equipped with water meters

across the ten utilities, although this rate falls under 60% for the majority of providers.

Shkodra utility has the lowest percentage of customers provided with meters, together with

Vlora, Lezha and Tepelena (Figure 20).

Figure : Frequency of customers having installed water meters per each utility area

Data shows that it is common occurrence for customers to pay to have contracts and

water meter installed. Public Institutions and private companies have more frequently paid

for having water meter installed if compared to the households. Rural areas and poor families

have declared they had paid for having both the contract and the water meter installed at a

frequency that is higher than the overall household sample. The frequency of customers that

were asked to pay for having a connection with the public network and then a water meter

installed has been reported highest in Elbasan UK Sh.a, Durres UK Sh.a, Tirane UK Sh.a,

Mirdite Uk Sh.a and Tepelena UK Sh.a (see appendix 42).

Table : Customers perception regarding pricing of connection to the main public network of water supply

and water meter

Households

Public

Institutions

Private

Companies Total

Which of the statements below match with your opinion on pricing of connection to the main water and sewage

public network?

Pricing is reasonable 31.2% 72.0% 64.7% 47.4%

Price is high 17.6% 23.0% 34.2% 24.4%

This should be offered free of charge 51.2% 5.0% 1.1% 28.2%

Which of the statements below match with your opinion on pricing of installing a water meter for water

consumption measurement?

Pricing is reasonable 25.5% 72.0% 64.7% 44.4%

Price is high 14.3% 23.0% 34.2% 22.6%

This should be offered free of charge 60.2% 5.0% 1.1% 33.0%

Customers’ perception on the cost of connection to the public network of water and

sewage varies by type of customer (Table 6). Overall, slightly less than 50% of customers

find the cost of getting a connection reasonable, but this percentage is significantly lower

among households and especially poor households. A considerable share of households

thinks that connection and water meter installment should be free of charge (Appendix 44).

95%

87%

78%

66%

57%

57%

50%

44%

29%

16%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Pogradec UK Sh.a

Sarande UK Sh.a

Tirane UK Sh.a

Durres UK Sh.a

Mirdite UK Sh.a

Elbasan Fshat U Sh.a

Tepelene U Sh.a

Lezhe UK Sh.a

Vlore U Sh.a

Shkoder UK Sh.a

35

Opinions vary by utility areas; with areas where the predominant opinion is that both charges

are too high (i.e. Shkodra and Lezha); regions that find the connection to network as

reasonably priced, but the charge for water meter installment too high. These are interesting

results, as water providers have a primary interest in ensuring that customers are formally

registered and consumption is measured, whereas extra charges for the contract and meter

constitute a further burden to regularization. The customer perception on cost of connection

and meters may provide insight to the water utilities and regulator in order to identify suitable

solutions especially for the poor households.

Over 80 % of households think that water meter work properly, but this is not the case

with private companies and institutions – 98.9% of the institutions and 95% of the companies

interviewed have declared they have water meters that never worked or never worked

properly. Companies and public institutions are mostly on shared water meters, which might

be the underlying cause for the perception on inaccuracy of water meters.

The majority of respondents (78% of households and 75% of the overall sample)

receive invoices monthly. A relatively higher share of businesses (34%) state they do not get

a regular monthly invoice, and 18.9% of private companies consider invoicing not accurate

(Appendix 44). Among households, around 12% never get an invoice. Frequency is much

higher in rural areas at 29% of rural customers; as well as for poor households at almost 17%.

Figure : Main category of problems faced by customers with invoicing

Customers were asked to report the types of problems they had encountered with

invoicing. The most commonly reported problem is inaccuracy of invoicing: the amount

charged was too high for 32% of cases reported. Other common problems reported include

delays in delivering invoices, as well as problems with the water meter and estimated

invoicing. Households tend to reported problems at a higher frequency than institutions and

businesses.

The invoice is quite clear and easy to be understood for all customers. Some

customers experience difficulty in understanding the charges on disposal of used water

(15.8% for household customers and 15.2% for businesses). A relatively high share of

customers are not able to give an answer on the cost of used water collection as shown in the

Delayed Invoicing, 31%

Invoice was never delivered, 15%

Amount charged was far too high, 32%

Amount chargedd was too low, 1%

Water meter was not working, 11%

Other problems, 9%

36

invoice (more than 14%). It is likely that these customers are not aware of the composition of

the water charges into water supply fee and used water treatment fee, which has been

imposed recently under WRA guidance. This indicates that utilities should make some efforts

in informing customers about the composition of the water charges and calculation of the

used water treatment charge.

Table : Customer perception on the invoice clarity and understandability

Households

Public

Institutions

Private

Companies Total

Is water invoicing clear to understand

IV.11 Yes 93.8% 100.0% 98.5% 94.9%

No 2.8% .0% .0% 2.2%

I do not know 3.4% .0% 1.5% 2.9%

Is share of payment for disposable water collections clear in you invoicing

IV.12 Yes 68.8% 79.5% 76.1% 70.5%

No 15.8% 10.3% 13.4% 15.2%

I do not know 15.3% 10.3% 10.6% 14.3%

Pricing

The question of prices is a sensitive issue for the majority of customers. We asked

households and non-household customers what their opinion on water prices was, as well as

how much they spent on the water bill each month. On average, 47.8 of households and 57%

of businesses interviewed think prices are reasonable for the quality of service provided.

There are no significant variations among opinions expressed by different households: poor

household customers are slightly more likely to feel water charges are too high (48.4%). The

distributional patterns of customer perception on pricing of sewage system follow the trend

shown for the water supply system; probably because they both show on the same invoice

and sewerage fee is more modest than potable water fee.

Figure : Frequency of customers considering

price of water supply high, per water utility area

Figure : Frequency of customers considering price of

sewage system high, per utility area

23%

25%

29%

31%

33%

36%

43%

49%

51%

53%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%100%

Shkoder UK Sh.a

Elbasan Fshat U …

Tepelene U Sh.a

Durres UK Sh.a

Pogradec UK Sh.a

Sarande UK Sh.a

Vlore USh.a

Mirdite UK Sh.a

Tirane UK Sh.a

Lezhe UK Sh.a

9%

16%

17%

19%

21%

29%

31%

38%

40%

46%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Elbasan Fshat U Sh.a

Tepelene U Sh.a

Shkoder UK Sh.a

Durres UK Sh.a

Vlore U Sh.a

Sarande UK Sh.a

Mirdite UK Sh.a

Tirane UK Sh.a

Pogradec UK Sh.a

Lezhe UK Sh.a

37

However, there are considerable variations in the distribution of opinions on pricing

by utility area, which most probably reflects the economic development and purchasing

power of areas, as well as the customer perception on the quality and adequacy of water

supply and sewage system. With this dispersion of the customer perception on the pricing

level across regions, could indicate a need to impose fees based not only based on cost, but

also expectations service quality. Poorer regions such as Lezha or Mirdita area have the most

customers indicating prices are high, together with Tirana which not only has a high

percentage of poor people, but the quality of service has not been reported satisfactory.

The average household monthly water bill amount to 927 ALL, with values ranging

from 554 ato 1 355 ALL. Rural households pay on average 7.5% less than urban households.

Poor families pay on average 888 ALL for monthly water consumption. This finding is

interesting: Based on the definition of poor households used by INSTAT (less than 10 000

lek), the expenditures of a poor family for water supply represents around 20% of the family

total budget, whereas this study indicates that water bill expenses amount to less than 9% of a

poor family’s budget, suggesting that they may be spending money on other water resources.

Water invoice paid monthly for all customers averages to 1,541. ALL, an average that

might go up to a maximum of 2,164. ALL. The water invoice has a high variation among

different type of users, average water invoice for businesses is 6 times higher than that of

households, institutions are paying the highest bill on water (6 112 ALL, see table 8).

Figure : Average amount of payment for water supply

(in ALL).

Figure : Household average amount of payment for

water supply (in ALL).

Table : Water payments per type of customers (in ALL)

Overall sample Households Business Institutions

Min 961.9 553.6 2,255.6 4,327.6

Max 2,164.0 1,354.7 4,863.5 7,896.6

Average 1,541.7 927.4 3,559.6 6,112.1

2,056

1,820

1,682

1,403

1,395

1,352

1,250

1,231

1,223

1,117

- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

Tirane UK Sh.a

Shkoder UK Sh.a

Elbasan Fshat U Sh.a

Pogradec UK Sh.a

Tepelene U Sh.a

Sarande UK Sh.a

Mirdite UK Sh.a

Lezhe UK Sh.a

Durres UK Sh.a

Vlore U Sh.a

994

972

959

949

944

912

905

900

865

701

- 500 1,000 1,500

Durres UK Sh.a

Shkoder UK Sh.a

Tirane UK Sh.a

Pogradec UK Sh.a

Elbasan Fshat U Sh.a

Vlore U Sh.a

Tepelene U Sh.a

Sarande UK Sh.a

Lezhe UK Sh.a

Mirdite UK Sh.a

38

The average amount of water payments per each utility area, including all type of

customers, shows that there is some degree of differentiation on pricing across regions. The

difference in average payment throughout the regions seems to originate mainly from

differences in payment of businesses and institutions. Household average payments through

the regions seems to be rather uniform, due to similar pricing policies and consumption

patterns across utilities/areas.

Customers, being asked if they are willing to incur an increase in price to have a better

quality of water supply/sewage system quality improved, have been very positive and willing

to trade off some extra cash for better quality. The willingness is higher for households:

71.2% of the households interviewed have declare they are willing to have their water bills

increased at the benefit of having quality improved.

In general, it is meaningful that less than half of customers feel water pricing is high,

despite the typically poor quality of service reported for the majority of services. More

importantly, over 70% of households are willing to pay more for improved service delivery.

Willingness to pay higher prices is somewhat lower among businesses (43%), given that they

already pay higher prices than households or may have already invested in alternative water

sources. These data may be used by the utilities and regulator to consider increasing tariffs

with a special attention to the introduction of subsidies targeting the poor and needy alone;

rather than wasting resources on subsidizing the whole system. Water utilities should

consider increases tariffs if possible in order to cover costs and improve service; based on

careful examination of the customers’ willingness to pay as well as improve management and

show for the extra money collected by customers.

Unpaid bills

Around 12.4% of the overall sample report they do not pay water bills, with public

institutions having the highest frequency of nonpayment (35%). Nonpayment is higher at

rural areas for households and businesses, for poor households the non-payment rate is twice

higher than the overall sample frequency (see appendix 46). Figure : Nonpayment frequency per each water utility area

Figure : Customers willingness to face increased

prices of water system to cause improved quality

Figure : Customers willingness to face increased

prices of sewage system to cause improved quality

71.2%

44.8% 43.4%

28.9%

55.2% 56.6%

Yes No

70.1%

48.3% 47.6%

29.9%

51.7% 52.4%

Yes No

39

There is no clear pattern of reasons for failure to pay the water bill. The highest

nonpayment frequency rate is observed in Saranda, Tepelena, Shkoder and Vlora areas,

which are not amongst the worst performing companies, although service indicators score

low for a number of aspects3. Low frequency of nonpayment (or high frequency of

compliance) was observed in areas like Durres UK Sh.a, and Elbasan UK Sh.a, which not

only are among the poorest providers, but also charge the most from their customers. It is

hard to establish reasons, but these two companies have been previously managed by foreign

concessionary operators which may have enforced payment of invoices at a large scale. This

would indicate that most probably weak management of the companies and obsolete network

conditions become a barrier to the ability of the provider in generating revenue.

The reasons behind people paying no water invoices are mainly related to the fact that

they use other sources of water than the public network, invoicing inaccuracy and difficulties

to afford the payment.

III.1.4. Interactions with the Water Utility 1. Company –Customer Interaction

The interaction between the Water Company and customers remains an important

element in improving service quality. The frequency of customers placing a complaint or an

enquiry at the public company of water and sewage system management seems lower when

compared to the frequency of those that consider the quality of the service bad and have faced

problems. In the overall sample 17.3% of overall customers and 18.3% of the households

have deposited a complaint or enquiry at the water/sewage utility management at least once.

Public institutions are most likely to report complaints; this share is attributable mostly to

complaints by schools and local government institutions.

Customers typically know where to deposit a complaint, in average 67% of the

interviewed customers have answered yes to the question “do you know where to pose a

3 Less so for Saranda

26.6%

21.3%

15.2%

13.5%

10.6%

8.6%

6.1%

6.0%

5.2%

3.0%

.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Sarande UK Sh.a

Tepelene U Sh.a

Shkoder UK Sh.a

Pogradec UK Sh.a

Vlore U Sh.a

Lezhe UK Sh.a

Durres UK Sh.a

Elbasan Fshat U Sh.a

Tirane UK Sh.a

Mirdite UK Sh.a

40

complaint”. The level of knowledge is lower among households if compared to public

institutions or businesses. (See appendix 50). Customers address the problems to the public

enterprise of water and sewage system management (see appendix 51), 83.1% of the

interviewed customers have declared they would address complaints or problems to the

public enterprise of water and sewage management. 17.7% of households and 13.5% of

public institutions as well as 52% of customers residing at rural areas, address their

complaints on the water and sewerage system to the local government (municipality or

commune), 17.7% of the households and 13.5% of the public institutions (appendix 52). A

very low percentage of customers indicate they would present their case to the Water

Regulatory Authority; in overall sample 1% of the customers says they have/ would have

submitted complaints to the regulator. Customers have reported a few other institutions to

report problems to, such as the village elderly or legal ways.

Figure : Frequency of customers making an

enquiry/complaint about water or sewage system

per customer type

Figure : Frequency of customers making an

enquiry/complaint about water or sewage system

per customer type and water utility unit

The frequency of customers depositing a complaint or enquiry per each water utility

area shows that complaints not always follows customers satisfaction level or problems

faced. The Durres UK Sh.a is among the water utility areas with the worst quality perception

among the customers and the highest frequency of problems experienced, but customers do

not usually deposit complaints or complaints are deposited in a very low rate as compared to

other companies. The same phenomenon is noticed for the Saranda area. Tirana and Shkoder

UK Sh.a are characterized by a rate of complaints similar to the level of customers

satisfaction and the same is noticed for the companies having the frequency of complaints

higher than the average frequency of complaints than the overall sample. This suggests that

the regulator should undertake a public information campaign to inform customers of their

options when not satisfied.

Reasons why a low share of customers reports their complaints to the responsible

bodies are mainly attributable to the fact that people do not believe their problem would be

addressed following a complaint. The frequency of those reporting problems or

18.3%24.0%

11.3%

77.1% 66.0% 88.0%

4.7% 10.0%.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Households Public Institutions

Private Companies

Yes No I do not know

6.0%

8.6%

8.6%

15.3%

16.5%

20.9%

23.4%

25.2%

26.0%

33.8%

.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%100.0%

UK Sarandë Sh.a

UK Durres Sh.a

UK Pogradec Sh.a

UK Shkodër Sh.a

UK Tirane Sh.a

UK Lezhë Sh.a

U Elbasan Fshat Sh.a

U Tepelene Sh.a

U Vlore Sh.a

UK Mirditë Sh.a

41

dissatisfaction remains modest, 18% of households and 11% of businesses say they always

report problems. The frequency is higher in urban areas, probably due to the fact that urban

area residents are likely to have more information on opportunities to file complaints. (See

figure 31).

Figure : Frequency of customers reporting their complaints or enquires to the water and sewage company

Around 50% of customers state that they do not believe a complaint would lead to a

solution for their problem. A considerable percentage indicate that it is not easy to “access”

the company office that deals with the customers complaints and not easy either to

communicate with the employers of the company. Many customers also think the problems

are well known and there is no need to complaint or let the company know about that, it is

just time and efforts consuming.

One of the reasons why access to the service provider is perceived as difficult is the

non-existence of the dedicated office (or desk) from the company to serve the clients, more

specifically dealing with collection of their complaints or enquires and running after

providing them with an answer. Only 52.5% of customers having reported complaints

indicate there was a dedicated customer care office (desk). This rate is lower for households,

and it manifest a declining tendency for rural households and poor ones; only 49.9% of the

household, 44.8% of the poor households and only 37.5% of the rural households have dealt

with a dedicated office (or desk) when submitting complaints to the water supplying

company. When such offices exist customers have found it easy to access them but they are

not always satisfied with the way the case was handled. Around 90% of those that have

submitted complaints or request at customers service offices felt it was very easy to access

the offices and only 60% have been satisfied with employees help and support (see appendix

55).

41%

30%

64%

58% 58%

41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Zonë Urbane Zonë Rurale Zonë Urbane Zonë Rurale Zonë Urbane Zonë Rurale

42

Figure : Customer service desk Figure : Employees level of helpfulness across

water utility service areas

The experience of customers when trying to communicate their problems to the water

service provider varies across water utility areas. Among the best performing companies

regarding existence of customers dedicated offices are Elbasan UK Sha, Mirdite UK Sha,

Durres UK Sha or Saranda Sha. Employees of Progradec, Shkodra, rural Elbasan, Tirana and

Durres water supply and sewage management company are considered helpful to customers

needs and problem solving. (Figure 32, 33).

The most frequent problems customers are likely to report include quantity of water

supply (18%), disruptions of water supply (18%) and damaged connections to the main

network of water supply (see figure 31); as well as invoicing which is another frequent

problem customers usually report (14% of reporting cases are related to invoicing inaccuracy,

irregularity or lack of clarity).

Figure : Typology of problems reported by the customers

24%

42%

42%

42%

53%

58%

61%

63%

66%

82%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Shkoder UK Sh.a

Vlore U Sh.a

Pogradec UK Sh.a

Tepelene U Sh.a

Tirane UK Sh.a

Sarande UK Sh.a

Lezhe UK Sh.a

Durres UK Sh.a

Mirdite UK Sh.a

Elbasan Fshat U Sh.a

39%

45%

45%

48%

58%

69%

73%

76%

78%

90%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Tepelene UK Sh.a

Mirdite UK Sh.a

Sarande UK Sh.a

Lezhe UK Sh.a

Vlore UK Sh.a

Tirane UK Sh.a

Durres UK Sh.a

Elbasan UK Sh.a

Shkoder UK Sh.a

Pogradec UK Sh.a

Irregular Invoicing, 5%

Inaccurate Invoicing, 8%

Unclear Invoicing, 1%

Quality of water supply, 13%

Quantity of water supply, 18%Water meter not

functioning, 4%Water supply

interuption, 18%

Main connection to the network

damaged, 12%

Water network is damaged, 6%

Sewage system is damaged, 14%

43

For households’ customers, quantity and quality of water supply, water disruptions

and damages to the network connections both water and sewage network are main reported

problems. Public institutions main typology of problems reported water disruption and

damaged connections to the main network of water and sewage system, private companies

find inaccurate invoicing a problem they have reported more often if compare to households

or public institutions; damaged connection to the water supply system and sewage network

are also frequent problems faced and reported by private businesses. Rural areas and urban

areas problems reported also vary, quantity of water supplied and interruptions are the main

problem faced by customers of rural areas. At urban areas customers most frequent problems

reported were quantity and quality of water supplied, water supply disruption, damaged

connection to the main network of water supply and sewage system as well as inaccurate

invoicing (see appendix 56).

There are no significant variations in the set of problems reported by utility. For the

majority of population the most frequently reported problem is the quantity of water supply.

In Pogradec area compaints focus on the quality of water supplied.

Problems with the sewage network appear heavy in some of the areas, Elbasan area,

Vlora and Durres are identified as areas where customers have faced more frequently

problems with the sewage system (see appendix 57).

In the overall sample the degree of satisfaction with the way the complaints was

handled and problem addressed is neutral (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, neutral grade 3).

Most household customers are dissatisfied with the clarity of information provided by the

company regarding the problem reported, dissatisfied with company following up the

problem and updating the customer on the status of its problem, dissatisfied with personnel

service and the easiness of getting an answer or an explanation.

Figure : Level of customers’ satisfaction with the company reaction to their problem reporting (scale 1 – very

dissatisfied; 5 very satisfied)

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

clarity of information Keep updated Personel assistance Personel behaviour Understandable answers

Information on further steps

Households Public Institutions Private Companies

44

The situation improves for institutions and businesses; the power of these customers

in the chain improves the quality of the service provided by the company, their knowledge of

procedures and steps to follow when facing problems also helps improving the degree of

satisfaction businesses and institution. If satisfaction level of customers is examined for

different aspects of the service provided by the company in cases of reporting a problem it

seems that all customers experience the highest level of dissatisfaction with the company

follow up on their problem and updating them about what was done. Customers are also

dissatisfied with information provided on further actions or steps to be taken for their

reported problem to be solved (see figure 35).

Customer satisfaction per each water utility area shows that the feeling of customers

neither satisfied not dissatisfied covers the whole system and there is little variation from one

company to the other. Pogradec UK Sha and Elbasan UK Sha are the only companies with

this indicator being slightly above the neutral indicator, Durres UK Sha, Vlora UK Sha,

Tirana UK Sha and Shkodra UK SHa are on the edge of the customers’ neutral level of

satisfaction. Mirdita UK Sha and Lezha UK Sha are ranked as the worst performing company

if customer satisfaction with company solving or reacting to the problems reported is taken as

an indicator

Figure : Level of customers’ satisfaction with the company reaction to their problem reporting per each water

utility

Unfortunately, it appears that in most cases no measures are taken for the reported

problems – this is true for almost 60% of customers who have filed a complaint. This rate is

higher for problems reported by households. The incidence of customers saying company did

not do anything regarding their complaint is also higher in rural areas – 92% of customers

from rural areas have declared so.

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

Durres UK Sh.a

Elbasan UK Sh.a

Lezhe UK Sh.a

Mirdite UK Sh.a

Pogradec UK Sh.a

Sarande UK Sh.a

Shkoder UK Sh.a

Tepelene UK Sh.a

Tirane UK Sh.a

Vlore UK Sh.a

45

Figure : Frequency of answers “no actions were taken by the company after problem made present”

For the cases when customers have received an answer from the company and time

pattern of such answers, it seems that most problems are solved or tackled between a week to

a month of time, earlier or later than a month time only few cases have reported to have get

an answer or a solution from the company (5.2% of the customers have declared they got an

answer in a day and 8.2% of the customers have got an answer in longer than one month for

their response).

In the overall sample, the frequency of customers confirming they know someone that

was asked to give a bribe trying to solve problems with water supply or sewage service is not

high at 4.8%. The incidence of bribery cases is higher for household and urban areas.

Customers were asked to evaluate the time they spent to establish a connection to the

water and sewage system, installing a water meter or setting up contracts with the water

supply and sewage system company. About 35% of the overall samples think it takes “normal

time and efforts”; versus about 29% who believe it takes too much time and efforts. The

pattern is similar for the installation of the meter and contract, more people think it is not a

problem than those who think it takes too much time. (Appendix)

Customers were asked to identify measures that would help improving their

satisfaction with the water supply and sewage system management. They were asked to

choose multiple answers, or from the set of measures to select as many as they think were

important to their satisfaction, so each frequency is calculated over the total customers and

the highest frequency observed is interpreted as the measure demanded the most by the

customers.

Overall customers have ranked the improvement of technical capacities, face-to-face

customer service as well as information and transparency as the most important measures to

be taken to improve service. The distribution pattern of desired improvements appears similar

across the different types of customers. For households and especially for poor households

information and transparency as well as customer service desk improvement are more

important than for businesses or institutions.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Pogradec UK

Sh.a

Lezhe UK

Sh.a

Vlore UK

Sh.a

Durres

UK Sh.a

Tepelene UK

Sh.a

Mirdite UK

Sh.a

Sarande UK

Sh.a

Tirane UK

Sh.a

Shkoder UK

Sh.a

Elbasan UK

Sh.a

46

Figure : Measures to improve customer satisfaction

Cost effective measures as phone line service and electronic invoicing do not appear

to be appreciated by customers, being the least chosen options.

Only 1.6% of the overall sample were contacted by the water and sewage utility

during the last 12 months. This frequency is higher for businesses and institutions, higher for

suburban areas and very low for poor households – only 0.4% of the poor households have

been contacted by the company. The communication between the water supply company and

its customers seems to be just one way – customers knocking at the door of the company

reporting their problems, little communication flows from the company to the clients in order

to communicate important messages for report on the problems that concern customers.

III.1.5. Community Participation

Community participation in water and sewage service management and deliver seems

inexistent, with only 2.9% of the customers interviewed declaring they had participated in the

community meetings in which problems regarding water and supply system are discussed or

shared. Those few meeting held have mostly happened upon request of the community (66%

of the households have declared so). The community participation level is similar in urban

and rural areas; a decline in community participation is evident for poor households. The low

degree of community involvement is one of the reasons why companies react better to

problems presented by institutions and businesses, if compare to their reaction to households

reported problems. A better participation of the communities in related problems would

increase the pressure of the customers to the water and sewage management company by

increasing the role of the customers in decision making through organized representation.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Information and transparency

Customers service units

Technical capacity

improvement

Customer service Phone Line

Electronic system of invoicing

Households Poor Household Public Institutions Businesses

47

Figure : Customers participating in community meetings per water and sewage service Provider

Company

The level of customers’ participation in the process of defining quality of service

delivered seems to be different for different areas (Figure 37). The ad hoc nature of the

community gatherings on water problems rather than an “institutionalized” interest, with

permanent representatives of community being engaged in keeping relations with the water

supply company makes the customers or community voice week and inexistent, unable to

improve the situation.

Community meetings usually, as declared by those few customers declaring they have

participated themselves in such meetings, submit the outcome of such discussions to the

water and sewage management company (57.5%). Communities in rural areas tend to

communicate less with the company.

Businesses have declared that they deal with problems related to water supply and

sewage system management as individual businesses, personal acquaintances is a way around

problems and the least used options are businesses associations. 80.9% of the private

companies have declared they solve the problems as individual businesses, 4% use individual

acquaintances and 3.6% of the companies use associations as a way around their problems.

Institutions deal with public water supply and sewage management company as an

institutions or using the formal channels and government structures (either local or central

government).

Around 26.6% of the customers have declared they have knowledge about customer

protection organizations. The level of such knowledge is different per customer type – public

institutions and private businesses are quite well informed – 63% of interviewed public

institutions and 45.3% of the private companies have confirmed they know customer

protection organization. Households have the lowest level of knowledge about existing

customer protection organizations – only 20.6% of the households have declared they posses

such knowledge.

Figure : Frequency of customers’ knowing/not knowing about existing customer protection organizations

2.6%

3.0%

5.9%

.0%

.0%

.6%

.5%

4.2%

2.3%

9.7%

.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

UK Durres Sh.a

UK Shkodër Sh.a

UK Tirane Sh.a

UK Pogradec Sh.a

U Elbasan Fshat Sh.a

U Vlore Sh.a

U Tepelene Sh.a

UK Sarandë Sh.a

UK Lezhë Sh.a

UK Mirditë Sh.a

48

Despite having or not having the knowledge about the customer protection

organizations, the rate of customers being contacted by any of these organizations appears

almost zero and similar for all type of customers (around 0.4% in the overall sample, see

appendix). The communication between such organization and their targeted clients is weak

and inexistent, virtually none of the customers remembered a name of organization that has

talked to them about problems with water and sewage network.

III.1.6. Water and Sewage Company Ranking as per Customers

Evaluation

Customers were asked to evaluate the performance of the water and sewage company

and grade them. In order to understand the general perception of the customer on the

company performance the evaluation criteria were detailed in a set of 12 indicators. The

indicators used to gather a performance evaluation of the public companies of water supply

and sewage management as perceived by their customers is composed of the 12 following

indicators:

Water Supply Service

Quality of water supplied

Quantity of water supplied

Schedule of supplying running water

Maintenance of water supply network

Management of the sewage system

Personnel capacity

Company reaction to the customers’ requests or problems reported

Time of company reply or reaction to the problem requested

Quality of technical service delivered to the customers

Transparency of invoicing and payment

Information and communication of the company to its customers

20.6%

63.0%

45.3%

26.6%

79.5%

37.0%

54.7%

73.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Households Public Institutions Private Companies Total

49

The customers were requested to grade the company for each of these indicators with

a grading scale that starts from “1” meaning high level of satisfaction and moving down with

declining level of customer satisfaction to “2” –meaning just satisfied, 3- neither satisfied nor

dissatisfied (neutral), 4- dissatisfied and 5 – highly dissatisfied.

The customers’ general satisfaction level with the service of water supply is neutral.

Best performing companies are Pogradec UK Sha and Shkoder UK SHa, with scores of 1.5

and 2.4 respectively. The worst ranked companies are Durres and Saranda.

Figure : Customer satisfaction with water supply

service by utility

Figure : Customer satisfaction with quality of water

supplied per each water utility area company

The degree of customer satisfaction deteriorates slightly when talking about quality of

water supplied. Customers in Durres, Tirana, Vlore, Sarande and Mirdite think the water

quality is dissatisfactory. In Elbasan, Tepelene and Lezhe the quality of water appears neither

satisfactory nor dissatisfactory, only at Pogradec UK Sha and Shkodra UK Sha provide

customers with water quality at satisfactory level.

Pogradec and Shkoder utilities are the best-ranked companies for the quantity of water

supply and schedule of running water supply. Durres UK Sha is ranked as company with the

lowest customer satisfaction. The variation among companies regarding customer

satisfaction is low and most of the companies have failed to make customer satisfied.

Customers’ satisfaction level with the maintenance of both water supply network and

sewage system in most of the companies is negative, for 8 out of 10 companies. Customer

perceptions on the utilities personnel capacities are quite positive and satisfactory. Pogradec

UK Sha is ranked as the best company with regard to human and technical capacities, Durres

UK Sha ranks as the worst perceived company, but again there is little variation between the

best and worst performing company.

-1 1 3 5

Durres …

Sarande UK Sh.a

Tirane UK Sh.a

Elbasan Fshat U Sh.a

Vlore U Sh.a

Mirdite UK Sh.a

Tepelene U Sh.a

Lezhe UK Sh.a

Shkoder UK Sh.a

Pogradec UK Sh.a

-1 1 3 5

Durres UK Sh.a

Tirane UK Sh.a

Mirdite UK Sh.a

Vlore U Sh.a

Sarande UK Sh.a

Elbasan Fshat U Sh.a

Tepelene U Sh.a

Lezhe UK Sh.a

Shkoder UK Sh.a

Pogradec UK Sh.a

50

Figure : Customer satisfaction with quantity of

water supply

Figure : Customer satisfaction with schedule of

running water supplied per each water utility area

company

The general level of customers satisfaction fall in the level of customers being neither

satisfied nor dissatisfied, in Pogradec and Mirdite customers are satisfied with

communication and invoicing, in Durres, Lezhe and Tepelena UK Sha customers feel

dissatisfied and companies are ranked at the bottom.

Customers’ overall perception on company performance does not fall in any of the

extreme categories’, meaning customers are not extremely satisfied and neither extremely

dissatisfied. The Pogradec utility ranks in most of the elements of the customer satisfaction

indicators and in the aggregate indicator as the best performing company. The value of

indicators for each company are mapped (see appendix 1) in an effort to give some helpful

guidelines on what a company could improve to increase customers level of satisfaction.

Figure : Customers perception on the company performance

1: Very satisfied, 2-Satisfied, 3-Nor satisfies/dissatisfied, 4-Dissatisfied, 5-Very dissatisfied

-1 1 3 5

Durres UK Sh.a…

Sarande UK Sh.a

Elbasan Fshat U Sh.a

Tirane UK Sh.a

Lezhe UK Sh.a

Mirdite UK Sh.a

Vlore U Sh.a

Tepelene U Sh.a

Shkoder UK Sh.a

Pogradec UK Sh.a

-1 1 3 5

Durres UK Sh.a

Sarande UK Sh.a

Elbasan Fshat U Sh.a

Lezhe UK Sh.a

Tirane UK Sh.a

Mirdite UK Sh.a

Vlore U Sh.a

Tepelene U Sh.a

Shkoder UK Sh.a

Pogradec UK Sh.a

0 1 2 3 4 5

Durres …

Sarande UK Sh.a

Elbasan Fshat U Sh.a

Tirane UK Sh.a

Lezhe UK Sh.a

Tepelene U Sh.a

Vlore U Sh.a

Mirdite UK Sh.a

Shkoder UK Sh.a

Pogradec UK Sh.a

51

Communication and transparency for the Durres utility are perceived better than some

other indicators for the company. Saranda, Elbasan, Tirana and Lezha utilities are ranked at

very tight difference from each other in the area of least performing companies (see figure

46). The composition of indicators basket for Saranda UK Sha shows that the company has

to work on management, maintenance services and customer care given that connectivity,

adequacy and quality of water supplied are perceived as performing well. Elbasan utility

seems to be in need of improving primarily the quantity of water supplied and the schedule of

running water supply, maintenance and reaction to customers needs are also crucial to be

tackled. All of the indicators measuring customer satisfaction with Tirana UK Sha fall around

the neutral level, showing neither satisfaction nor dissatisfaction. Tepelena UK Sha and Vlora

UK Sha are ranked at the fourth and the fifth position from customers. For Vlora UK Sha and

Tepelena UK Sha areas that might need focus and improvement are adequacy of water

supply, maintenance and technical capacities.

Figure : Diagnosis of company performance based on customer satisfaction level indicators

Durres UK Sh.a Elbasan Fshat U Sh.a

Lezhe UK Sh.a Miredita UK Sh.a

012345

Connectivity

Quality

Adequacy

Schedule

Maintanace

Administration

Personnel

Problem Solving

Efficiency in problem …

Technicalcapacity

Invoicing

Information

012345

Connectivity

Quality

Adequacy

Schedule

Maintanace

Administration

Personnel

Problem Solving

Efficiency in problem …

Technicalcapacity

Invoicing

Information

012345

Connectivity

Quality

Adequacy

Schedule

Maintanace

Administration

Personnel

Problem …

Efficiency in …

Technicalcap…

Invoicing

Information

012345

Connectivity

Quality

Adequacy

Schedule

Maintanace

Administrat…

Personnel

Problem …

Efficiency in …

Technicalca…

Invoicing

Information

52

Pogradec UK Sh.a Saranda UK Sh.a

Shkoder UK SH.a Tepelene U Sh.a

Tirana UK Sh.a Vlora U Sh.a

012345

Connectivity

Quality

Adequacy

Schedule

Maintanace

Administrat…

Personnel

Problem …

Efficiency in …

Technicalca…

Invoicing

Information

012345

Connectivity

Quality

Adequacy

Schedule

Maintanace

Administration

Personnel

Problem Solving

Efficiency in problem …

Technicalcapacity

Invoicing

Information

012345

Connectivity

Quality

Adequacy

Schedule

Maintanace

Administration

Personnel

Problem Solving

Efficiency in problem …

Technicalcapacity

Invoicing

Information

012345

Connectivity

Quality

Adequacy

Schedule

Maintanace

Administration

Personnel

Problem Solving

Efficiency in problem …

Technicalcapacity

Invoicing

Information

53

III.2. Findings from the Focus Groups III.2.1. Pogradec

1. Water supply: Access and usage

Pogradec is one of the areas with the best quality of water supply and services. All

participants stated that were connected to the water supply system and that the town enjoyed

24 hours per day running water. The only minor issue underlined was the low pressure of

water during the summer season as a result of increased usage. Despite the uninterrupted

running water, water tanks are still in use and this was especially common for businesses in

order to compensate for any disruption or insufficient supply due to the low pressure of water

during in the summer months. Meanwhile, pumps appear not to be used by consumers in

Pogradec.

Participants mentioned that about two years ago when the investments in the water supply

system were not over yet they had experienced some supply and quality problems. With the

new public water system in place, the participants have experienced a major improvement of

supply and services. They seem to be happy with the quality of the running water and have

not experienced any particular problem. However, interestingly one of the participants

coming from the health sector mentioned that although the water quality was good a small

category of consumers with health problems would still boil it for drinking.

2. Payment and transparency

Regarding issues of payments and transparency, participants expressed mixed opinions. One

of participants stated that the water tariff was considered high for a certain category of

consumers such as pensioners, while for the others it was considered as reasonable. For the

representatives of business community the tariff was acceptable as long as the supply and

quality were good. They were even prepared to pay a higher tariff to facilitate a better supply

during the summer season. This tariff increase mentioned by the business representative

012345

Connectivity

Quality

Adequacy

Schedule

Maintanace

Administration

Personnel

Problem Solving

Efficiency in problem …

Technicalcapacity

Invoicing

Information

1

2

3

4

5Connectivity

Quality

Adequacy

Schedule

Maintanace

Administration

Personnel

Problem Solving

Efficiency in problem …

Technicalcapacity

Invoicing

Information

54

sparked debates among participants as they maintained that the price was already high

enough for the category of pensioners and consumers working at the lower tiers of the public

system.

Regarding the questions raised by the moderator on meters and the transparency of the billing

system, participants expressed that they all had meters installed, while only a representative

from the business community stated that there have been cases of abuse regarding the billing

system. According to this participant, although the bills arrive always on time, from his

personal experience, once the bill amount was unrealistic as the consumption indicated in the

bill was higher than the one indicated by the meter. However, this was an isolated case and

other participants did not seem to have shared a negative experience regarding the billing

system.

However, although the Pogradec water supply enterprise represents one of the best models at

the national level, participants stated that there was limited or no information regarding

decisions related to changes in tariffs. Moreover, they did not feel included by the enterprise

in discussions on matters related to water supply and sewage. According to the participants in

the focus group, no meetings have taken place to collect the consumers’ opinions and discuss

their concerns about the service provision. Participants also stated that the schedule of

reading the meters by the personnel of the water supply enterprise is also unclear. They seem

to agree with the fact that meters are checked regularly by the enterprise but consumers

would prefer to be present at the time of check as this makes them feel more certain about the

transparency and clarity of billing system. However, the only case that may represent an

abuse in the monthly price to be paid by the consumers is when the billing period varies from

20 to 30/31 days. Whereas, regarding the costs of installing the new meters, participants

responded that this cost has been covered by the water supply enterprise and none of them

had experienced any problem with the meter that would require its replacement, hence they

had no information about who would cover the replacement costs if there was a need.

3. Sewage service

Almost all participants seemed to be connected to the new sewage system, but they were

aware about few households that were not yet connected. This appeared to be also the case of

one of the business representatives present in the focus group discussion. The administrative

division was mentioned as one of the possible reasons as some areas were probably not

covered by the same enterprise. However, according to participants, about 90% of the

consumers were connected to the new sewage system. Participants were also aware of the

separate amount in the bill dedicated to the sewage maintenance and they found the charged

cost as low. While the business representatives, mentioned that they were willing to pay more

for having a better service.

Participants mentioned having experienced problems with the sewage system such as mains

sewer blocked or flooded and water leaks. According to them these problems might be

related to the abuses by the administrating company or the company that implements the

project. Another problem that was mentioned in the focus group was the mixing of drinking

with the waste waters, which seemed to happen more often on rainy days. Despite the efforts

of the water supply and sewage services to maintain the mains, citizens have still experienced

bad smells in their water supply. Another important issue is the fact that these mixed waters

are discharged in the lake which affects also the environment.

55

With regard to the blocked, flooded or broken drains, participants stated that these problems

belonged to the past especially now that the old drains have been replaced with new ones.

The main problem however remains the drain covers’ theft.

Participants agreed that generally problems with the sewage or water supply have been

addressed in a timely fashion by the responsible authorities. However, the need for more

attention on addressing and solving the problems in the sector was clearly articulated by the

business community representatives.

4. Interactions with the water supply and sewage management company (complaints,

information and personnel behavior)

Participants responded their complaints mainly related to billing or water supply issues and

they were happy with the information provided by the personnel and their timely response.

Generally, they have filed complaints or reports directly in person at the respective office

without prior contacts by phone. They also mentioned the existence of an office responsible

for dealing with consumers and participants seemed to be all informed about it and where

was located. They were satisfied with the service provided by this office and their

complaint/report was forwarded to the respective technical unit and action was taken quite

fast. They believe that personal contacts with the consumers’ relation office are necessary and

this appears to lead to better results.

Generally, they were also satisfied with the politeness of the personnel, acknowledging that

not all the staff behaves with the same standard. Regarding consultations among consumers

the participants stated that they did feel the need for organizing such meetings.

Participants were also aware on the existence of WRA but were not clear on how to contact

them for filing a complaint or reporting a problem. However, they seemed to have little

information regarding other authorities responsible for issues related to water supply and

perceived that other authorities or structures were mainly responsible for the policy level and

do not deal directly with citizens’ complaints.

III.2.2. Tirana

1. Water supply: Access and usage

Although according to the participants in the focus group, Tirana has enough hydro sources,

they are not happy with the amount of supplied water. They were of the opinion that this is a

result of bad management of the available sources, increased number the new dwellings, and

the fact that often construction companies or private citizens make non authorized

connections in the water supply system. In addition, the pipeline network itself is quite old

and serious investments are needed to improve the water supply system and quality. With all

efforts, Tirana is currently not supplied with 24 hours running water.

Newly constructed buildings manage to have water supply three times per day and so the

tanks are filled and inhabitants enjoy uninterrupted daily water. The old buildings on the

other hand seem to be the ones suffering more from the limited water supply. In these

buildings, the water tanks are individual and usually placed on the top of the buildings and

require two types of pumps and in order to be able to use water from the tanks all day they

need two kinds of pumps –sucking up and pushing down pumps. Pumps are massively used

56

and they seem to be crucial during the daily schedule of water supply especially for those

households that live in the upper levels of apartment blocks. But, the existence of pumps and

tanks is associated with maintenance issues and additional costs which are commonly paid by

consumers themselves.

The quality of water in Tirana was considered as one of the most serious issues by the

participants. They expressed their opinion that the water does not smell well, perhaps also

due to the amount of the disinfectants used or also due to the cleaning standard of the water

supply source as well as the old pipelines system. On top of that tanks are not regularly

cleaned. The participants maintained that they use the supplied water cooking as it gets

boiled. Some families have also installed water filters, however there are many households

that buy bottled water for drinking and use the water supplied for the rest of the domestic

purposes.

Participants living near the main aqueduct do not face supply problems but they are not

happy with the quality of water and as the rest of participants they do not use the running

water inside their dwellings for drinking purposes. While the water supply enterprises assures

the public that the running water is safe for drinking, the institute of public health states the

contrary as the water goes through the water tanks which are not clean. Participants also

discussed about the test performed by the responsible structure to check the water quality and

they agreed that although these tests might be conducted regularly, consumers do not seem to

be informed about their results.

The disruption of water supply happens more often in some areas of Tirana. Generally, the

water is supplied three times per day but the time schedule is not always the same and

citizens just try to guess and wait for the water to fill in the tanks and other water containers

they might have. However, the participants have noticed that the water company is trying to

inform the consumers through the media about the interruptions due to maintenance reasons.

It is interesting to note the practice of water trucks that are sometimes used and paid by

customers as an alternative source of water supply in the absence of running water. It must be

mentioned also that in per-urban areas of Tirana, consumers use wells as alternative source of

water and they use it mainly for irrigation and washing.

2. Water supply: Billing and transparency

The participants confirmed that the dwellings in Tirana have meters installed. There might be

very few buildings without meters and the billing in this cases is done on a standard basis at

about 480 – 600 ALL per month, depending also on the number of members living in the

household. For the new buildings, every family has its own meter with a guaranty seal (in the

cases of new meters). Consumers are of the opinion that billing has become clearer and the

amount of m3 consumed and other elements included in the bill are visible. However, they

feel that sometimes billing is not realistic and it is done on a standard tariff or still based on

the number of household members despite the real consumption.

Participants have experienced cases when the bill is not reflecting the real consumption

indicated by the meters and when these cases have been reported the water utility enterprise

have proposed to bill a zero amount for the coming month.

57

Connections of businesses located in the ground floor of the buildings need to be checked as

according to participants there are cases when the owners of these businesses lay illegal

connections in the network so they can distributing their business consumption to the

households in the block.

Another problem related to the new buildings is the fact that despite their completion and

water being consumed, the charged bill is often zero or standard. This has led to consumers

being faced with accumulated high bills and fines just due to the bad management from the

water utility company.

Participants also discussed about the costs for installing new meters. They were of the

opinion that the price varies from 2,400-3,600 ALL and this was considered high for the

households’ budgets.

Regarding the payment and quality of the supplied water, opinions were quite mixed.

Participants consider that there is no guarantee on the quality of the water supplied which is

not drinkable. Water pollution takes place in a few segments starting from the water supply

source, through old networks and finally at the water tanks in the consumers’ dwellings.

Participants feel that the actual tariff is not justified and should not be increased, having in

mind the supply and quality of water as well as the fact that a large number of consumers do

not pay. It would make sense to increase the tariff after major investments and improvements

in the service and quality of water provision and participants expect more transparency and

better information sharing from the water utility.

3. Sewage system: Access, Quality, billing and transparency

According to the participants, the sewage system in Tirana needs major investments and the

large number of constructions over the collectors has impacted negatively its performance.

Discharges are mainly done at Lana River which has led increased vulnerability to floods in

certain areas of Tirana – especially during heavy rains. The informal areas of Tirana are also

problematic as they lack proper sewage systems. Areas like “Komuna e Parisit” and Selite are

also noted to have faced problems with water supply and the sewage system.

Problems with broken main sewer, flooded, bad smells coming from the sewer system,

mixing of drinking with waste water were mentioned as the common sewage problems in

Tirana.

The informal constructions have hindered even more the proper function and management of

the sewage system in Tirana. The participants mentioned that consumers expect to receive

decent and quality the services for which they pay for. They were also of the opinion that not

all consumers were aware about the amount they are being charged in the water bill for the

sewage system and they feel more needs to be done regarding the sharing of information with

the citizens.

58

4. Interactions with the water supply and sewage management company (complaints,

information and personnel behavior)

Participants were aware of the existence of the consumer relation unit at the water utility

enterprise. They mentioned that usually complaints or reports are oral and not submitted in

written form. Generally, complaints/reports are related to the bills. Opening new consumers’

relation offices to increase the accessibility of citizens would improve the service and provide

a timely service.

They seemed to be satisfied with the politeness of the water utility personnel, their capacities

and response for addressing the problem. However, they were not equally satisfied with the

behavior of the “task force groups” and cases of bribery were also mentioned by the

participants. Consultations among the community are also missing and participants did not

seem to be well informed about the role of WRA.

III.2.3. Vlora

1. Water supply: Access and usage

Vlora is experiencing problems with the water supply too. While three years ago the first

phase of the pipeline system’s upgrade was finalized and now the main aqueduct is in place,

there are no available funds for the continuation of investments. Indeed, participants maintain

that the water supply was better when based on the older pipeline system, perhaps due to the

fact that it was covering only a limited number of consumers. For most of the existing

quarters in Vlora the impact of the new main pipe line project has been negative impact as the

secondary pipeline systems are still the old, while the number of dwellings per quarter has

increased significantly.

The newly developed areas have benefited from investments in the water supply system

result to be somehow better served than the existing areas. Two areas that have benefited the

most from the new project are the area starting from Uji i Ftohte to Skela and Soda area.

These areas enjoy uninterrupted water supply 24 hours per day.

The running water supplied inside the dwellings is not considered as drinkable by the

majority of consumers. While the water does not smell bad, the scheduled supply means also

that when water reaches to consumers it also comes with accumulated dirt and consumers

usually leave the tap water running for few minutes so it gets cleaned. For drinking purposes

most of the citizens seem to be buying bottled water with the exception of low income

families. The running water is widely used for cooking and washing purposes and it appears

that filters are also installed and used by in some families in Vlora too.

The use of pumps is very common to enable the filling of the water tanks during the supply

hours. New buildings have the water tanks and pumps installed underground and consumers

living in these buildings enjoyed a better water supply. In existing buildings one can find

collective and individual pumps while tanks as elsewhere are placed on the top of the

buildings. Cleaning of water tanks in these buildings remains an individual responsibility and

their maintenance as well as of the building ceiling tops has become often a case of conflict

among inhabitants.

59

In Vlora, the water is supplied twice a day. No information is provided from the water utility

on the supply schedule, while the duration of supply varies according to the seasons. During

summer months the duration of water supply is shorter and often the water tanks remain un-

filled. There have been also cases of longer shortages up to 3 days without running water due

to planned interruptions for investments or maintenance purposes and for these cases

consumers have been informed by the water utility. In addition, water trucks have been sent

by the utility to fulfill the basic needs of water supply of the citizens. Participants also

mentioned cases of households investing in garden wells in their private yards as an

alternative source of water supply.

2. Water supply: Billing and transparency

While in new buildings, individual meters have been installed and sealed, not all of the

existing buildings have the meters. This situation led the participants in the focus group to

assume that there is no clear way for measuring and paying for the water supply and

administration. According to their opinion the billing system is still based on the number of

household members and not the real consumption.

Many consumers do not seem to be much interested on the details of the bill but the total

charged. Participants also mentioned the water billing costs is not heavy for the budgets of

middle income families but considerable for the low income ones. However, when adding to

the total bill the costs for the maintenance of pumps, water tanks, and purchased bottled water

for drinking the final amount spent on water is quite heavy on the budgets of every family.

Meanwhile, taking into consideration all the supply and management factors related to the

amount of the supplied water, frequency of supply, schedule and quality of running water,

participants concluded that the current water tariff is not justified. If all the above will be

improved considerably, they would agree to pay a higher price for the service.

Three years ago, in Vlora, the payment of the water bills was collected door to door by the

personnel of the water utility that were also issuing a receipt for the payment. Now all

consumers pay their bills in the respective regions or directly at the water utility offices and

participants were happy with the politeness of the cashiers. An electronic data base is created

by the water utility with all consumers and payment records

Participants also mentioned cases of consumers that have been not paying for years. There

are also cases when families that live abroad return home for holidays they find very high

bills to pay while they feel the amounts do not match the real consumption. Another issue

that remains unclear was the problem of holiday houses and apartments as it was not clear to

the participants how the payments are collected when the owners are not based in Vlora.

Participants also feel that there are no instruments and clear procedures in place for gathering

the opinions of the consumers and informing them on water related issues.

3. Sewage system: Access, Quality, billing and transparency

Participants pointed out that there are a number of problems related to the sewage system in

Vlora and this situation becomes more visible in rainy days. All areas suffer from the

60

insufficient functioning of the sewage system. Generally, dwellings are connected to the main

sewer, but blocked and damaged mains from the illegal constructions are quite frequent in

Vlora.

Participants were not aware of periodic maintenance operations and they have noticed that

they are conducted only when a problem appears. In addition, they also feel that cleaning

procedures do not follow basic standards as the collected waste are often left for days in the

road or sideways until it gets transported affecting this way the citizens’ health and the

environment of their neighborhoods.

The municipality is aware of this problem and there are plans to invest in this direction, but

the available funds seem to be limited. Participants mentioned that the phenomenon of drain

covers’ theft so they can be sold for scrap is quite common in Vlora too.

There is a line in the bill that specifies the charge for the sewage system, but the consumers

do not pay much attention as it is usually quite small. Despite all infrastructure investments

carried out by the municipality, participants still are of the opinion that they are not long-

lasting and that more substantial investment is necessary to solve of these problems for good.

4. Interactions with the water supply and sewage management company (complaints,

information and personnel behavior)

The office for consumer’s relations and complaints is placed at the water utility office.

Generally complaints are related to high bills and sometimes com from emigrants living

abroad challenging what they perceive as overcharges. In view of this, consumers have

started to use the practice of notifying the water utility about the period that they will be out

of the country. Participants were not sure whether this was a practice initiated by consumers

to prevent high bills during their absence or it is a procedure of the water utility to help the

consumers.

Complaints are analyzed individually and sometimes inspections are carried in site to verify

the raised problem, but the participants’ perception is that there are no specific and clear

procedures how the cases are followed. While regarding community councils, the participants

were quite skeptic. Some believed that indifferentism of the community is part of out culture

and it is difficult to change. On the other hand, internal migration has turned these

communities more heterogenic as different mentalities and approaches are mixed together

affecting the community spirit.

Participants concluded that investments in water supply and sewage system are large scale

and as such they call for a better cooperation among local and central levels of government.

III.2.4. Shkoder

1. Water supply: Access and usage

Shkodra together with Pogradec are two areas well serviced with water supply 24 hours per

day. In the past the city has suffered from long water shortages combined with power cuts

that have influenced also the supply of the city with water. In the recent years there have been

investments in the pipeline system in different areas of Shkodra and this has improved the

61

water supply despite the fact that the coverage area has expanded with new constructions and

increased population. However, there is still a need for investments in older pipelines and

mains system. Currently, a project is being implemented which consists in equipping the

main aqueduct with new pipes from the main junction in Dobraç up until the exit of Shkoda.

It is expected that the finalization of this phase will significantly improve the water supply.

Interruptions are experienced only when there is a power cut or investments are being carried

out in the system. For the planned interruptions, consumers have always been informed and

participants also mentioned that the chlorination of water is regularly taking place.

However, although the water supply in Shkodra is good the pressure is low and the use of

pumps is necessary especially for the apartments in higher floors. In apartment buildings

collective pumps which are installed and maintained by the inhabitants are quite common.

Water tanks (individual or collective) on the other hand are not common and they are mainly

used by businesses as a safety measure to ensure the continuity of supply for their business.

The quality of running water was also considered by participants to be good and safe

therefore it is widely used from consumers for drinking without prior filtering. Participants

mentioned that bottled water is only used in very few cases from households with small

babies.

Expected investments in the water supply system of Shkodra, including pumps for ensuring a

high pressured supply for the consumers as well as replacing the remaining old pipelines will

make the supply optimal for the consumer.

2. Water supply: Billing and transparency

The running water tariff was considered as reasonable from the participants, having in mind

the quality and service offered by the local enterprise. The water cost was considered as not

significant for the monthly budgets of the households, apart from low income households.

Regarding a possible cost increase, participants mentioned that more acceptable would be for

the water utility enterprise and local authorities to raise awareness of the non-paying

customers, rather than increase the costs for those already paying regularly. Participants’

perception was that “new comers” in the city or internal migrants from rural areas are the

ones not paying regularly the bills.

At the time of selling or buying a house/flat, debts to the water utility enterprise are mostly

noticed. In these cases, consumers have been obliged to pay their debt together with the fine

in order to be able to complete the transaction. These cases have often been good examples

and were believed that have had an impact by increasing the number of paying consumers.

The payment for the water utility seems to be based on the number of members per household

rather than the real consumption. Buildings constructed prior to year 2000 lack meters, while

in the new ones the installment of meters is a technical obligation. However, again, according

to the participants in the focus group, billing is done based on number of members and not

consumption, which implies that meters are not taken into consideration.

The water utility enterprise in Shkodra has the necessary infrastructure in place for the

consumers to pay the bills and get information on the services provided. In addition, the

62

participants also mentioned the creation and the regular updating of electronic database of

consumers and payments. 3. Sewage system: Access, Quality, billing and transparency

The sewage system in Shkodra is not adequate and does not respond well to the expansion of

the city and the increased constructions. There have been continues efforts from water utility

and sewage system enterprise to maintain and clean the mains but there have been only some

partial investments. The floods that Shkodra experienced during the last years have

highlighted the need for investments in the sewage system. From several months now, a new

project is under implementation which aims at build completely a new sewage system based

on the actual needs of the city. Participants did not appear to be well informed about the

separate line in the water bill dedicated to the sewage system and its amount.

4. Interactions with the water supply and sewage management company (complaints,

information and personnel behavior)

There are counters in place for the consumer to file a complaint or report at the water utility

enterprise. The typical complaints of consumers are not related to the water supply issues but

mainly to the bill amounts they receive. They feel that the billing system based on the number

of household members is not accurate and it does not always reflect changes in the household

structures as a result of marriages as well as permanent or temporary migrations.

Also in Shkodra some consumers are aware of the self-declaration procedure at the water

utility related to the changes to the household structure and temporary or permanent absence

from their dwelling. However, this is by word of mouth and they are not sure whether this is a

standard procedure of the water utility. Overall, the participants were satisfied with the

politeness and capacities of the water utility personnel. However, they feel that WRA and the

Consumer Protection office have a greater role to play and should be more active toward the

protection of consumers’ rights.

III.2.5. Lezha

1. Water supply: Access and usage

The water supply in Lezha’s urban and rural areas is scheduled at three times per day.

According to the participants the supply is no longer than 10 hours per day in total. The

pipeline system from the source at Fushë Kuqe up to the water depos in Lezhë is quite old

and cannot satisfy the needs of the consumers. There have been few maintenance operations

and replacements of pumps at the source, but the pipeline system is quite old and cannot

respond to the transmission needs. A new reservoir has been constructed but has not become

operational yet. In addition, according to the participants in the focus group, the volume of

the deposit was considered as not sufficient in order to be able to transmit 24 hours supply

daily to the consumers. The system needs major upgrading investment.

Overall the quality of the running water at the source was considered to be good by the

participants and they would use it for drinking after individual simple filtering. However,

63

they mentioned that the water arriving in their houses does not have the same qualities after

passing through the old pipes, deposits and individual water tanks. Although they believe that

chlorination of the water is regularly done, in some cases they have noticed that the water is

not clear and clean especially when maintenance works are performed in their area. The

water is used for drinking only after boiling it and it is widely used for other purposes such as

cooking and washing.

The usage of water pumps remains crucial for the supply of consumers. Participants

mentioned the existence of both types of connection to pumps, collective and individual ones.

Installing and maintaining the pumps and water tanks has often become a source of conflicts

among the community members.

For consumers living in new buildings, the water supply is better due to larger collective

water tanks placed in the underground floors of these buildings and the support of stronger

pumps. There have been cases when during the summer season the touristic areas have been

supplied by water trucks.

Overall, the community is informed through the media about the interruptions over 24 hours

happening as result of improvement works or damages in the pipelines. The water supply

schedules are approximately between 5am to 8am, 1pm to 3pm and 7pm to 10pm. There has

been no information from the water utility regarding the water supply schedules and

consumers have organized themselves based on their observations. In some private houses

consumers have invested on building wells in their yards in order to compensate their needs

for water supply.

2. Water supply: Billing and transparency

Participants consider the water tariff rather high and do not see any justification to further

increase it. They feel the tariff is higher in Lezha compared to other towns; however the

monthly bill amount is not a considered high for the middle income families. Participants also

mentioned that there is an increased awareness and reaction from the consumers that pay

regularly their bills towards those that do not.

The billing system is done in two forms in Lezha: based on real consumption for the families

with installed individual meters and based on number of household members for those

without meters. The average bill amount in Lezha is about 1.100-1.200 ALL.

Participants were of the opinion that the water utility’s prime priority is to increase the

number of regularly paying customers and than expand the installment of individual meters.

Complaints about standard billing are quite common, especially from those consumers that

were living elsewhere for a long time or from families with few members. Also in Lezha,

participants were aware about the self declaration possibility when living abroad or

temporarily moving somewhere else.

Information counters and those for paying the bills are easy to find and were well functioning

in Lezha like other towns and the electronic database was up and running here too.

Participants were satisfied with the politeness of the water utility personnel.

64

3. Sewage system: Access, Quality, billing and transparency

The sewage system is quite old and with the expansion of the town problems are becoming

more evident especially during the rainy days. Investments for new collectors have improved

considerably the situation. The irrigation system was deemed as functioning well from the

focus group participants. However there are still areas that need more attention regarding the

maintenance of the sewage system. Efforts of the water utility to address the problems in a

timely fashion were appreciated by the participants and they highlighted the need for raising

awareness of the citizens towards the environment. They also were informed about the

separate line in the monthly bill about the sewage system and consider this amount as

symbolic. 4. Interactions with the water supply and sewage management company (complaints,

information and personnel behavior)

Participants were generally happy with the improvements in the sewage system while they

feel that the town is lagging behind regarding the water supply services. Overall, they were

satisfied with the politeness of the personnel of the water utilities. Typical complaints were

considered those regarding the bill amounts and feel that efforts should be intensified to

improve the billing system based on real consumption of the households, which implies

installments of individual meters and their periodic readings.

Participants concluded that better planning and coordination regarding investments and

management procedures among the two levels of governance are needed in order to be able to

provide good access and quality of water supply for the consumer in Lezha.

III.2.6. Elbasan/Shushice

Water supply: Access and usage Participants in this focus group declared that the majority of families were connected through

the public water system, but they were aware also of families not connected and were using

alternative sources of water supply. These families are mainly located in the periphery. There

are also families that although they are connected to the public system have constructed wells

to fulfill their daily needs.

The running water inside the houses is used for drinking and all other purposes. Participants

consider that the quality and amount of water supplied are rather good, apart from the

summer season when the supply is done on a schedule. After every three hours of supply

there is an interruption for few hours and participants have noticed sometimes that water has

a strange smell and color, which is more common during the rainy season. Participants

implied that this happens due to the old supply network system and there is a need for funds

to carry out investments in the system.

However, they feel that the water utility personnel possesses the dedicated attention and

available resources to ensure a good management regarding the quality and supply of the

water and the problems come from the need for investments in the system. They were aware

of the periodic chlorination and quality control tests conducted. Nevertheless, these measures

are jeopardized by the quality of pipelines that transport the water.

65

Since the interruption of water is quite common, especially during the summer, individual

water tanks and pumps are widely used also in Elbasan. Abuses with the water especially in

the rural areas were common but the water utility is trying to improve the situation by

installing individual meters to control consumption. Another factor that is helping to reduce

the abuses with the use of running water is due to the fact that the drinking water contains

chemicals that might damage the gardening products. Participants sustained that there are

enough hydro resources to cover the needs, but the amount is decreased due to abuses from

consumers and partly also due to weak management from the water utility. Interruptions also

happen due to power cuts in these areas.

Regarding the water supply participants expressed mixed opinions, some of them

acknowledging the efforts of the water utility to improve the supply and its management

while other found the supply not worth to pay the bill. They mentioned that according to

water utility interruptions are planned and consumers have been informed, while consumers

seem to disagree, adding that there are also spontaneous and unplanned interruptions.

During the last three years there have been investments in the area covered by Elbasan water

utility for improving the network, new collectors, installing meters and also towards a better

management of the problems.

Water supply: Billing and transparency

Participants maintain that the difference in tariffs based on consumption, which is about 35

ALL per m3 and about 400 ALL per month for consumers lacking meters were their

consumption is based on the number of members per households, is not acceptable. Some

participants also mentioned that for the supply and quality of the water provided the tariff is

considered expensive. They found the bill clear and including all necessary elements for the

consumers and overall expressed that a price increases it is not justifiable and there are cases

when consumers refuse to pay because they are unhappy with the supply and quality

provided.

Each family has paid about 600 ALL for installing the reading meters. In cases of damage the

meter has been changed and they have paid about 400 ALL. Participants sustain that the cost

for installing new meters is high.

Sewage system: Access, Quality, billing and transparency

With the expection of Hajdaras village, the areas of Shushica, Mliza and Vreshat do not have

a sewage system and waters are visibly spilled into open canal. The lack of a proper sewage

system has created environmental problems. In few cases temporary measures have been

undertaken by the water utility but participants were quite pessimistic whether this immediate

problem was going to be addressed in the near future.

Interactions with the water supply and sewage management company (complaints,

information and personnel behavior)

Complaints were reported by phone and direct contacts with the water supply employees and

personal visits to the offices of the enterprise.

66

Participants were not aware of the existence of any structure that protects the rights of the

consumers and underlined its importance. They mentioned a case when part of the pipelines

of the water supply was passing under the cemetery and they addressed the matter to the

commune and the pipelines were moved from that area. In many cases the complaints filed

are related to the water supply and its quality, while they think that there are not complaints

regarding the bills. Participants seemed to appreciate the efforts undertaken by the personnel

of the water to address the problems raised by the consumers where possible. However the

lack of funds for proper investments hinders the management and supply quality of the

enterprise.

Finally they maintain that creation of consumers’ councils might be a good and effective

instrument for addressing the problems of the community.

67

IV. Conclusions and recommendations

This report presented the findings of a survey on citizens’ perceptions about the

quality of water and sewerage services. The survey and the focus groups findings are

analyzed with the intention to provide a set of evidence-based policy recommendations aimed

at improving citizens’ satisfaction with the services they receive to the concerned government

institutions, regulators and utilities. The survey and the focus groups targeted the feedback of

three user groups: business entities, public institutions and households on the access, use,

quality of service, transparency, community participation and interaction with the water and

sewage companies. The results of the study offer a set of baseline data to be further used by

stakeholders – consumer organisations, utilities and in particular WRA in compliance with its

mandate, in order to monitor developments in the sector.

The survey shows that 94% of those interviewed had access to the public network

provided and managed by water supply utilities but there are significant variations in access

to the system by area and type of customer. With the exception of Elbasan, all water supply

companies feature a good performance in terms of access and connectivity at 90 percent of

the sample or more. Rural and suburban areas feature a higher degree of non-connectivity

compared to the general average. In addition, poor households’ connectivity is 8% lower

compared to non-poor ones. Households not being connected to the public network of water

supply use mainly privately set up wells and connections to the water supply network.

More than 37% of respondents confirm to use bottled water for drinking purposes and

this is more an urban phenomenon (42.9%) rather than a rural one (14.55%). According to the

survey findings, Saranda, Vlora, Tirana and Durres utilities have the highest percentages of

families using bottled water resulting in additional costs for families in purchasing bottled

water. The data show that families have an average monthly cost of purchasing bottled water

of 1,013 ALL. The use of bottled water is also one of the differentiating characters between

poor (18.9%) and non-poor (40.5%).

Individual tanks are very often being used in Albania to ensure continuous running

water with 65.3% of the surveyed customers confirming the use such water tanks. In addition,

67.8% of respondents use water pumps to aid their access to continuous running water. The

frequency of using water pumps is higher in Durres, Shkoder, Saranda, Tirana and Vlora.

It was pointed out during the focus groups that although Tirana has enough hydro

sources, users are not happy with the amount of supplied water. They were of the opinion that

this is a result of bad management of the available sources, increased number the new

dwellings, and the fact that often construction companies or private citizens make non

authorized connections in the water supply system. In addition, the pipeline network itself is

quite old and serious investments are needed to improve the water supply system and quality.

The frequency of customers experiencing water supply disruption – there are areas

that have an excellent performance and customers experience low frequency of water supply

scarcity, there are water utility areas where customers experience water disruptions at high

frequency, but just around the average observed in the whole country, and this might be

system related defifciencies not bad management. Finally, there are companies performing

very badly, as per their customers reporting and have water disrupted at extremely high

frequency. It appears that 24 hours running water is still a difficult performance target in

Albania as a large share of customers (41.9%) has daily access to only 4 hours of water. This

68

percentage is higher among households, and it increases for urban household. Less than 20%

of customers across all utilities receive continuous running water supply with businesses and

public institutions as well as urban households displaying a better incidence of continuous

water than rural households. The best performing utility with regard to adequacy and

continuity of water supply is Pogradec UK Sh.a, while Saranda UK Sh.a and Durres UK Sh.a

rank as the worst.

Disruptions of water supply are a characteristic of the summer season but they are

also frequent during winter and somewhat less frequent during spring and autumn. The

shortage of natural water supply and increased water demand during the summer combined

with informal connections, obsolete network and poor management are singled out as the

main reasons for these disruptions.

Although water is mostly supplied on a schedule, water utility companies fail to

inform customers on the schedule of water supply disruptions with over 60% of the

respondents report they have no information on the schedule of water provision with Durres,

Tirana and Tepelena being among those with the lowest level of information. Rural area

customers are less informed on average than urban area customers. This calls for a better

management and greater attention to customer care from the utility companies that can at

least duly inform the public about disruptions and schedules.

Payment and transparency on consumption, metering and payment were studied as

part of the citizens’ report card survey on water utility delivered as a tool to evaluate the

customer satisfaction level with respect to the cost of the service and the degree of

transparency on payments. More than 90% of respondents have a contract with the water

supplying company but only 60% of them are equipped with the meter with Shkodra, Vlora.

Lezha and Tepelena singled out as non-performers. This indicates that water utilities should

make extra efforts in identifying all customers and installing meters in order to enforce

payment of invoices.

Costs for establishing new connections and water meters are considered too high for a

considerable share of households and even more so for the poor. Water providers have a

primary interest in ensuring that customers are formally registered and consumption is

measured, whereas extra charges for the contract and meter constitute a further burden to

regularization. The customer perception on cost of connection and meters may provide an

insight to the water utilities and regulator in order to identify suitable solutions especially for

the poor households.

The survey shows that the majority of respondents (78% of households and 75% of

the overall sample) receive invoices monthly. A relatively higher share of businesses (34%)

state they do not get a regular monthly invoice, and 18.9% of private companies consider

invoicing not accurate. Around 12% of households never get an invoice with rural and poor

households demonstrating a higher frequency with 29% and 17%. The most commonly

reported problem with invoicing is inaccuracy with the amount charged being too high;

followed by delays in the delivery of bills, as well as problems with the water meter and

estimated invoicing. Households tend to report problems at a higher frequency than

institutions and businesses.

69

Regarding the payment of water bills, the highest nonpayment frequency rate is

observed in Saranda, Tepelena, Shkoder and Vlora areas, which are not amongst the worst

performing companies, although service indicators score low for a number of aspects. On the

contrary, low frequency of nonpayment (or high frequency of compliance) was observed in

areas like Durres and Elbasan, which not only are among the poorest providers, but also

charge the most from their customers. It is hard to establish reasons, but these two companies

have been previously managed by foreign concessionary operators which may have enforced

payment of invoices at a large scale. This would indicate that most probably weak

management of the companies and obsolete network conditions become a barrier to the

ability of the provider in generating revenue. It is worth pointing out here that public

institutions have the highest frequency of nonpayment at 35%. Nonpayment is also higher at

rural areas and for poor household the non payment rate is twice higher than the overall

sample frequency

Considerable variations are observed in the distribution of opinions on pricing by

utility area, which most probably reflects the economic development and purchasing power

of areas, as well as the customer perception on the quality and adequacy of water supply and

sewage system. In general, it is meaningful that less than half of customers feel water pricing

is high, despite the typically poor quality of service reported for the majority of services.

Focus groups participants felt that sometimes billing is not realistic and it is done on a

standard tariff or still based on the number of household members despite the real

consumption. More importantly, over 70% of households are willing to pay more for

improved service delivery. These data may be used by the utilities and regulator to consider

increasing tariffs with a special attention to the introduction of subsidies targeting the poor

and needy alone; rather than wasting resources on subsidizing the whole system. Water

utilities should consider increased tariffs if possible in order to cover costs and improved

service; based on careful examination of the customers’ willingness to pay as well as

improved management and show for the extra money collected by customers. However the

first step towards increasing revenues should be to expand the collection rate to all

consumers, rather than increasing charges the costs for abiding consumers.

Households and public institutions, especially those residing at rural areas, manifest a

high frequency of reporting problems with water and sewage system at local government

unit. The percentage of customers presenting their problems at the regulatory authority of

water is low – at 1% of the sample. Indeed, the focus groups participants were also aware

about the existence of WRA but were not clear on how to contact them for filing a complaint

or reporting a problem. In addition, they seem to have little information regarding other

authorities responsible for issues related to water supply and perceived that other authorities

or structures were mainly responsible for the policy level and do not deal directly with

citizens’ complaints.

The experience of customers when try to communicate their problems to the water

service provider varies across water utility areas. There is a part of customers that think the

problems are well known and there is no need to complaint or let the company know about

that, it is just time and efforts consuming. Among the best performing companies regarding

existence of customers dedicated offices are Elbasan, Mirdite, Durres or Saranda. Employees

of Progradec, Shkodra Elbasan and Durres water supply and sewage management companies

are considered helpful to customers’ needs.

70

The most frequent problems customers are likely to report include quantity of water

supply, disruptions of water supply and damaged connections to the main network of water

supply; as well as invoicing. However, around 50% of customers state that they do not

believe a complaint would lead to a solution for their problem. A considerable percentage

indicate that it is not easy to “access” the company office that deals with the customers

complaints and not easy either to communicate with the employers of the company. Indeed,

in most cases no measures are taken for the reported problems – this is true for almost 60% of

customers who have filed a complaint. This rate is higher for problems reported by

households. The incidence of customers saying company did not do anything regarding their

complaint is also higher in rural areas – 92% of customers from rural areas have declared so.

Most household customers are dissatisfied with the clarity of information provided by

the company regarding the problem reported, dissatisfied with company following up the

problem and updating the customer on the status of its problem, dissatisfied with personnel

service and the easiness of getting an answer or an explanation. Institutions and businesses

are more likely to be satisfied than households probably due to their knowledge of procedures

and steps to follow when facing problems. Customers are also dissatisfied with information

provided on further actions or steps to be taken for their reported problem to be solved.

It is interesting to note that phone line services and electronic invoicing are not

properly regarded by customers and their use is quite low. As they are not traditional tools

they also need proper promotion which is currently missing. Companies might find it helpful

to use these tools to serve customers (large access, low staff required, low cost of service and

service standardization) but they have to be prepared to invest in promotion to help customers

get familiar as well as capacity building for their personnel to better utilize these tools. For

some of the companies, efforts dedicated to have customer services offices have not helped in

improving quality of service delivery (Durres, Miredite or Saranda). However, utility

companies that have to improve customer offices access in terms of presence across the

relevant area and employees attitude of serving their customers, to at least reach the national

observed standards are those of Saranda, Vlora, Tepelena and Shkodra. While the water

supply depends greatly on a series of technical, management and investments issues, water

utilities should be able to relate better to the customers. Therefore, a key recommendation

from this study is that water utility companies should be opening new customer services

offices closer to the community to increase the accessibility of citizens and provide a timely

service.

Pogradec UK SHa and Shkoder UK Sha are the best ranked companies in terms of

customer satisfaction with adequacy of water supply and schedule. Durres UK Sha is ranked

as company with the lowest customer satisfaction. Pogradec UK Sha is ranked as the best

company with regard to human and technical capacities while Durres UK Sha ranks again as

the worst perceived. The management of this water utility could start by paying some

attention to improving technical capabilities (staff and equipment’s), maintenance and

administration of the networks (water and sewage). Water utilities of Saranda, Elbasan,

Tirana and Lezha are considered as also ranking close in the group of as non-performing

companies.

From the viewpoint of sewage and wastewater, the survey respondents indicate that

84% of the overall sample dwelling/premises having toilettes with discharge connected to the

main network of public sewage system. This however, varies across customers and especially

across areas of residence. In urban areas above 90% of dwellings/premises have toilettes

71

connected to the main sewage network while in rural and sub-urban areas this figure drops to

only 35%.

The survey points out some considerable problems in Elbasan, Vlora and Durres. The

sewage system in Tirana is singled by the focus group participants out as in need of major

investments as the large number of constructions over the collectors has impacted negatively

its performance. Discharges are mainly done at Lana River which has led increased

vulnerability to floods in certain areas of Tirana – especially during heavy rains. The informal

areas of Tirana are also problematic as they lack proper sewage systems. Areas like “Komuna

e Parisit” and Selite are also noted to have faced problems with water supply and the sewage

system. Problems with a broken main sewer, floods, bad smell coming from the sewer

system, mixing of drinking with waste water were mentioned as the common sewage

problems in Tirana. Lack of investments is mentioned as the main challenge in tackling the

sewage problems in the surveyed areas.

72

IV. Appendixes

Appendix : Sample comparison of the household survey on water and sewage system providers

Agreed Sample Actual Sample Deviations

Urban

_area

_hh<4

Urban

_area

_hh>4

Rural

_areas

_hh<4

Rural

_areas

_hh>4

Urban

_area

_hh<4

Urban_

Area

_hh>4

Rural

_areas

_hh<4

Rural

_areas

_hh>4

Urban

_area

_hh<4

Urban

_area

_hh>4

Rural

_areas

_hh<4

Rural

_areas

_hh>4

Durres 176 38 36 24 176 38 36 24 0 0 0 0

Elbasan 36 14 71 76 36 14 71 76 0 0 0 0

Lezhe 74 38 4 2 74 38 4 2 0 0 0 0

Mirdite 88 29 0 0 87 30 0 0 1 -1 0 0

Pogradec 92 24 20 21 91 25 20 21 1 -1 0 0

Saranda 110 36 10 1 110 36 10 1 0 0 0 0

Shkoder 153 43 0 0 153 43 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tepelene 86 28 2 2 86 28 2 2 0 0 0 0

Tirane 300 92 36 42 300 92 36 42 0 0 0 0

Vlore 148 37 6 5 147 38 6 5 1 -1 0 0

Appendix : Sample Comparison of business/institutions survey on water and sewage services

Agreed Sampe Actual Sample Deviations

Public

Institutions

Private

Businesse

s

Public

Institutions

Private

Businesses

Public

Institutions

Private

Businesses

Durres 14 61 14 61 - -

Elbasan 13 42 10 43 3 - 1

Lezhe 7 28 6 26 1 2

Mirdite 6 26 5 28 1 - 2

Pogradec 10 30 8 35 2 - 5

Sarande 3 40 8 35 - 5 5

Shkoder 7 46 10 44 - 3 2

Tepelene 5 27 5 28 - - 1

Tirane 24 107 24 106 - 1

Vlore 11 43 10 44 1 - 1

Appendix : Sample distribution per each water utility (in %)

Water Utility HOUSEHOLDS

PUBLIC

INSTITUTIONS

PRIVATE

COMPANIES TOTAL

Durres UK Sh.a 13.7% 14.0% 13.6% 13.7%

Elbasan UK Sh.a 9.9% 13.0% 9.3% 9.9%

Lezhe UK Sh.a 5.9% 7.0% 6.2% 6.0%

Mirdite UK Sh.a 5.9% 6.0% 5.6% 5.8%

73

Pogradec UK Sh.a 7.9% 10.0% 6.7% 7.7%

Sarande UK Sh.a 7.9% 3.0% 8.9% 7.8%

Shkoder UK Sh.a 9.8% 7.0% 10.2% 9.8%

Tepelene UK Sh.a 5.9% 5.0% 6.2% 5.9%

Tirane UK Sh.a 23.5% 24.0% 23.8% 23.6%

Vlore UK Sh.a 9.8% 11.0% 9.6% 9.8%

Appendix : Sample distribution per each water utility (in number)

Households Public Institutions Private Companies Total

Durres UK Sh.a 274 14 61 349

Elbasan UK Sh.a 197 13 42 252

Lezhe UK Sh.a 118 7 28 153

Mirdite UK Sh.a 117 6 25 148

Pogradec UK Sh.a 157 10 30 197

Sarande UK Sh.a 157 3 40 200

Shkoder UK Sh.a 196 7 46 249

Tepelene UK Sh.a 118 5 28 151

Tirane UK Sh.a 470 24 107 601

Vlore UK Sh.a 196 11 43 250

Appendix : Household sample characteristics

Family Size Indicators Maximum Mean Urban Area

Rural

Area

Family Size 12 3.98 3.86 4.56

Female Members 7 1.91 1.86 2.11

Number of members of age 0-5 years old 4 .20 0.19 0.26

Number of family members 6 to 15 years 5 .52 0.51 0.58

Number of adults (16 to 65 years old) 10 3.02 2.93 3.43

Number of elderly people (aged above 65 years)

4 .24 0.23 0.30

Overall sample Urban Areas

Rural

Areas

Incidence of having family members with

special needs

(in %) (in %) (in %)

Yes 5.6% 5.4% 6.1%

No 94.5% 94.6% 93.9%

Main Source of Family Income (in %) (in %) (in %)

Employment 55.7% 58.8% 41.2%

Self-Employment 28.8% 26.5% 39.8%

Pension 10.0% 9.6% 11.5%

Economic Aid/Social Transfers 1.9% 2.1% .6%

Mainly Remittances 3.2% 2.3% 7.0%

Income from renting .5% .6% .0%

Family Income Range (in %) (in %) (in %)

Less than 5 000 Lek per month .7% .5% 1.1%

74

Between 5 000 to 10 000 Lek per month 5.0% 3.8% 10.3%

Between 10 001 to 25 000 Lek per month 19.8% 17.4% 31.0%

Between 25 001 to 50 000 Lek per month 45.6% 46.3% 42.2%

Between 50 001 to 100 000 Lekper month 24.2% 26.4% 14.2%

Above 100 000 Lek per month 4.8% 5.6% 1.1%

Appendix : Households dwelling characteristics

Urban Area Rural Area

Type of Dwelling

Private Housing 33.6% 89.9%

Apartment 66.4% 10.1%

Dwelling Year of Construction

Before 1945 2.3% .6%

Between 1946 and 1990 59.1% 38.8%

After 1990 38.6% 60.6%

Status of dwelling ownership

Own the house/apartment 93.6% 98.6%

Rented 6.4% 1.4%

Other .2% 1.2%

Appendix : Households Respondent Characteristics

Urban Area Rural Area

Gender

Male 49.1% 70.7%

Female 50.9% 29.3%

Relation to the household

Head of Household 42.2% 50.1%

Spouse 36.1% 20.2%

Children 20.3% 28.9%

Relative 1.5% .8%

Other 0.8% 0.2%

Average Age 43 41

Education Level

Elementary Education 15.9% 38.8%

High Education 38.4% 45.3%

Professional Education 9.0% 3.4%

University Post University Education 36.7% 12.6%

Labor Market Status

Student 6.8% 6.7%

Full time employee 40.3% 25.4%

Part time employee 5.7% 5.9%

Seasonal Employee 1.2% 3.6%

Self employed 16.7% 27.4%

75

Unemployed 20.5% 20.9%

Retired 8.8% 10.1%

Appendix : Business and public institutions sample characteristics

Are of location Public Institutions Private Companies Total

Urban Area 84% 79% 80%

Suburban area 4% 11% 10%

Rural Area 12% 10% 10%

Public Institutions Sector

Education 30%

Health Sector 25%

Military & Defense 11%

Order 17%

General Services 17%

Sector of private company

Manufacturing and Industry 33%

Trade 22%

Service 45%

Turnover

Up to 8 Mio Lek 45% 45%

9 to 50 Mio Lek 26% 26%

51 to 250 Mio Lek 24% 24%

Above 250 Mio Lek 5% 5%

Years of operations

0 to 5 years 40% 40%

6 to 10 years 31% 31%

Above 10 years 29% 29%

Number of Employees

1 to 5 employees 3% 61% 51%

6 to 10 employees 17% 13% 14%

11 to 50 employees 48% 15% 21%

51 to 100 employees 17% 6% 8%

101 to 200 employees 2% 2% 2%

Above 100 Employees 13% 2% 4%

Ownership of premises

Premises are owned 0% 60% 49%

Premises are state owned 100% 0% 18%

Premises are rented 0% 40% 33%

Appendix : Business respondent characteristics

Public Institutions Private Companies

Gender of the respondent

Male 40% 55.8%

Female 60% 44.2%

Position in the company

76

Management Position 40.6% 67.90%

Administration 21.9% 10.60%

Employees 37.5% 21.50%

Mean Age 45 41

Education Level

Elementary education 0.00% 3.1%

High Education 7.0% 39.1%

Vocational Education 5.0% 10.2%

University/Post University studies 88.0% 47.6%

Appendix : Alternative source of water source used by households and private companies

Appendix : Connectivity to water supply network and water sources used by poor/non poor

families

Type of Connectivity/water source used Non Poor Poor Total

Connected to the main water supply system 94.4% 86.2% 93.4%

Connected to the water system set up by local government 2.7% 2.4% 2.7%

Privately set up connection 0.6% 1.6% 0.7%

Well 2.3% 9.1% 3.1%

Other 0.0% 0.4% 0.1%

No Connection 0.1% 0.4% 0.1%

Appendix : Frequency of reasons why not connected to the public water supply network per

household type of dwelling and year of dwelling construction

The public network of

water supply does not

cover our area

Public network exists, but

our premises are not

connected to it

We are connected, but the

network does not function

properly

Type of

dwelling

Private Dwelling 94.4% 96.4% 96.7%

Apartment 5.6% 3.6% 3.3%

Year of

construction

Private Connection, House

holds, 18% Private Connection, Private

Companies, 0%

Wells, Households, 70%

Wells, Private Companies, 5%

Running Water, Households,

1% Running Water, Private

Companies, 4%

Burime Private Connection Wells No Connection Running Water

77

Before 1945 2.8% .0% .0%

1946 -1990 43.1% 32.1% 50.0%

After 1990 54.2% 67.9% 50.0%

Appendix : Comparison of connectivity rate to public network and frequency of using water

from public network as the main source of water

Appendix : Main source of water used by area of location and customer type

Households

Public Institutions

Private Companies

Urban

Area

Rural

Area

Urban

Area

Suburban

Area

Rural

Area

Urban

Area

Suburban

Area

Rural

Area

Running water within

dwelling/premises

95.6% 70.9% 92.9% 75.0% 45.5% 92.4% 62.7% 75.0%

Running water outside the

dwelling/premises

1.8% 8.9% 1.2% .0% 9.1% 4.5% 3.9% .0%

Public Drinking- Fountain .2% .6% 1.2% .0% 9.1% .3% 2.0% .0%

Tank/bottled water .1% .0% .0% 25.0% .0% .0% 5.9% .0%

Wells 2.4% 19.6% 4.8% .0% 36.4% 2.8% 23.5% 25.0%

Open source of water .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 2.0% .0%

Appendix : Customer perception on the quality of water supplied by the public net

Households

Public

Institutions

Private

Companies Total

Good for drinking and other purposes 49.0% 51.0% 51.8% 49.6%

Not good for drinking, good for other

purposes

48.2% 49.0% 48.2% 48.2%

Not good for any use 2.9% .0% .0% 2.2%

Appendix : Average monthly family expenditures on drinkable bottled water (in ALL)

97%

77%

100%

97%

99%

96%

96%

97%

92%

95%

Connectionto the public water supply network Row N %

Public Network is the main source of water

90% access

level= Good

Performance

78

Percentile

05

Percentile

25

Percentile

75

Percentile

95

Percentile

99 Mean

Durres UK Sh.a 250 350 2,000 2,000 2,100 1,041

Elbasan UK Sh.a 240 500 1,600 2,000 2,000 1,190

Lezhe UK Sh.a 250 750 1,800 2,000 2,000 1,304

Mirdite UK Sh.a 300 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,000 1,208

Sarande UK Sh.a 250 300 1,000 2,000 2,000 764

Shkoder UK Sh.a 250 250 1,200 1,800 1,800 850

Tepelene UK Sh.a 240 500 1,000 2,000 2,000 827

Tirane UK Sh.a 245 310 1,500 2,000 2,450 996

Vlore UK Sh.a 250 450 2,000 2,000 2,200 1,202

Appendix : Distance from an alternative source of water (in min, if you walk)

Households

Public

Institutions

Private

Companies

Urba

n

Area

Rural

Area

Poor

HH Urban

Area

Suburba

n

Area

Rural

Area

Urba

n

Area

Suburba

n

Area

Rural

Area

Less than 5

minutes

12.4

%

8.9% 17.7

%

16.7% .0% 16.7

%

16.9

%

25.5% 25.0

%

6 to 15 minutes

15.3

%

15.1

%

11.0

%

9.5% .0% 25.0

%

17.2

%

19.6% 31.8

%

16 to 30 minutes

13.4

%

12.0

%

7.5% 8.3% 50.0% 8.3% 14.9

%

9.8% 2.3%

30-60 minutes 4.9% 7.3% 3.1% 2.4% 25.0% .0% 3.9% 2.0% 4.5%

More than a hour 3.7% 5.0% 2.8% 4.8% .0% .0% .8% .0% 4.5%

I do not know

26.1

%

31.3

%

39.0

%

17.9% 25.0% 16.7

%

18.0

%

15.7% 20.5

%

No alternative

source

24.2

%

20.4

%

18.9

%

40.5% .0% 33.3

%

28.2

%

27.5% 11.4

%

Appendix : Distance to an alternative source of water (in min)

Less than

5 minutes

6 to 15

minutes

16 to 30

minutes

30-60

minutes

More

than a

hour

I do not

know

No

alternative

source

Durres UK Sh.a 2.6% .9% 1.7% 2.0% 6.6% 24.9% 61.3%

Elbasan UK Sh.a 15.1% 13.1% 4.8% .4% 2.4% 39.7% 24.6%

Lezhe UK Sh.a 10.5% 26.1% 15.7% 5.2% 5.9% 15.7% 20.9%

Mirdite UK Sh.a 18.9% 33.8% 25.0% 10.1% .0% 8.8% 3.4%

Pogradec UK Sh.a 17.3% 2.5% .5% .0% .0% 76.1% 3.6%

Sarande UK Sh.a 2.5% 24.0% 43.5% 4.0% .5% 20.5% 5.0%

Shkoder UK Sh.a 30.9% 7.2% 2.8% 1.6% .4% 23.3% 33.7%

Tepelene UK Sh.a 23.8% 19.9% 14.6% 7.9% 1.3% 24.5% 7.9%

Tirane UK Sh.a 9.7% 10.1% 10.6% 9.8% 7.7% 19.5% 32.6%

Vlore UK Sh.a 14.0% 45.2% 28.8% 4.8% .0% 5.2% 2.0%

79

Appendix : Frequency of those having/not having individual tanks per type of customers and

area of residence

Households Poor Households Public Institutions Private Company

Yes 67.9% 48.4% 51.0% 56.7%

No 32.1% 51.6% 49.0% 43.3%

Urban Area

Yes 68.4% 50.9% 52.4% 55.2%

No 31.6% 49.1% 47.6% 44.8%

Sub Urban Area

Yes

50.0% 72.5%

No

50.0% 27.5%

Rural Area

Yes 65.6% 43.4% 41.7% 50.0%

No 34.4% 56.6% 58.3% 50.0%

Appendix : Frequency of those having individual tanks per each water utility area

Appendix : Usage of Water Tanks (per volume category and type of users)

Category of

answers

Households

Public Institutions

Private Companies

Total

No (in %) No (in %) No (in %) No (in %)

100 Liter 183 13.8% 0 .0% 3 1.4% 186 11.8%

101 to 499 Liter 463 34.9% 0 .0% 2 .8% 465 29.5%

500 Liter 0 .0% 14 27.5% 68 26.7% 82 5.2%

Above 500 liter 682 51.4% 23 45.1% 139 54.5% 844 53.5%

1,328 100% 37 100% 212 100% 1577 100%

Appendix : Companies usage of water tanks (in Liter)

Durres UK Sh.a, 96.6%

Elbasan UK Sh.a, 63.5%

Lezhe UK Sh.a, 58.8%

Mirdite UK Sh.a, 26.4%

Pogradec UK Sh.a, 33.5%

Sarande UK Sh.a, 92.5%

Shkoder UK Sh.a, 24.5%

Tepelene UK Sh.a, 42.4%

Tirane UK Sh.a, 78.2%

Vlore UK Sh.a, 76.8%

80

Mean Maximum Median Minimum

Standard

Deviation

Urban Areas 2,062 6,000 2,000 100 1,670

Suburban area 4,000 10,000 1,000 1,000 5,196

Water Utility

Areas

Durres UK Sh.a 2,857 10,000 1,000 1,000 3,485

Sarande UK Sh.a 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Na

Tepelene UK Sh.a 100 100 100 100 Na

Tirane UK Sh.a 2,308 6,000 2,000 1,000 1,377

Vlore UK Sh.a 100 100 100 100 0

Appendix : Frequency and duration of using water pumps per type of customers, area of

location and poor/non poor families

Households

Public

Institutions Private Companies Total

(in no) (in %) (in no) (in %) (in no) (in %) (in no) (in %)

Yes, we use a water

pump

1,454 72.7% 44 44.0% 230 51.1% 1,72

8

67.8%

Do not use a water

pump

546 27.3% 56 56.0% 220 48.9% 822 32.2%

Households

Public

Institutions

Private

Companies Total (in no) (in %) (in no) (in %) (in no) (in %) (in no) (in %)

Less than 2 H per

day

735 50.6% 14 31.8% 96 41.9% 845 48.9%

3 to 5 h per day 340 23.4% 21 47.7% 70 30.6% 431 25.0%

6 to 10 h per day 175 12.0% 4 9.1% 37 16.2% 216 12.5%

11 or more h per day 126 8.7% 2 4.5% 17 7.4% 145 8.4%

I do not know 78 5.4% 3 6.8% 9 3.9% 90 5.2%

Urban Area Suburban area Rural Area Total

(in

no) (in %) (in no) (in %) (in no) (in %)

(in

no)

(in

%)

Less than 2 H per

day

653 45.9% 18 48.6% 174 64.9% 845 48.9%

3 to 5 h per day 351 24.7% 9 24.3% 71 26.5% 431 25.0%

6 to 10 h per day 207 14.6% 3 8.1% 6 2.2% 216 12.5%

11 or more h per day 132 9.3% 4 10.8% 9 3.4% 145 8.4%

I do not know 79 5.6% 3 8.1% 8 3.0% 90 5.2%

Appendix : Water pump usage per type of dwelling and are of living

A.8 A.2

Private

Dwellings Apartment Urban Area Suburban Area Rural Area

Column N % Column N % Column N % Column N % Column N %

Po 70.6% 74.3% 68.3% 69.1% 64.7%

Jo 29.4% 25.7% 31.7% 30.9% 35.3%

Appendix : Duration and frequency of poor/non poor household usage of water pumps

Non Poor Poor

81

In % In %

Less than 2 h per day 50.2% 53.9%

3 to 5 h per day 23.9% 18.4%

6 to 10 h per day 12.1% 11.3%

11 or more h per day 8.3% 12.1%

I do not know 5.5% 4.3%

Appendix : Duration and frequency of water pumps usage per each water utility area

Less than 2 h

per day

3 to 5 h per

day

6 to 10 h per

day

11 or more h

per day I do not know

Durres UK

Sh.a

74.9% 19.0% 2.8% .0% 3.4%

Elbasan UK

Sh.a

78.9% 20.2% .0% .0% .9%

Lezhe UK

Sh.a

49.2% 44.3% 4.9% .0% 1.6%

Mirdite UK

Sh.a

10.6% 54.5% 9.1% .0% 25.8%

Pogradec UK

Sh.a

17.7% 48.1% 24.1% 5.1% 5.1%

Sarande UK

Sh.a

85.4% 5.5% 1.8% 3.0% 4.3%

Shkoder UK

Sh.a

2.4% 12.3% 38.2% 45.3% 1.9%

Tepelene UK

Sh.a

54.5% 5.5% 5.5% 7.3% 27.3%

Tirane UK

Sh.a

37.0% 32.4% 18.8% 7.1% 4.8%

Vlore UK Sh.a 62.9% 30.6% 1.2% 1.2% 4.1%

Appendix : Type of toilettes per category of customers and area of location

Households

Public

Institutions

Private

Companies Total

Toilette Connected to the net of public

sewage

81.4% 92.9% 92.3% 83.7%

Toilette with “septic” discharge 18.6% 7.1% 7.7% 16.3%

Urban Areas Toilette Connected to the net of public

sewage

90.7% 98.8% 97.1% 92.1%

Toilette with “septic” discharge 9.3% 1.2% 2.9% 7.9%

Suburban area Toilette Connected to the net of public

sewage

.0% 75.0% 76.0% 75.9%

Toilette with “septic” discharge .0% 25.0% 24.0% 24.1%

Rural area Toilette Connected to the net of public

sewage

37.4% 54.5% 71.4% 41.4%

Toilette with “septic” discharge 62.6% 45.5% 28.6% 58.6%

Non Poor HH Toilette Connected to the net of public

sewage

83.6% .0% .0% 83.6%

Toilette with “septic” discharge 16.4% .0% .0% 16.4%

Poor HH Toilette Connected to the net of public

sewage

66.0% .0% .0% 66.0%

Toilette with “septic” discharge 34.0% .0% .0% 34.0%

82

Appendix : Frequency of customers being connected to the public system of sewage system per

type of customers

Househol

ds

Public

Institution

s

Private

Companie

s Total

Yes, have connection to the main public network of sewage

system

80.3% 90.0% 90.7% 82.5

%

No, have no connection to the main public network of sewage

system

17.7% 10.0% 9.1% 15.9

%

I do not know 2.1% .0% .2% 1.6%

Appendix : Frequency of customers not connected to the public system of sewage system but

wanting to have a connection to the net, per type of customers

Do you want to have a connection to the

main public network of sewage management? Households

Public

Institutions

Private

Companies Total

Yes 91.1% 90.0% 68.3% 88.9%

No 8.9% 10.0% 31.7% 11.1%

Urban Areas

Yes 86.4% 100.0% 92.9% 87.1%

No 13.6% .0% 7.1% 12.9%

Suburban Areas

Yes .0% 50.0% 46.2% 46.7%

No .0% 50.0% 53.8% 53.3%

Rural Areas

Yes 94.6% 100.0% 64.3% 92.9%

No 5.4% .0% 35.7% 7.1%

Non Poor households

Yes 90.6% .0% .0% 90.6%

No 9.4% .0% .0% 9.4%

Poor Households

Yes 92.6% .0% .0% 92.6%

No 7.4% .0% .0% 7.4%

Appendix : Distribution of companies saying they want/not want a connection to the main

network of public sewage management per sector of operation

Yes, want to connect to the public

net of sewage management system

No, do not want to connect to the public

net of sewage management system

Production 57.1% 69.2%

Trade 17.9% 7.7%

Services 25.0% 23.1%

Appendix : Frequency of water supply disruption per type of customers and area of location

Households

Public

Institutions

Private

Companies

Total

Urban Areas No % no % no % no %

Yes 1240 75.5% 49 58.3% 225 63.4% 1514 72.8%

No 339 20.6% 26 31.0% 109 30.7% 474 22.8%

I do not know 63 3.8% 9 10.7% 21 5.9% 93 4.5%

Suburban Areas

Yes 4 100.0% 28 54.9% 32 58.2%

No 0 .0% 16 31.4% 16 29.1%

83

I do not know 0 .0% 7 13.7% 7 12.7%

Rural areas

Yes 262 73.2% 8 66.7% 29 65.9% 299 72.2%

No 79 22.1% 2 16.7% 8 18.2% 89 21.5%

I do not know 17 4.7% 2 16.7% 7 15.9% 26 6.3%

Appendix : Duration in hour of consistent water supply per each water utility area

1-4 h per

day

5-10 h

per day

11 or more

h per day

Undisrupted

water supply

Do not

know

Durres UK Sh.a 90.5% .9% .3% 4.3% 4.0%

Elbasan UK Sh.a 37.3% 33.3% 9.5% 10.7% 9.1%

Lezhe UK Sh.a 21.6% 67.3% 3.9% 5.9% 1.3%

Mirdite UK Sh.a 6.1% 83.8% 1.4% 6.1% 2.7%

Pogradec UK Sh.a .5% .0% 8.1% 90.9% .5%

Sarande UK Sh.a 83.5% 4.5% .5% 2.0% 9.5%

Shkoder UK Sh.a 15.7% 25.3% 16.9% 30.1% 12.0%

Tepelene UK Sh.a 41.7% 13.2% 9.3% 31.8% 4.0%

Tirane UK Sh.a 34.1% 34.9% 10.1% 12.8% 8.0%

Vlore UK Sh.a 53.6% 19.6% 6.8% 14.0% 6.0%

Appendix : Seasonal patterns of water supply disruptions

Appendix : Frequency of customers experiencing cases of epidemic caused by water pollution

(water contamination)

Households

Public

Institutions

Private

Companies Total

Yes 4.6% .0% 1.6% 3.9%

No 85.5% 93.0% 90.0% 86.5%

I do not Know 10.0% 7.0% 8.4% 9.6%

Urban area Households Public

Institutions

Private

Companies Total

Yes 5.4% .0% 2.0% 4.6%

No 83.8% 94.0% 90.4% 85.3%

I do not Know 10.8% 6.0% 7.6% 10.1%

Suburban area Households Public

Institutions

Private

Companies Total

Yes .0% .0% .0% .0%

12% 13%8% 11%

97% 99% 97% 97%

8% 10% 8% 8%12% 10% 9% 11%

Pranverë Verë Vjeshtë Dimër

84

No .0% 75.0% 90.2% 89.1%

I do not Know .0% 25.0% 9.8% 10.9%

Rural Area Households Public

Institutions

Private

Companies Total

Yes 1.1% .0% .0% 1.0%

No 93.0% 91.7% 86.4% 92.3%

I do not Know 5.9% 8.3% 13.6% 6.8%

Appendix : Frequency of customers experiencing cases of epidemic caused by water pollution

(water contamination) per water utility area

Appendix : Frequency of customers being notified/not notified about water supply

planned/unplanned disruptions per type of customers

Category of

answers Household

s

Public

Institution

s

Private

Companie

s Total

I. Timetable of water disruptions planned for system maintenance purpose

Yes 23.6% 45.0% 35.1% 26.4

%

No 65.9% 40.0% 52.2% 62.5

%

I Do not Know 10.6% 15.0% 12.7% 11.1

%

II. Timetable of water supply disruption for emergency purposes

No Answer 8.2% .0% .0% 6.4%

Yes 33.1% 27.0% 22.7% 31.0

%

No 46.4% 57.0% 61.3% 49.4

%

I do not know 12.4% 16.0% 16.0% 13.2

%

III. Planned timetable of water supply disruptions.

Yes 23.7% 34.0% 34.9% 26.1

%

Durres UK Sh.a, 1.1%

Elbasan UK Sh.a, 1.2%

Lezhe UK Sh.a, 5.9%

Mirdite UK Sh.a, .0%

Pogradec UK Sh.a, .5%

Sarande UK Sh.a, 2.0%

Shkoder UK Sh.a, 2.0%

Tepelene UK Sh.a, 13.2%

Tirane UK Sh.a, 3.2%

Vlore UK Sh.a, 13.6%

85

No 63.7% 50.0% 48.0% 60.4

%

I Do not Know 12.7% 16.0% 17.1% 13.6

%

Appendix : Frequency of customers being notified/not notified about water supply

planned/unplanned disruptions per type of customers per each water utility area

Timetable of water

disruptions planned

for system

maintenance purpose

Timetable of water supply

disruption for emergency

purposes

Planned timetable of

water supply

disruptions.

Yes No

I do

not

Know

No

answer Yes No

I do

not

know Yes No

I do

not

know

Durres UK

Sh.a

22.9% 73.9% 3.2% .6% 55.9% 38.7% 4.9% 6.0% 88.8% 5.2%

Elbasan UK

Sh.a

7.9% 64.7% 27.4% .0% 22.6% 49.2% 28.2% 21.4% 50.0% 28.6%

Lezhe UK

Sh.a

22.9% 75.2% 2.0% 1.3% 69.9% 22.2% 6.5% 27.5% 65.4% 7.2%

Mirdite UK

Sh.a

52.0% 44.6% 3.4% .7% 28.4% 63.5% 7.4% 66.2% 28.4% 5.4%

Pogradec

UK Sh.a

42.6% 52.3% 5.1% 53.8% 17.8% 20.8% 7.6% 15.2% 77.2% 7.6%

Sarande UK

Sh.a

3.0% 79.5% 17.5% 1.5% 5.5% 74.5% 18.5% 27.5% 53.5% 19.0%

Shkoder UK

Sh.a

55.4% 23.3% 21.3% 4.0% 61.8% 10.8% 23.3% 30.5% 40.6% 28.9%

Tepelene

UK Sh.a

20.5% 72.2% 7.3% 15.2% 13.2% 64.9% 6.6% 33.8% 55.0% 11.3%

Tirane UK

Sh.a

17.6% 72.2% 10.1% 2.2% 19.8% 65.1% 13.0% 19.6% 68.4% 12.0%

Vlore UK

Sh.a

38.8% 51.2% 10.0% 1.6% 20.0% 66.8% 11.6% 48.0% 42.8% 9.2%

Appendix : Mean and max. frequency of water supply disruptions per season and type of

customer

Househo

lds

Public

Instituti

ons

Private

Compan

ies

Total

Mean Max Mean Max Mean Max Mean Max

Winter_Maintan

ance

0.78

12.00

0.60

4.00

0.57

5.00

0.74

12.00

Winter_Emerge

ncy

0.64

10.00

0.41

4.00

0.57

8.00

0.62

10.00

Winter_Planned

1.11

3.00

1.04

3.00

1.03

5.00

1.10

5.00

Summer_Maina

nance

1.24

30.00

1.05

5.00

1.07

10.00

1.21

30.00

Summer_Emerg

0.26

12.00

0.03

2.00

0.18

6.00

0.24

12.00

86

ency

Summer_Planne

d

1.43

15.00

1.46

6.00

1.45

15.00

1.43

15.00

Appendix : Frequency of customers confirming the mentioned quality of water provided by the

public network

Low

Pressured

Safe

for Usage

Safe for

Drinking

Clean Taste No odor

Durres UK Sh.a 66.8% 95.7% 29.8% 84.5% 62.5% 77.7%

Elbasan UK Sh.a 54.8% 67.1% 49.2% 57.1% 56.7% 90.9%

Lezhe UK Sh.a 57.5% 98.0% 71.2% 91.5% 66.0% 88.2%

Mirdite UK Sh.a 59.5% 89.9% 41.2% 79.1% 41.9% 66.2%

Pogradec UK

Sh.a

8.1% 100.0% 99.0% 99.5% 99.0% 99.5%

Sarande UK Sh.a 78.5% 68.5% 15.5% 70.0% 16.0% 79.0%

Shkoder UK

Sh.a

54.6% 98.4% 92.4% 93.6% 82.7% 98.4%

Tepelene UK

Sh.a

37.1% 73.5% 55.6% 72.2% 56.3% 62.9%

Tirane UK Sh.a 52.2% 88.9% 24.6% 73.7% 24.8% 59.4%

Vlore UK Sh.a 57.2% 96.4% 19.2% 86.8% 37.6% 50.8%

Appendix : Frequency of having problems with the Sewage system by type of customers

Households

Public

Institutions

Private

Companies Total

Have you had problems with the sewage

system

Po 25.1% 14.0% 13.1% 22.5%

Jo 75.0% 86.0% 86.9% 77.5%

How often do they occur

Time after time 44.7% 64.3% 64.4% 47.2%

Often 26.1% 14.3% 25.4% 25.8%

Always 29.1% 21.4% 10.2% 27.0%

The sewage system in our area is managed

by

Central Government 26.2% 33.3% 29.8% 26.7%

Region (Qarku) 3.9% 8.3% .0% 3.6%

Local Government 70.0% 58.3% 70.2% 69.7%

Appendix : Frequency of having problems with the Sewage system by type of customers

Do you face

problems?

How often do problems occur

Yes No Sometime Often Always

Durres UK Sh.a 26.6% 73.4% 52.7% 30.1% 17.2%

Elbasan UK Sh.a 40.1% 59.9% 7.9% 20.8% 71.3%

Lezhe UK Sh.a 37.3% 62.7% 71.9% 26.3% 1.8%

Mirdite UK Sh.a 2.7% 97.3% 100.0% .0% .0%

Pogradec UK Sh.a 26.4% 73.6% 23.1% 28.8% 48.1%

Sarande UK Sh.a 9.0% 91.0% 72.2% 16.7% 11.1%

Shkoder UK Sh.a 16.1% 83.9% 72.5% 12.5% 15.0%

87

Tepelene UK Sh.a 24.5% 75.5% 67.6% 29.7% 2.7%

Tirane UK Sh.a 16.1% 83.9% 60.8% 28.9% 10.3%

Vlore UK Sh.a 30.0% 70.0% 41.3% 29.3% 29.3%

Appendix : Frequency of customers having contracts and water meters per area of location

Urban

Areas

Suburban

areas Rural Areas Non Poor Poor

Do you have a contract with the water supplying company?

Yes 95.9% 78.2% 74.4% 92.7% 86.2%

No 2.7% 21.8% 24.4% 5.7% 12.6%

I do not know 1.3% .0% 1.2% 1.7% 1.2%

Have you been asked to pay for having a connection to the main water supply system?

Yes 35.7% 55.9% 54.7% 38.4% 47.6%

No 45.3% 29.4% 35.8% 44.2% 42.1%

I do not know 19.0% 14.7% 9.5% 17.4% 10.2%

Do you have a water meter installed at your dwelling or company premises?

Yes 62.2% 61.8% 50.7% 60.2% 49.2%

No 36.8% 38.2% 48.3% 39.0% 50.4%

I do not know 1.0% .0% 1.0% .8% .4%

Have you been asked to pay for being equipped with a water meter?

Yes 46.1% 61.8% 59.8% 39.6% 46.4%

No 42.9% 38.2% 35.2% 47.0% 39.2%

I do not know 11.0% .0% 4.9% 13.4% 14.4%

Appendix : Contract and water meter per type of customers, per each water utility area

Durres

UK

Sh.a

Elbasan

UK

Sh.a

Lezhe

UK

Sh.a

Mirdite

UK

Sh.a

Pogradec

UK Sh.a

Sarande

UK

Sh.a

Shkoder

UK

Sh.a

Tepelene

UK Sh.a

Tirane

UK

Sh.a

Vlore

UK

Sh.a

Do you have a contract with the water supplying company?

Yes 94.6% 78.2% 97.4% 94.6% 100.0% 94.5% 94.0% 95.4% 90.0% 90.4%

No 5.4% 20.6% .0% 2.0% .0% 3.5% 5.6% 4.0% 8.5% 7.2%

I do

not

know

.0% 1.2% 2.6% 3.4% .0% 2.0% .4% .7% 1.5% 2.4%

Have you been asked to pay for having a connection to the main water supply system?

Yes 48.8% 74.4% 12.2% 15.5% 30.9% 14.1% 18.4% 63.9% 45.6% 30.4%

No 38.3% 19.0% 71.8% 25.4% 64.4% 63.5% 64.7% 31.3% 34.4% 50.7%

I do

not

know

12.9% 6.6% 16.0% 59.2% 4.7% 22.4% 16.9% 4.9% 20.0% 18.8%

Do you have a water meter installed at your dwelling or company premises?

Yes 65.9% 56.7% 44.4% 56.8% 95.4% 86.5% 15.7% 50.3% 77.5% 28.5%

No 31.8% 42.9% 55.6% 42.6% 4.6% 13.5% 83.5% 49.7% 21.0% 69.9%

I do

not

know

2.3% .4% .0% .7% .0% .0% .8% .0% 1.5% 1.6%

Have you been asked to pay for being equipped with a water meter?

Yes 54.7% 90.2% 17.8% 47.8% 33.5% 22.1% 14.9% 77.1% 58.6% 33.3%

No 35.5% 7.8% 77.8% 30.0% 56.7% 70.2% 80.5% 18.1% 27.9% 57.0%

I do

not

know

9.8% 2.0% 4.4% 22.2% 9.8% 7.7% 4.6% 4.8% 13.5% 9.6%

Appendix : Customer perception on pricing of setting up a new connection with the public

network of water supply per water utility area

DUR

RES

ELBA

SAN

LEZ

HE

MIRD

ITE

POGRA

DEC

SARA

NDE

SHKO

DER

TEPEL

ENE

TIRA

NE

VLO

RE

88

Customer Perception on the pricing of setting up a connection to the public water supply network

Reason

able

54.3

%

49.3% 31.0

%

66.2% 68.9% 62.9% 13.8% 48.0% 46.3

%

20.2

%

High 21.4

%

21.3% 57.1

%

7.4% 13.3% 25.8% 81.5% 14.7% 13.9

%

52.8

%

Free 24.3

%

29.3% 11.9

%

26.5% 17.8% 11.3% 4.6% 37.3% 39.8

%

27.0

%

Customers perception on pricing of water meter installation

Reason

able

55.5

%

48.7% 35.7

%

36.8% 57.8% 62.9% 9.2% 48.0% 45.2

%

18.0

%

High 19.1

%

22.0% 54.8

%

7.4% 11.1% 21.0% 80.0% 14.7% 11.7

%

49.4

%

Free 25.4

%

29.3% 9.5% 55.9% 31.1% 16.1% 10.8% 37.3% 43.1

%

32.6

%

Appendix : Customer perception on pricing of setting up a new connection with the public

network of water supply per household type

Urban

area

Rural

areas

Non

Poor Poor

Customer Perception on the pricing of water

supply connection

Reasonable 31.1% 31.6% 31.2% 31.6%

High 16.6% 21.3% 16.9% 22.4%

Free 52.3% 47.1% 51.9% 46.1%

Customers perception on pricing of water meter

installation

Reasonable 25.3% 26.5% 25.6% 25.0%

High 12.5% 20.6% 13.9% 17.1%

Free 62.2% 52.9% 60.5% 57.9%

Households

Public

Institutions

Private

Companies Total

Is the water meter working properly?

No, never worked properly 10.3% 72.0% 64.7% 28.1%

Sometime it has problems 8.9% 23.0% 34.2% 16.3%

It has worked properly always 80.8% 5.0% 1.1% 55.6%

What type of water meter is installed

to your dwelling/premises

A shared water meter 7.7% 72.0% 64.7% 26.3%

Individual 92.3% 23.0% 34.2% 73.1%

I do not know .0% 5.0% 1.1% .6%

Do you get an invoice for water

payment

Yes, monthly 78.3% 72.0% 64.7% 75.6%

Yes, but not every month 8.2% 23.0% 34.2% 13.4%

No 12.5% 5.0% 1.1% 10.2%

89

I do not know 1.0% .0% .0% .8%

What is your general perception on

the accuracy of the invoice?

Yes, accurate 74.1% 75.6% 76.0% 74.5%

No, not accurate 18.4% 16.7% 18.9% 18.5%

I do not know 7.5% 7.7% 5.1% 7.0%

Appendix : Perception of customers on pricing level of water supply and sewage system per type

of customers

Household

s

Public

Institution

s

Private

Companie

s Total

Which of the statement below matches better with

your perception on the pricing of water supply?

Price is reasonable 47.8% 64.0% 56.9% 50.3%

Price is low 1.0% 2.0% 1.3% 1.1%

Price is high 40.3% 21.0% 30.9% 37.6%

I do not know 10.8% 13.0% 10.9% 10.9%

Which of the statement below matches better with

your perception on the pricing of water supply?

Price is reasonable 42.0% 64.0% 56.4% 45.8%

Low Price 1.5% 1.0% 1.3% 1.4%

High price 28.6% 12.0% 19.6% 26.1%

I do not know 27.9% 23.0% 22.7% 26.7%

Appendix : Perception of customers on pricing level of water supply and sewage system per

each utility area

Pograde

c UK

Sh.a

Sarand

e UK

Sh.a

Tiran

e UK

Sh.a

Durre

s UK

Sh.a

Mirdit

e UK

Sh.a

Elbasa

n UK

Sh.a

Tepelen

e UK

Sh.a

Lezh

e UK

Sh.a

Vlore

UK

Sh.a

Shkod

er UK

Sh.a

Price is

reasonab

le

55.1% 37.2% 43.8

%

62.7

%

48.2% 54.5% 64.6% 38.9

%

41.7

%

70.0%

Low

Price

.3% .9% 1.5% 2.2% .0% 3.0% .5% .0% 1.4% 2.0%

High

price

32.9% 35.8% 51.1

%

31.3

%

49.2% 24.8% 29.2% 53.0

%

43.3

%

22.5%

I do not

know

11.7% 26.1% 3.6% 3.7% 2.5% 17.6% 5.7% 8.1% 13.6

%

5.5%

Price is

reasonab

le

43.1% 28.9% 34.3

%

70.9

%

46.7% 40.0% 54.2% 34.2

%

43.6

%

70.5%

Low

Price

1.2% .5% .7% .7% 1.0% 1.8% .5% .0% 3.0% 1.5%

High

price

39.5% 29.4% 38.0

%

19.4

%

31.0% 9.1% 15.6% 45.6

%

20.6

%

16.5%

I do not

know

16.2% 41.3% 27.0

%

9.0% 21.3% 49.1% 29.7% 20.1

%

32.7

%

11.5%

Appendix : Frequency of payment/non payment rate per type of customer, area of location,

poor-non poor households

90

Households

Public

Institutions

Private

Companies Total

Overall Sample Yes 87.8% 58.0% 89.6% 87.8%

No 11.8% 35.0% 10.2% 11.8%

I do not know .5% 7.0% .2% .5%

Urban Area Yes 91.2% 60.7% 95.5% 90.7%

No 8.5% 31.0% 4.2% 8.7%

I do not know .3% 8.3% .3% .6%

Suburban Area Yes 70.6% 69.1%

No 29.4% 30.9%

I do not know .0% .0%

Rural Area Yes 72.1% 41.7% 63.6% 70.3%

No 26.8% 58.3% 36.4% 28.7%

I do not know 1.1% .0% .0% 1.0%

Non Poor households Yes 89.0% 89.0%

No 10.6% 10.6%

I do not know .4% .4%

Poor Household Yes 79.1% 79.1%

No 20.1% 20.1%

I do not know .8% .8%

Appendix : Households water invoice payment per location and poor/non poor classification (in

ALL)

Households

Households

Urban Area

Household

Rural

Non Poor

Households

Poor

Households

Mean Value 928 978 905 978 888

Max value 1,354 1,426 1,308 1,428 1,259

Min value 554 562 504 556 535

Appendix : Agency of customer payment of water and sewage system

Households

Public

Institutions

Private

Companies Total

Local Government 9.5% 8.6% 3.2% 8.4%

Public Company of Water and Sewage System

Management

90.1% 91.4% 93.5% 90.7%

The Landlord .4% .0% 3.2% .9%

Appendix : Frequency of knowing/not knowing where to report in case of having enquiries or

complaints about water supply or sewage system

Households Public Institutions Private Companies Total

Yes 65.2% 71.1% 72.2% 66.7%

No 34.8% 28.9% 27.8% 33.3%

Appendix : Where do customers place their complaints or enquires regarding problems with

water and sewage system management per type of customers

Househol

ds

Public

Institution

Private

Companies Total

91

s

Municipality/Commune 17.7% 13.5% 5.9% 15.4%

Enterprise of Water/sewage Management 80.7% 86.5% 92.3% 83.1%

Regulatory Authority of Water 1.3% .0% .3% 1.0%

Renters .3% .0% 1.5% .5%

Appendix : Where do customers place their complaints or enquires regarding problems with

water and sewage system management per area of residence

Urban

Area

Suburban

Area

Rural

Area

Municipality/Commune 8% 8% 52%

Enterprise of Water/sewage Management 91% 90% 47%

Regulatory Authority of Water 1% 3% 1%

Renters 1% 0% 0%

Appendix : Existence/inexistence of an office for customers’ relations

Households Public Institutions Private Companies Total

Yes 49.9% 70.8% 62.7% 52.5%

No 26.6% 20.8% 13.7% 24.8%

I do not know 23.6% 8.3% 23.5% 22.7%

Appendix : Easiness in finding the customers service unit (desk) and staff helpfulness

Category

of answers Households

Public

Institutions

Private

Companies Total

Is it easy to find customer

service offices

Yes 87.9% 94.1% 93.8% 89.2%

No 12.1% 5.9% 6.3% 10.8%

Have employees been helpful? Yes 56.7% 75.0% 76.5% 60.0%

No 43.3% 25.0% 23.5% 40.0%

Appendix : Pattern of problems raised by customers per customer type and areas of residence

Households Public Institutions Private Companies Urban Area Rural Areas

Irregular Invoicing 5% 6% 3% 6% 1%

Inaccurate Invoicing 7% 6% 18% 9% 4%

Unclear Invoicing 1% 0% 3% 1% 0%

Quality of water

supply 15% 0% 4% 14% 9%

Quantity of water

supply 20% 9% 10% 16% 33%

Water meter not

functioning 3% 12% 7% 5% 0%

Water supply

interruption 19% 18% 7% 18% 21%

Main connection to

the network damaged 11% 24% 19% 13% 9%

Water network is

damaged 6% 6% 7% 6% 7%

92

Sewage system is

damaged 13% 21% 19% 13% 16%

Appendix : Pattern of problems raised by customers per each water utility area

Durres

UK

Sh.a

Shko

der

UK

Sh.a

Tiran

e

UK

Sh.a

Pogra

dec

UK

Sh.a

Elbas

an

UK

Sh.a

Vlore

UK

Sh.a

Tepel

ene

UK

Sh.a

Saran

de

UK

Sh.a

Lezhe

UK

Sh.a

Mirdi

te

UK

Sh.a

Irregular Invoicing 2% 1% 6% 4% 0% 7% 4% 5% 7% 7%

Inaccurate Invoicing 7% 7% 15% 4% 4% 7% 4% 7% 14% 5%

Unclear Invoicing 2% 0% 0% 4% 0% 7% 0% 0% 2% 1%

Quality of water supply 11% 4% 11% 40% 0% 7% 4% 15% 16% 13%

Quantity of water supply 20% 25% 15% 15% 0% 20% 15% 20% 25% 13%

Water meter not

functioning 7% 1% 5% 3% 8% 7% 3% 3% 3% 8%

Water supply interruption 16% 28% 16% 18% 0% 27% 22% 13% 12% 23%

Main connection to the

network damaged 7% 11% 11% 3% 29% 7% 18% 21% 11% 12%

Water network is damaged 7% 12% 10% 3% 8% 13% 0% 5% 3% 5%

Sewage system is damaged 20% 11% 11% 4% 50% 0% 29% 11% 8% 14%

Durr

es

UK

Sh.a

Shkode

r UK

Sh.a

Tirane

UK

Sh.a

Pograd

ec UK

Sh.a

Elbasa

n UK

Sh.a

Vlore

UK

Sh.a

Tepele

ne UK

Sh.a

Saran

de

UK

Sh.a

Lezhe

UK

Sh.a

Mirdi

te UK

Sh.a

Clarity of

information

2.60 3.08 2.97 3.36 3.24 2.92 2.42 2.50 2.29 2.51

Keep updated 2.53 1.63 2.66 2.80 3.18 2.58 2.24 2.37 2.17 2.26

Personnel

assistance

2.97 3.20 3.22 3.24 3.24 3.08 2.50 2.74 2.35 2.40

Personnel behavior 3.17 3.15 3.22 3.30 3.35 3.17 2.82 2.89 2.59 2.52

Understandable

answers

3.07 3.12 3.03 3.40 3.29 3.17 2.68 2.63 2.48 2.55

Information on

further steps

2.60 3.12 2.75 3.26 3.29 2.92 2.45 2.45 2.22 2.40

Appendix : Addressed reports/complaints as reported by groups of stakeholders

Households

Public

Institutions

Private

Companies Total

Measures were taken in a day 3.8% 12.5% 11.8% 5.2%

Measures were taken in a week 14.5% 25.0% 33.3% 17.3%

Measures were taken in a month 12.6% 16.7% 11.8% 12.7%

Measures were taken in more than a month 8.8% 4.2% 5.9% 8.2%

No measures were taken at all 60.3% 41.7% 37.3% 56.6%

Appendix : Addressed reports/complaints by area

Urban

Area

Suburban

Area

Rural

Area Total

Measures were taken in a day 6% 0% 1% 5%

Measures were taken in a week 21% 0% 1% 17%

Measures were taken in a month 15% 50% 0% 13%

Measures were taken in more than a month 9% 0% 5% 8%

No measures were taken at all 49% 50% 92% 57%

Appendix : Frequency of no measures taken answers per each water utility area

93

Appendix : Frequency of experiencing “corruption” by you or someone you know when dealing

with the Water and Sewage Company

Households

Public

Institutions

Private

Companies

Urban

Area

Surban

Area

Rural

Area Total

Yes 5.4% 1.0% 3.3% 5.4% 3.6% 1.9% 4.8%

NO 94.7% 99.0% 96.7% 94.6% 96.4% 98.1% 95.2%

Appendix : Frequency of corrupted cases

Appendix : Time and efforts devoted to connect to the main network, installing water meter

and preparing the contract

Households

Public

Institutions

Private

Companies Total

Connection

to the

network

A lot of time and efforts 30.7% 19.0% 23.1% 28.9%

Normal time and efforts needed 32.8% 52.0% 44.0% 35.5%

Connections are done at short time

and minimum efforts

9.4% .0% 3.3% 8.0%

94

I do not know 27.1% 29.0% 29.6% 27.6%

Installing of

water meter

A lot of time and efforts 20.8% 12.0% 12.9% 19.0%

Normal time and efforts needed 34.4% 60.0% 48.7% 37.9%

Installing water meter is done at

short time and minimum efforts

11.0% .0% 6.4% 9.7%

I do not know 34.0% 28.0% 32.0% 33.4%

Contract A lot of time and efforts 15.4% 11.0% 11.8% 14.6%

Normal time and efforts needed 34.0% 57.0% 45.3% 36.9%

Contract is done at minimum efforts

and short time

21.7% 4.0% 11.1% 19.1%

I do not know 29.0% 28.0% 31.8% 29.4%

Appendix : Measures that will improve customer satisfaction

Technical capacity improvement, 60%

Information and transparency, 49% Customers service

units, 45%Customer service Phone Line, 34% Electronic system of

invoicing, 26%