ASSESSING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF HOUSEHOLD RURAL WATER

ACCESS SERVICE IN SELECT RURAL BARANGAYS IN VICTORIA, TARLAC

BERTRAND ALEXANDER J. LESACA

A Doctoral Dissertation

Submitted to the

NATIONAL COLLEGE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND GOVERNANCE

University of the Philippines, Diliman

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

August, 2023
 ABSTRACT

Household water access service delivery is a devolved and delegated service of

the national government to local government units (LGUs) and is critical to the

pursuit of public health, poverty alleviation, and the improvement of both general and

individual well-being. However, in rural Philippines, this remains a formidable

challenge, as the World Bank (WB) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) report

that rural households generally have little financial ability to pay for an improved

water access service(Hodgkin, 1994). While rural municipal governments are hard-

pressed for access to technical know-how and financial assistance to build needed

water infrastructure to deliver reliable household water access services (World Bank,

2015)(Asian Development Bank, 2013), very little has been done to alleviate this

situation.

Pressing as it is, there is little knowledge about how communities as water rights

holders perceive the sustainability of their own household water access service and

how such can influence its sustainability and enhance local water policies and

programs to improve such rural household water access services. In light of this, the

study investigated community perceptions of the sustainability of their household

water access services from the perspective of select communities in the Municipality

of Victoria, Tarlac. It specifically delves into the self-assessment of households from

four barangays in terms of the following inter-related dimensions of sustainability:

financial, technical, institutional (FTI), socio-political (SP), and environmental (E) to

certain socio-demographic factors and living practices.

Data were collected through a structured questionnaire survey (n=3,448)

administered at the barangay halls of Balayang, San Fernando, San Jacinto, and Santa

ii
Barbara from August 16th to the 19th, 2019. Sustainability was assessed using a 5-

point Likert Scale that measured the respondents’ agreement or disagreement with

statements related to sustainable water access indicators. A Sustainability Score (SS)

was then calculated to estimate the overall water access sustainability in each

barangay based on the average FTI, SP, and E sustainability component scores. All

data, descriptive statistics, and Spearman’s correlation tests were tabulated,

processed, and generated using Microsoft Excel and SPSS v.27.

The results show that, overall, rural households have a high to very high

sustainability perception of their water access service. Among the sustainability

dimensions, SP had the lowest overall SS followed by FTI, which suggests that

correlation with certain socio-demographic profiles produces negative associations

that weaken the perception of sustainability.

Across barangays, the results show that the perception of sustainability is directly

related to certain socio-demographic and living characteristics, which when correlated

with the indicators, result in a high sustainability perception. On the other hand, rural

households with negative correlations between the dimensions and their indicators

had lower ratings for their perceived water access sustainability.

Across water service levels, however, the analysis revealed moderate but

inverse relationships in level III barangays than in level I/II barangays, where more

positive but weak associations were established.

Regardless, the results reveal that a community’s sustainability perception of

its rural household water access service can be used as a gauge, albeit subjective, to

understand a community’s propensity to come up with, support, and adapt an attitude

of sustainability, especially in rural household water access services

iii
 List of Tables

Table 1. Function Overlaps In Philippine Water Institutions ........................................ 8

Table 2. Water Access Service Levels In The Philippines .......................................... 13
Table 3. Indicators For Household Water Access Sustainability ................................ 43
Table 4. Relevant Definitions Of Sustainability .......................................................... 45
Table 5. Some Myths On Rural Water Access ............................................................ 52
Table 6. MWSS Functions ........................................................................................... 57
Table 7. No. Of Households And Water Access By Barangay (Victoria, Tarlac) ...... 79
Table 8. Barangay Sampling ........................................................................................ 80
Table 9. Data Sources .................................................................................................. 89
Table 10. Scoring System ............................................................................................ 97
Table 11. Sustainability Components And Their Indicators ........................................ 99
Table 12. Average (Approximate) Daily Household Water Consumption................ 100
Table 13. Sustainability Score (SS) Index ................................................................. 102
Table 14. San Jacinto Sustainability Score ................................................................ 107
Table 15. Frequency Summary FTI - San Jacinto ..................................................... 108
Table 16. Frequency Summary SP - San Jacinto ....................................................... 108
Table 17. Frequency Summary E - San Jacinto ......................................................... 109
Table 18. San Fernando Sustainability Score ............................................................ 110
Table 19. Frequency Summary FTI - San Fernando.................................................. 111
Table 20. Frequency Summary SP - San Fernando ................................................... 111
Table 21. Frequency Summary E - San Fernando ..................................................... 111
Table 22. Santa Barbara Sustainability Score ............................................................ 113
Table 23. Frequency Summary FTI - Balayang......................................................... 114
Table 24. Frequency Summary SP - Balayang .......................................................... 114
Table 25. Frequency Summary E - Balayang ............................................................ 114
Table 26. Balayang Sustainability Score ................................................................... 116
Table 27. Frequency Summary FTI - Balayang........................................................ 117
Table 28. Frequency Summary SP - Balayang .......................................................... 117
Table 29. Frequency Summary E - Balayang ............................................................ 117
Table 30. Level I/II Sustainability Score ................................................................... 119
Table 31. Frequency Summary FTI - Level I/II ........................................................ 120
Table 32. Frequency Summary SP - Level I/II .......................................................... 120
Table 33. Frequency Summary E - Level I/II ............................................................ 120
Table 34. Level III Service Sustainability Score ....................................................... 122
Table 35. Frequency Summary FTI - Level III.......................................................... 123
Table 36. Frequency Summary SP - Level III ........................................................... 123
Table 37. Frequency Summary E - Level iii .............................................................. 123
Table 38. Profile - FTI Correlation San Jacinto ........................................................ 140
Table 39. Profile - SP Correlation San Jacinto .......................................................... 141
Table 40. Profile - E Correlation San Jacinto ............................................................ 142
Table 41. Profile - FTI Correlation San Fernando ..................................................... 144
Table 42. Profile - SP Correlation San Fernando ...................................................... 145

iv
Table 43. Profile - E Correlation San Fernando ........................................................ 146
Table 44. Profile – FTI Correlation Santa Barbara .................................................... 147
Table 45. Profile - SP Correlation Santa Barbara ...................................................... 148
Table 46. Profile - E Correlation Santa Barbara ........................................................ 148
Table 47. Profile - FTI Correlation Balayang ............................................................ 149
Table 48. Profile - SP Correlation Balayang ............................................................. 150
Table 49. Profile - E Correlation Balayang ............................................................... 150
Table 50. Profile - FTI Correlation Level I/II ............................................................ 151
Table 51. Profile - SP Correlation Level I/II ............................................................. 152
Table 52. Profile - E Correlation Level I/II ............................................................... 153
Table 53. FTI Profile Perception - Level III .............................................................. 154
Table 54. SP Profile Perception – Level III ............................................................... 155
Table 55. profile - E correlation for Level III ............................................................ 156
Table 56. Common Profiles - By Barangay ............................................................... 157
Table 57. Common Profiles By Water Access Service Level ................................... 158
Table 58. Summary Average Frequency Totals ........................................................ 159
Table 59. Moderate Correlations ............................................................................... 160

v
 List of Figures

Figure 1. Rural Water Access Sustainability - A Conceptual Framework .................. 20

Figure 2. Rural Water Sustainability – A Theoretical Framework .............................. 21
Figure 3. A Water Governance Framework ................................................................. 36
Figure 4. Gap Identification Model ............................................................................. 38
Figure 5. Sustainability Pillars ..................................................................................... 42
Figure 6. Organizational Relationship of Water Agencies .......................................... 59
Figure 7. Quantitative Research Design ...................................................................... 64
Figure 8. Financial, Technical & Institutional (FTI) – Design Process ....................... 66
Figure 9. Social-Political (SP) – Design Process ......................................................... 67
Figure 10. Environment (E) – Design Process............................................................. 68
Figure 11. Mapping Victoria, Tarlac ........................................................................... 76
Figure 12. Map of Barangay Santa Barbara................................................................. 82
Figure 13. Map of Barangay San Fernando ................................................................. 84
Figure 14. Map of Barangay Balayang ........................................................................ 85
Figure 15. Map of Barangay San Jacinto ..................................................................... 86
Figure 16. Analysis Process ......................................................................................... 94
Figure 17. Profile Frequency Histograms For San Jacinto ........................................ 125
Figure 18. Profile Frequency Histograms For San Fernando .................................... 129
Figure 19. Profile Frequency Histograms For Santa Barbara .................................... 132
Figure 20. Profile Frequency Histograms For Balayang ........................................... 136

vi
 Table of Contents

ABSTRACT _________________________________________________________ ii
List of Tables _______________________________________________________ iv
List of Figures _______________________________________________________ vi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION _________________________________________ 1
1.1 Background ____________________________________________________________ 2
1.1.1 Water Access Service in the Philippines __________________________ 5
1.1.2 Institutional State of Water Access in the Philippines _______________ 7
1.2 Knowledge Gap _________________________________________________________ 9
1.3 Problem Statement ______________________________________________________ 11
1.4 Purpose Statement ______________________________________________________ 14
1.5 Research Questions _____________________________________________________ 15
1.6 Objectives of The Study__________________________________________________ 16
1.7 Significance ___________________________________________________________ 17
1.8 Conceptual Framework __________________________________________________ 18
1.9 Scope, Assumptions, and Limitations _______________________________________ 22
1.9.1 Assumptions of the Study ____________________________________ 23
1.9.2 Scope and Limitations of the Study ____________________________ 24
1.10 Summary ____________________________________________________________ 25
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW __________________________________ 27
2.1 Water Governance ______________________________________________________ 31
2.2 Perception ____________________________________________________________ 36
2.2.1 Community Perception ______________________________________ 38
2.2.2 Drivers of Perception________________________________________ 39
2.3 Sustainability __________________________________________________________ 41
2.3 Sustainability Assessments _______________________________________________ 45
2.3.1 Resilience and Sustainability__________________________________ 46
2.3.2 Community Perception and Sustainability _______________________ 48
2.4 Summary _____________________________________________________________ 49
CHAPTER 3. WATER GOVERNANCE IN THE PHILIPPINES ______________ 53
3.1 Introduction ___________________________________________________________ 53
3.2 Institutional Bases In Philippine Water Governance ____________________________ 53
3.3 Water Institutions And Arrangements _______________________________________ 55
3.4 Prevailing And Emerging Issues ___________________________________________ 59
CHAPTER 4. METHODS _____________________________________________ 62
4.1 Introduction ___________________________________________________________ 62
4.2 Research Design________________________________________________________ 62
4.3 Acronyms and Operational Definitions ______________________________________ 70
4.4 Study Area ____________________________________________________________ 75
4.5 Target Population _______________________________________________________ 78
4.6 Sample Size and Sampling Technique _______________________________________ 78
4.7 Selected Barangay Profiles _______________________________________________ 81
4.7.1 Santa Barbara _____________________________________________ 81
4.7.2 San Fernando ______________________________________________ 83
4.7.3 Balayang _________________________________________________ 85
4.7.4 San Jacinto ________________________________________________ 86

vii
4.8 Sampling Procedures ____________________________________________________ 87
4.9 Data Collection Tools /Techniques _________________________________________ 87
4.9.1 3 Factor Self-Administered Questionnaire (3-FSAQ)_______________ 90
4.9.2 Document Review __________________________________________ 90
4.10 Data Reliability and Validity _____________________________________________ 91
4.10.1 Reliability _______________________________________________ 91
4.10.2 Validity _________________________________________________ 91
4.11 Data Collection _______________________________________________________ 92
4.12 Data Analysis _________________________________________________________ 93
4.12.1 Profiles__________________________________________________ 94
4.12.2 Sustainability Perception Survey______________________________ 95
4.12.3 Financial, Technical, Institutional (FTI) ________________________ 97
4.12.4 Social – Political (SP) ______________________________________ 98
4.12.5 Environmental (E) _________________________________________ 98
4.13 Sustainability Scoring (SS) _____________________________________________ 101
4.14 Ethical Considerations _________________________________________________ 104
CHAPTER 5. FINDINGS _____________________________________________ 105
5.1 Sustainability Perception Score (SS) - By Barangay ___________________________ 105
5.1.1 San Jacinto SS ____________________________________________ 106
5.1.2 San Fernando SS __________________________________________ 109
5.1.3 Santa Barbara SS __________________________________________ 112
5.1.4 Balayang SS _____________________________________________ 115
5.1.5 Level I/II Service SS _______________________________________ 118
5.1.6 Level III Service SS _______________________________________ 121
5.2 Profile Associations With Sustainability Perception ___________________________ 124
5.2.1 Correlations in Barangay San Jacinto __________________________ 124
5.2.2 Correlations in Barangay San Fernando ________________________ 128
5.2.3 Correlations in Barangay Santa Barbara ________________________ 131
5.2.4 Correlations in Barangay Balayang ____________________________ 135
5.3 Sustainability Perception Score And Correlation Analysis ______________________ 138
5.3.1 Barangay San Jacinto ______________________________________ 139
5.3.2 Barangay San Fernando_____________________________________ 142
5.3.3 Barangay Santa Barbara ____________________________________ 147
5.3.4 Barangay Balayang ________________________________________ 149
5.3.5 Level I/II Water Service Barangays ___________________________ 151
5.4 Implications of The Sustainability Perception Score (SS) And Correlations ________ 157
6.0. CONCLUSIONS, FURTHER STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS _____ 162
6.1 Conclusion ___________________________________________________________ 162
6.2 Further Studies ________________________________________________________ 169
6.3 Recommendations _____________________________________________________ 172
Bibliography _______________________________________________________ 175
Appendix 1. 3-FSAQ ________________________________________________ 188
Appendix 2. Location Maps ___________________________________________ 194
Appendix 3. Frequency Tables - Respondent Profile by Barangay _____________ 196
Appendix 4. Frequency Table - Response by Barangay ______________________ 197
Appendix 5. Codebook _______________________________________________ 200

viii
Appendix 6. Respondent Profiles Percentages - All Barangays ________________ 202
Appendix 7. Respondent Profile Chart – Summary _________________________ 204
Appendix 8. Respondent Profiles Summary by Service Level _________________ 208
Appendix 9. Perception Data – FTI by Barangay ___________________________ 210
Appendix 10. Perception Data – SP by Barangay __________________________ 214
Appendix 11 Perception Data – E by Barangay ____________________________ 218
Appendix 12. Level I/II Statistics Information Summary ____________________ 222
Appendix 13. Level III Statistics Information Summary _____________________ 223
Appendix 14. Tarlac Field Notes _______________________________________ 224
Appendix 15. World Bank Information – 2017 ____________________________ 229

ix
 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Rural households have little financial ability to pay for improved water access

services (Hodgkin, 1994), whereas municipal governments are hard-pressed for

access to technical know-how and financial assistance to build water infrastructure to

deliver reliable household water access services (World Bank, 2015);(Asian

Development Bank, 2013).

This chapter introduces the landscape and the backdrop and issues that this study

looks into. It provides a bird’s eye view of the landscape by which the research

proceeds and can be seen in three (3) conceptual parts.

The first part (Section 1.1) presents the background of the problems and

challenges confronting household water access sustainability in rural Philippine

communities. This section further outlines the state of rural water access in the

Philippines and provides a brief overview of the country’s water-access institutions.

The second part (sections 1.2 to 1.6) discusses the observed gaps in current

academic research and provides an introduction of the problem and purpose

statements that guide the study. This section also presents the research questions and

objectives of this study.

The third part (sections 1.7 to 1.9) explains the significance of this research, the

conceptual framework used, and the scope and limitations of the study. Finally,

section 1.10 gives a summary of the chapter.

1
1.1 Background

Water for household (domestic) use, such as for personal hygiene, sanitation,

backyard gardening, washing, etc., are performed bereft of any thought that such

water access may be abruptly cut off or one day become arduous to obtain. Although

the domestic demand for water in the Philippines ranks after agriculture and industrial

usage (Asian Development Bank, 2013), there is an immediate and adverse impact on

the general population when water access is curtailed. Therefore, it is important to

ensure that the present rural household water-access service remains sustainable.

Water quality, determined by smell, taste, and clarity(PSA, 2015), is a major

issue in both urban and rural settings. For drinking or cooking purposes, 44% of rural

households use retail water, which is filtered bottled water that is sold commercially

(PSA & ICF, 2018). While the water supplied by rural water districts is mandated to

be monitored daily for quality, only 12 % of rural households with level I or II water

access services would use it for drinking or cooking purposes (PSA & ICF, 2018).

Even in areas where the rural water districts can provide Level III water access

services, only 24% of connected households use it for drinking or cooking (PSA &

ICF, 2018).

The national government is aware of the problem of sustainable water access,

particularly in rural areas. During the late 1970s, the Philippine government, together

with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), launched the

Barangay Rural Water Supply Program to deliver water-access services to rural

villages. The program also established the creation of the Rural Waterworks and

Sanitation Associations (RWSA) that set water rates and fees as well as look after

payments and collections at a rural locality. A rural household had to be part of the

2
association to avail of water services and had to pay a minimal one-time membership

fee(Bohm, Essenburg, & Fox, 1993).

In addition, The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 2030 (UN-SDG

2030), goal number six (6) in particular, requires all member countries to have 100%

universal water and sanitation access by the target year, 2030. To achieve this goal,

financing and funding sources were made available to finance these water resource

development projects to improve rural household water access services. In the

Philippines, these initiatives equate to providing Level III services throughout the

country, with the additional inclusion of sanitation services for rural water access.

With Philippine rural municipalities already challenged for financial and

technical assistance to develop and improve their household water access, the lack of

local technical talent within their communities due to in-migration toward the cities

and commercial business districts where more employment and diverse livelihood

opportunities abound. This rapid urbanization exacerbates societal problems of

discrimination and wealth inequalities, further perplexing rural communities for

infrastructure and financial and technical assistance that will improve their water

access (UN, 2015; PwC, 2012). Although the challenges faced by rural communities

in having improved and sustainable household water access may be seen as either

financial or institutional by nature, they are easily politicized and appear to have

nurtured an attitude of indifference among rural communities when it comes to

satisfying their individual household water needs, giving rise to unhealthy and

wasteful water practices, leading to unsustainable water consumption and

supply(World Bank, 2015).

3
 Maintaining a dependable water supply often requires technical knowledge of the

locality’s natural hydrological cycle, local weather conditions, ground and surface

water recharging rates, water pollution risks, water quality, storage, and distribution

system, to name a few. As a result, any development in rural water access services

requires a large capital outlay as well as operational and technical support, and other

resources are not readily available or easily accessible to rural communities. In fact, a

recent study revealed that 84% of the people who did not have access to water came

from rural and agricultural areas (WHO-UNICEF, 2017).

Although access to financial and technical resources plays a major role in the

development and improvement of an area’s water access service, water projects and

programs need to be more people-centered to provide the necessary care and

maintenance to ensure proper and continuous functioning(Hiwasaki, Luna,

Syamsidik, & Shaw, 2014). Without the community’s participation, the sustainability

of such a project or undertaking would become highly dubious. Interestingly, such

community interaction also promotes “social capital” development, (Diola, 2009)

which can be used as a form of currency among neighboring communities as they

partner with each other in response to the exigencies of global warming and climate

change.

Further, efficient local rural water consumption practices that maximize water

usage while minimizing water loss are definite avenues that can easily be pursued

locally, implemented, and enforced by rural communities. Additionally, promoting

awareness through information dissemination in water conservation and

environmental protection in rural communities can be accomplished through

continued community interaction, which is affordable and simple to implement

locally. Such initiatives also help negate existing wasteful water behaviors within the

4
community, making household water access more customer-centered, especially in

rural communities where water access levels I and II are still dominant.

Such customer-centeredness is therefore an economical and logical approach to

follow when developing community capabilities that will serve as a foundation for

institutionalizing good conservation practices by the community and promoting

sustainable household water access (Columbia Water Center, 2012; Masduqi,

Soedjono, Endah, & Hadi, 2009).

1.1.1 Water Access Service in the Philippines

In the Philippines, the local government (LGU), especially barangays, has a

constitutional and legal mandate to ensure the provision of basic public services such

as household water access.

Household water access service in the Philippines is classified into three (3)

levels, namely Levels I, II, and III. Level I come directly from a point source with no

distribution system and with questionable water quality. Level II utilizes a communal

pump that is shared among adjacent households, with some water quality monitoring.

Level III is a paid service that entails a piped network distribution system with a water

collection and treatment facility to ensure the quality of water delivered to the

household. Owing to the country’s inequitable distribution of wealth, Level III

services are enjoyed mostly in urban and commercial business districts, where private

water access service providers can apply economies of scale to recover their large

investments made to build the required water access and delivery infrastructure. In the

countryside, rural household water access services are mostly Level I, Level II, or

5
both. The paper groups levels I and II together as level I/II, focusing on assessing the

water access service itself. Thus, it involves rural water access levels I/II and III.

Barangay was designed to be both a basic political and administrative unit at the

community level (RA 7160, 1991;Constitution, 1987). As a political unit, it serves as

the collective voice of the citizenry in the national government. It promotes the

programs of the national government and serves as the basic electoral precinct in

national and local elections. As an Administrative unit, it serves as a final delivery

mechanism for public goods and services. It is responsible for the equitable

distribution of such goods and services to the general public. Since the inception of

the barangay during the Marcos Administration, although it has an important role in

affecting the health and well-being of the country’s grassroots citizenry, it has been

largely ignored as an administrative unit and treated more by the national government

as political rent-seekers whose loyalties determine the quality and quantity of public

goods and services they receive(Dohner & Intal, 1989).

This situation has never been corrected by any of the following administrations

since the Martial Law era. This creates a problem when a public health emergency

such as the global COVID-19 pandemic is currently experiencing. Vital health and

economic assistance were poorly distributed, with rent-seekers treating such goods

and services as political favors and selectively distributed, causing delays, loss of

confidence, and exposing the public to health risks.

Water plays an important role in household water-access services. There is a

marked silence in the sustainability of household water access services. Although

household water access services have been outsourced to private water service

providers in metropolitan areas and commercial business districts, owing to

economies of scale, this practice is slowly being embraced in the countryside as well.

6
This poses a problem when the concessioner serves only its own business interests.

Although such practices are slowly becoming common in rural areas, the

responsibility to ensure household water access services reamins with the LGU,

especially barangays, as the final delivery arm of the national government.

1.1.2 Institutional State of Water Access in the Philippines

There are four (4) government levels in the Philippines: National, Provincial,

Municipal, and barangay (community). Being Unitary in its form, political power and

authority flows from top to bottom, from the national level down to the barangay units

within a municipality. Traditionally, since its creation by the Presidential Decree in

the late 70s, the Barangay has been treated as a grunt that serves its mayor’s interest.

Most times, these barangays rely on rent-seeking and patronage to finance their

progress and development(Rola, Lizada, Pulhin, Dayo, & Tabios III, 2015).

The state of Philippine water institutions has been described as both multi-layered

and fragmented(Hall, Abansi, & Lizada, 2018). With a unitary form of government,

the responsibility for the planning and monitoring of water resources becomes

duplicitous, as different administrative levels pursue varying agendas. While the

various policies appear sound and coordinated on paper, the problem lies in the

implementation and enforcement, when each agency start pushing for their own

special interests, and often resolved by politics (Hall, et al., 2015; Hall, Abansi, &

Lizada, 2018; Horbulyk & Price, 2018; Israel, 2009).

Table 1 provides a bird’s eye view of the fourteen (14) areas of responsibilities

and interests in the Philippine water sector among the seventeen (17) agencies that

7
 involved in water management (Hall, Abansi, & Lizada, 2018; Rola, Lizada, Pulhin,

Dayo, & Tabios III, 2015).

Table 1. Function Overlaps In Philippine Water Institutions

Operation of water
Infrastructure and

development and
Function
Data monitoring

Public relations,
Policy planning

development

development
Local RBO
Regulatory

Financing
Scientific
modeling

functions
facilities
program

capacity
Agency

IEC
NWRB ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
LWUA ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
DENR ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
LGU ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
DPWH ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
DOH ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
NIA ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
NAPOCOR ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
PAGASA ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
DOF ✓ ✓ ✓
MWSS ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
DILG ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
DOE ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
MMDA ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
DOT ✓ ✓
LLDA ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
NEDA ✓ ✓
Source: Adapted from Rola, Pulhin, & Hall, 2018

8
1.2 Knowledge Gap

Over the years, mankind has developed ways to manage nature and control the

environment, (Folke, et al., 2010) which has given rise to wasteful behavior and

destructive consumption patterns. There is now an urgent need to change our ways to

stem the adverse impact on our environment(Harrison, 2016). However, because

water is essential to life and quality of life, addressing the problem of household

access to water is imperative, especially for affected rural communities(Abulencia, et

al., 2010).

With rural communities hurting capital and technical support to develop and

improve their household water access, it is of great importance to ensure that the

current level of water access services currently in place should at least be sustainable

for the community. To do so, the rural community, as water rights holders, should be

empowered to engage and participate in the processes of policy and decision-making.

This requires a people-centered policy approach to governance and continuous

development in capacity building that improves the rural community’s capability to

engage in and take ownership of their water governance.

Assessments of water governance regimes have focused mainly on the governance

aspect, as well as its resilience to local hazards that may possibly lead to disasters.

Existing studies are lacking in terms of achieving a sustainable state for rural

household water-access services. In addition, the use of community perception as an

important precursor for sustainability in the context of good water governance in

quantitative research is limited. This study explored such use for barangays to

consider when planning rural household water-access services.

The Philippine Journal of Science is the article Challenges of Water Governance

in the Philippines ( (Rola, Lizada, Pulhin, Dayo, & Tabios III, 2015), which

9
determined that the country’s water institutions do not have adequate human and

financial resources at the local level to effectively carry out their mandate to provide

improved household water access and sanitation services (level III). Further studies

have shown that water programs and projects with community support have higher

success rates (Botes, 2013; Davies & Lemma, 2009; Kumar, 2002 & Peltz, 2008).

While the water development literature (Kegan, 1994; Torbert, Cook-Greuter, Fisher,

& Foldy, 2004) has provided a better understanding of how good water governance

principles, if well planned, can help promote rural water access sustainability, the

existing data collection mechanism remains lagging. Only recently have researchers

begun using the power of smartphones and laptop computers to obtain real-time data

from the field. Such everyday technologies can help barangay leadership govern and

manage local water resources for household rural water access service sustainability

(Cox, 2005; van Velsor, 2009). In fact, while there is a clear and constant call for

strong and effective interaction between an LGU and its constituents to better oversee

and achieve sustainable rural household water access initiatives (Kakabadse &

Kakabadse, 2007; Senge, Smith, Kruschwitz, Laur, & Schleyn, 2008), few studies

have operationally defined or explained the mechanics of community perception

(Brown, 2011).

In addition, there are observable water policy overlaps that must be addressed to

lessen the constraints brought about by the lack of capacity at the barangay LGU level

as well as the restricted access to financing for infrastructure projects that will

improve the delivery of local household water and sanitation services(Pascual,

Abadilla, & Acedebo, 2007).

10
 Moreover, development at all levels of human capital, together with national and

international engagements in climate change policy, would clearly add much benefit

to rural LGUs. (Fleurbaey, et al., 2014).

Finally, there is a void in existing knowledge about how communities, as rights-

holders, perceive the sustainability of their own household water access service, and

how such knowledge can inform local policies and programs that strengthen the

sustainability of a rural household water access service.

1.3 Problem Statement

The slow pace of development to improve household access to water in

Philippine rural communities, together with the high operational costs that accompany

it, have prevented local water districts from expanding water services to the general

population.

Water access services play an important role in maintaining public health and

safety. To improve water access services and provide a measure of its services, the

National Economic Development Board (NEDA) has defined the current water access

service levels in the country. Table 2 details the three (3) levels of water access

services in the Philippines. As the level of water access increases, the service becomes

more convenient and safer. On the other hand, so do the capital resources needed to

operate and maintain it. As a result, rural water access services outside metropolitan

Manila, as well as other centers of commerce and trade in the country, can be

expected to be Level 1, II, or both.

11
 In this study, level I and level II communities were grouped together to form rural

water access service level I/II. This grouping is substantiated by RA 7160 (local

government code), specifically Book III, Title 1, Section 386, which requires a

barangay to have at least 2,000 individuals. In addition, based on the 2020 population

census, approximately 4.1 individuals make up a rural household. This equates to

approximately 488 rural households that needed to become a barangay. With level I

water access service able to serve only 15 households (PSA, 2017), there were very

few municipalities with level 1 rural water access for research that necessitated such

grouping. Water governance in the Philippines is discussed separately in section 3.

An LGU refers to the Provincial, Municipal and Barangay levels of

government ( (RA 7160, 1991). Given that the Barangay, as the basic unit and final

distribution mechanism of the Local Government to its constituents, is responsible for

the delivery of basic public goods and services, there is a noticeable gap between their

responsibilities as public servants and their capability to sustain their rural household

water access service. Thus, the problem of this research is stated as follows.

How can a rural barangay help ensure the sustainability of their household rural

water access service given their household’s perception of its sustainability, as well

as the state of its local talent and information-gathering capacities without additional

fiscal and financial burdens?

12
Table 2. Water Access Service Levels In The Philippines

Maintenance
Water
Price and
Access
Description knowledge
Service
of the
Level
Technology

• a protected well or a developed

spring with an outlet but without a
distribution system
• generally adaptable for thinly Free Low
Level I
scattered communities.
• water user is not more than 250
meters from water source.
• Serves, on average, 15 households

• a water supply facility composed of a

source, a reservoir, a distribution
network with adequate treatment
facility and communal faucets that Minimal Medium
each serve 4 to 6 households.
Level II • generally suitable for rural areas
where most houses are clustered to
justify a simple piped system.
• The farthest household user is not
more than 25 meters from the
communal faucet system.

• A water supply facility with a source,

a reservoir, a piped distribution Metered
network, an adequate treatment Water High
Level III
facility and individual household taps rates
• generally suited for densely plus fees
populated urban areas

Source: Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) , 2017

Studies by the World Bank in 2010 favor level III water access, as this provides

the most convenient and effective way to deliver water and sanitation to most

households. While level I and II water access services are provided at minimal cost to

13
the rural community, they tend to encourage irresponsible water consumption and

poor waste management practices that result in over-extraction and possible

contamination of local water supplies. Such practices are untenable and will

undoubtedly affect public health and safety as well as result in water shortages and

possible conflicts among water users(Sarker, Baldwin, & Ross, 2009).

In rural areas, where local water districts are unable to provide universal

water access coverage to their communities, the sustainability of rural household

water access has come to the fore. How can a rural barangay determine the

sustainability of its household water access service (Levels I, II, or III) and help in its

current and future viability?

1.4 Purpose Statement

The purpose of this research study is to understand and be acquainted with how a

community’s sustainability perception of their rural household water access service

can provide a snapshot of its level of sustainability and to demonstrate its application

through an assessment mechanism that evaluates the water access service’s

sustainability.

14
1.5 Research Questions

1. How do households from select barangays in a municipality in Tarlac perceive

the sustainability of their water-access services? Specifically, what is the

community’s self-assessment of the sustainability of water services in terms of

the following dimensions: financial, technical, institutional, socio-political,

and environmental?

2. Are there any patterns in how households assess the sustainability of the water

access service? Do socio-demographic characteristics such as length of

residence in the community, livelihood sources, and household size play a

role? Do water-use practices—primary household water access, length of use

of primary household water sources, primary water access suitable for cooking

and drinking, availability of alternative household water access, alternative

water access suitable for cooking and drinking, household water consumption

for hygiene and sanitation, and household water consumption for daily use—

influence households’ assessment of sustainability?

3. Is there any relationship between a household’s water access service level and

perceived sustainability? Is higher rural water access service level less

sustainable in the eyes of the community?

4. Policy recommendations can be made to strengthen the sustainability of

household water-access services at the municipal level.

15
1.6 Objectives of The Study

The following are the objectives of the study:

1. Determining the sustainability of water access services from the perspective of

households in select barangays in a municipality in Tarlac

2. Analyze the relationship between sustainability components FTI, SP, and E,

and certain community characteristics, such as in terms of the following:

a. Length of residence in the community,

b. Livelihood sources,

c. Household size,

d. Primary household water access,

e. Length of use of the primary household water access,

f. Primary water access suitable for cooking and drinking

g. Availability of alternative household water access,

h. Alternative household water access suitable for cooking and drinking,

i. Household water consumption for hygiene and sanitation, and

j. Household water consumption for daily use

3. Determine the relationship, if any, between a household’s water access service

level and its perceived sustainability by community households

4. Identifying policy recommendations to strengthen the sustainability of

household water access services at the barangay and municipal levels.

16
1.7 Significance

This study contributes to the practice of public administration by laying down

and introducing groundwork on the use of local household perception as an important

precursor of sustainability. Toward this end, this paper provides basic guidelines to

develop an inexpensive and easy-to-use mechanism for rural local government units

(LGUs) in the Philippines that would give them some idea of the sustainability level

of their extant rural household water access service based on the community

household’s sustainability perception.

Along with promoting efficient household water use, a component of the

seven priority areas identified in the Philippine Development Plan 2017–2022, the

National Budget Memorandum of March 23, 2017(Horbulyk & Price, 2018), and

United Nations Sustainable Development (UNSDG) goal number 6, which aims to

provide universal access to sustainable water and sanitation for all by the year

2030(UN, 2015), the study also acknowledges the important role played by women

and children in the context of achieving sustainable rural household water access

services.

Finally, the study’s timeliness in a state of current public health emergency and

frequent household water shortages in both rural and urban settings make it a wake-up

call to rural LGUs to include community perception as they address the sustainability

of rural household water access services in their jurisdictions.

17
1.8 Conceptual Framework

In this study, sustainability is not a goal to be achieved but a state to be

maintained. While sustainability takes on a different meaning across various contexts

upon which it is applied, the main characteristic of a sustainable state in this study is

the support accorded to it by the community it serves. By identifying common

content indicators derived from studies on the theories of water governance and

sustainability, the study came up with three (3) water sustainability components:

Financial, Technical, and Institutional (FTI), socio-political (SP), and environment

(E).

Briefly, these components are:

Financial, Technical, and Institutional (FTI): In this component, the reliability of the

technology and equipment used to provide rural water access service to the

community comes to the fore. Applied technology, as it relates to the

economic and institutional aspects involved in providing such rural water

access services, should be appropriate, feasible, and acceptable to the

locality. The indicators represented by each statement for evaluation included

ease of use, water security, water quality, water safety, reliability,

affordability, LGU responsiveness, WSP responsiveness, and sufficiency.

Socio-Political (SP): This component is where the domestic water needs of the rural

barangay households and the ability of the municipality to provide them with

such services meet. When basic needs, such as rural household water access

services, are addressed by the community leadership, their community

18
 expectations are generally met, and the barangay community works and

cooperates well with its municipality to ensure a sustainable state is reached

and maintained for the existing rural household water access service. The

indicators represented by each statement for evaluation included

transparency, accessibility, equitability, proper technology, maintenance,

monitoring, community cohesiveness, cost equality, and service equality.

Environment E: This component focuses on the general maintenance and cleanliness

of the community’s surroundings, especially in common areas where rural

household water can be accessed. There is evidence that general community

awareness of the need to protect and conserve water resources and the

environment translates to positive behavior toward its protection and

conservation. The indicators represented by each statement for evaluation

included water conservation (personal), water conservation (garden), water

conservation(laundry), environmental protection, risk reduction (solid

waste), and risk reduction (biodegradables).

Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework showing the relationships

between sustainability determinants that are relevant and appropriate to the

sustainability of rural household water access services and served as a guide during

the design and development of the study’s self-administered questionnaire (3-FSAQ).

By focusing on the variables within the colored area, statements were formed to

determine the presence of sustainability indicators as well as their degree or

magnitude. It is in the evaluation of such data, collected directly from rural

19
households, that the desired sustainability picture of the existing rural water access

service can be seen through the community’s perception.

Figure 1. Rural Water Access Sustainability - A Conceptual Framework

Source: Adapted from Macharia, Mbassana, & Oduor, 2015

This theoretical framework was guided by content and thematic commonalities

from good water governance and sustainability, in the context of a rural household’s

water access services, as shown in Figure 2. In this framework, the rural community’s

sustainability perception of their household water access service is connected to water

20
governance to indicate how governance affects rural household water access service.

The six (6) sides of hexagon represent the six elements of good water governance.

The connection between good water governance and sustainability represents how

governance affects the long-term sustainability of the water access service.

Figure 2. Rural Water Sustainability – A Theoretical Framework

Source: OECD, 2015; Tropp, 2007; OECD, 2022

21
 From perception comes thought, and from thought comes behavior. Behavior

dictates participation (Cox, 2005; Berner & Phillips, 2005 & Abulencia, et al., 2010).

Using the rural household’s perception of the sustainability of their household water

access service in their locality, together with the three-level classification of water

access services in the Philippines, this study argues for both the insights and

application of a proposed mechanism that serves as a quick dipstick test for the

sustainability of a barangay’s rural water access service, providing local authorities

with the idea of the state of the rural community’s water access services’ level of

sustainability.

1.9 Scope, Assumptions, and Limitations

This study regards water as both a human right and public good. Therefore, the

burden of responsibility for providing household water access services falls on the

shoulders of the LGU.

The scope of the study covers Philippine rural communities (barangays) whose

households have mostly level I and II water access services and come from a

municipality with a water district that can provide level III water access service, but

with more than half of its constituent barangays not connected. These areas are

predominantly supplied through groundwater sources, and those supplied though

other means may not yield the same result.

This self-sponsored study faced financial challenges due to its budget-limited

research time and location. Costs were kept to a minimum by holding special and

informal consultations with friends who are experienced market researchers to help

22
guide the study with an affordable and acceptable research and data collection

methodology.

As in most descriptive research, the findings of this study cannot establish causal

relationships between variables. In addition, while precautions and consultations were

performed to ensure data integrity from research bias, Likert scales are prone to

distortions, and the 3-FSAQ should improve with timely usage.

1.9.1 Assumptions of the Study

The supply and demand of water for domestic use, in this paper, is considered a

given and the focus of this sustainability perception study is the existing rural water

access service itself. In this study, the water access service levels were further

grouped into levels I/II and III. With the information provided by the municipality, all

barangays were classified as either Level I/II or Level III. This information forms part

of the profile information.

The independent variable here is Profile Information, and the dependent variable

is the perception of sustainability of the factors FTI, SP, and E.

The study assumes that survey respondents are able to read and write in either

English or Pilipino, and will answer the survey questions truthfully and accurately,

based on their experience.

In addition, the study assumed and practiced political neutrality when interacting

with the rural community during data collection.

23
 In determining the perceived sustainability level (SS) of the rural households’

water access service, the assumption here is that the higher the score, the higher (more

positive outlook) the rural household water access sustainability perception, which

implies that actual rural household water access service sustainability is achievable

and can be supported by the community.

Consequently, there is also the expectation that the higher the number of

households in a rural community, the more likely they will have level III water access

service. In addition, a barangay’s proximity to the municipal hall may be a factor such

that the closer the barangay, the more movement toward level III water access

services can be anticipated. This may be because of the economies of scale that

municipal water districts and rural water service providers would like to have to

reduce costs associated with an improved rural water access service.

1.9.2 Scope and Limitations of the Study

The scope of the study covers Philippine rural municipalities whose barangay

communities mostly have households with concurrent level I and II rural water access

services and whose municipality has a rural water district but is unable to provide

universal level III rural water access services to their constituencies.

As previously mentioned, this self-sponsored study is limited to a specified time

schedule and geographical location owing to logistics and budget constraints. To

maximize the use of available funding, informal consultations were held with

experienced researchers and statisticians to ensure that the study followed a sound

research methodology, and data collection processes were strictly adhered to.

24
 This study may not be applicable to urban and highly commercialized business

districts because of the differences in population and household densities that bring

other factors into play, which may not be present in a rural setting.

1.10 Summary

Again, we are reminded of the fact that humans are part of the natural

environment, and that although our country is blessed with an abundance of water, it

is important to observe frugality in its use and conservation of our water supply to

ensure its sustainability for future generations. Rural municipalities are prone to

wasteful water practices and poor waste management, a situation akin to the Tragedy

of the Commons(Hardin, 1968).

The problem of sustainable household water access in rural Philippine

communities is thus evident. Global institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, ADB,

UN, and non-governmental organizations have reported that while there has been a

marked increase in the number of households with improved access to water and

sanitation, there still remains a great number of households, especially in rural and

far-flung areas, who still have to regularly travel some distance to meet daily

household water needs. In addition, rural municipalities in the Philippines are hard-

pressed for infrastructure and technical assistance to improve water access services in

their areas. Meanwhile, most rural communities are clueless regarding the

sustainability of their current water access services.

25
 How can a rural municipality easily and affordably determine the sustainability of

its water access services to households and ensure its current and future viability?

Like the adage that there is no garden without a gardener, the study argues that

the rural community should learn and be able to take ownership of their household

water access service. This can be accomplished using community perceptions of the

sustainability of the household rural water access service. However, the relationship

between them remains unclear(Lee T. H., 2013).

26
 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Household water access service delivery is considered one of basic public

services our government is expected to provide (RA 7160, 1991). It is also a devolved

function that has been passed to the of local government units (LGUs) and is critical

to the pursuit of public health and safety, poverty alleviation, and the improvement of

both general and individual wellbeing.

This paper considers household water access both as a public good as well as a

human right that should be universally and equitably provided to everyone, regardless

of social or economic status (de Oliveira, 2017).Yet, this is easier said than done and

remains a governance challenge to any administration.

According to reports from the World Bank (WB) and the Asian Development

Bank (ADB), household water access services is even worse in the countryside where

rural households have little financial ability to pay for improved water access services

(Hodgkin, 1994), while municipal and provincial governments are hard-pressed for

access to technical know-how and financial assistance to build water infrastructures to

deliver reliable household water access service (World Bank, 2015); (Asian

Development Bank, 2013). The water goals of the Philippines have been revised time

and again, but can always be classified into two groups, namely, the Domestic Water

Goals and our International Commitments as a member of the United Nations.

27
 Current domestic water goals are expressed in the PWSSMP 2019-2030 (NEDA,

2019) and are meant to create an enabling environment as well as boost infrastructure

development in the water sector. These are:

• Set-up of effective WSS sector institutions.

• Bolstering the regulatory landscape.

• Establish and validate effective WSS services.

• Standardizing water supply and demand.

• Mainstreaming climate resiliency.

• Providing access to funding and financing.

• Management of data and information; and

• Steering appropriate research and development

With the promise of vigorous financial support to back-up targeted interventions

in the water sector, more rural households will have access to clean and safe water

with improved sanitation.

Internationally, the Philippines have committed to the UN sustainable

development water goals, especially goal number 6, ensuring the availability,

provision, and sustainable management of domestic water and sanitation for all, by

the year 2030.

While the legal and institutional bases for the management of our water resources

involves multi-agency participation and appears fractured due to numerous overlaps

in authority (Rola, Lizada, Pulhin, Dayo, & Tabios III, 2015), the challenge lies in the

implementation and proper enforcement of the various water laws and regulations.

Despite this, the water quality in Metro Manila is identified as one of the best for

28
drinking in Asia (NEDA, 2021), and can be attributed to the proper operation and

application of both RA 9275 (Philippine Clean Water Act) and DOH-AO # 2017-

0010 (Philippine National Standards for Drinking Water) where strict water testing

for quality control is performed at least three times a day, especially in Metro Manila.

This literature review perused good governance theory, perception, and

sustainability, as it pertains to rural household water access for domestic use. While

studies that have shown that, while a relationship can be established between

sustainability perceptions and the needed community support to make it sustainable,

the nature of such relationship remain uncertain (Lin, Lee, & Wang, 2021). There are

very few studies that delve into sustainability using community perceptions derived at

the household level (Lee T. H., 2013); Lin, Lee, & Wang, 2021) to the extent that it

can be used to provide the LGU with an idea of the level of perceived sustainability

by rural household water access services which reveals how much community support

can be expected to make rural water access more sustainable in the locality.

Pressing as it is, more studies on how communities as water rights-holders

perceive the sustainability of their own household water access service and how such

can inform local policies and programs to promote and improve sustainable rural

household water access delivery are needed. In this chapter, the study scanned studies

having to do with the principles of perception, good water governance and

sustainability as it relates to achieving sustainable rural water access services relevant

to the rural conditions in the country and creating a framework for rural household

water access service sustainability that can be used as a sound basis to perform a

quick dipstick assessment to determine the level of their rural households’ water

access sustainability.

29
 This review of related literature is presented in five (5) sections. The first section

discusses the literature on perception theory as it relates to sustainability, especially in

the context of service provision. The second part reviews good governance as it

applies to water and its management. This is followed by sustainability theory

concepts and proven indicators related to water and water access. To avoid having to

re-invent the wheel at the same time maximize the scarce funding of this research, the

study was guided by the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development) and the BIOA (British and Irish Ombudsman Association) water

governance assessment indicators discovered through their comprehensive research

and review of global water governance factors and indicators. The work the OECD

has done has been both tested and verified, with timely updates provided where

needed. The third section describes the state of household water access sustainability

in the country. This is followed by the fourth section that examines the role of

community perception in supporting and building up household water access

sustainability. This section also evaluates the perceived level of sustainability of the

barangays as expressed through the 3-FSAQ respondents within their jurisdictions.

The final section recapitulates all the sections into a summary. Additional facts and

information on rural household water access service are also further listed in table 5,

which provides facts to dispel certain myths people have on rural water access

service.

30
2.1 Water Governance

Water governance is good governance as it applies to the management of our

country’s freshwater resources, especially household access to it. Literature presents

water as a complex system, involving various institutions that are more often than not

mired in the political dynamics of power and authority that limits and slows down the

process of true devolution and delegation of authority to Philippine LGUs as

expressed in the Philippine Local Code of 1991 (RA 7160, 1991).

Consistent through the years is the lukewarm attention accorded to the

community’s contribution, which is central to water governance (Malayang, 2004).

Water governance is said to be the spectrum of political, social, economic, and

administrative systems that are in place to develop and improve the delivery of water

services to the different levels of society (Global Water Partnership, 2002). The water

governance regime must be able to identify human factors that provide the support

needed for the sustainability of a transparent, accountable and equitably allocated

water for domestic use (Tropp, 2007). Water governance is also about dealing with

the local dynamics of compunctions, conflicts and corruptive practices that may be

present in local water governance (Miranda, Hordijk, & Molina, 2011). Water is a

major factor in the creation of communities and is therefore imperative to link

democratic processes with institutional capacity-building for water intervention

activities (Turton, et al., 2007).

In 2013, the United Nations Water Governance Facility (UN-WGF) described

water governance as a mechanism to address the challenges of equitable distribution

and efficiency in the development and use of water resources. Water access service

calls for a clear delineation of roles and accountabilities of government, civil society,

31
and the private sector in the ownership, management, and administration of water

services (UNDP, 2013 and Araral & Wang, 2013). Water governance in the

Philippines, having evolved into a complex process involving many institutions at

various levels and mandates, has become problematic. (Pasimio, 2011).

In 2015, Hall, et. al., observed that in the Philippines, water managers are not up

to date with policy shifts and have little understanding of formal and traditional water

rights in a locality when settling local conflicts using formal mechanisms. This results

in ineffective interventions that are useless when addressing local water conflicts

(Hall, et al., 2015). Household water access service, as a policy area in the country,

does not address rural household water needs due to an institutional fragmentation,

where many agencies at different levels of government, makes regulatory decisions at

the same time making enforcement difficult (Malayang, 2004). In fact, a study found

that most water regulations were poorly planned and enforced by unrelated agencies

and institutions representing various sectors of Philippine society (Rola, Lizada,

Pulhin, Dayo, & Tabios III, 2015). Yet, even with well-planned water service

delivery regulations in place, institutional problems remain, leaving households with

extremely limited choice for their water source. (Israel, 2009).

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2015

suggested that water governance systems should be designed based on the challenges

they are to address. To meet such challenges, water governance should be guided by

the locality’s economic situation as well as the purpose and need for water

governance (OECD, 2015).

Good governance starts from within the individual (Malayang, 2004 & Senge,

Smith, Kruschwitz, Laur, & Schleyn, 2008). However, as a collective, good intentions

do not always equate to community benefit and that is why, all forms of community

32
feedback should be encouraged and considered as a societal compass to help guide

and prevent undesirable deviations from the collective benefit or goal (Araral &

Wang, 2013; Macharia, Mbassana, & Oduor, 2015 & Paul, 1987).

The decentralization and devolution of basic services brought about by the

Philippine local government code to its barangays (RA 7160, 1991), includes local

water governance together with the local enforcement of water laws and regulations,

down to the barangay level, highlights the need for capacity building among rural

barangays (Falkenmark, et al., 2007). Capacity development among local government

units in the Philippines has been inequitable and insufficient due to income disparities

between them (Araral & Yu, 2009), with rural barangays often at a disadvantage when

it comes to access to external financial support and assistance. Relying on possibly

outdated ways of water management combined with the lack of relevant knowledge

on effective water governance, rural barangays, run the risk of being dependent on

their municipality as to be deprived of a sustainable household water access service

(Daemane, 2015). Most studies have focused and revolved around metropolitan and

commercial business districts instead of the countryside.

Water governance is recognized as a necessary pillar for sustainable development

(Dhaoui, 2019), and in response to the challenge of sustainable rural household water

access confronting a local rural water governance, studies have come up with both

traditional and innovative ways to improve its efficiency and effectiveness by

developing water governance indicators in order to identify and be able to measure

both strengths and weaknesses that exist in the local water governance (British and

Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA, 2009; DROP, 2013; Graham, Amos, &

Plumptre, 2003 & OECD, 2015). These indicators were grouped according to the

dimensions which were identified through the accepted definition of water

33
governance. Today, water governance requires indicators to address institutional,

social justice and inclusiveness issues (Dhaoui, 2019).

This trend is noticeable when Hakan Tropp, in 2007, identified four (4)

dimensions, namely: the social (focused on the equitable access and use of water), the

political (whose emphasis is on the provision of equal water rights and opportunities),

the economic (which focuses on the efficient delivery and consumption of water) and

the environmental (which is concerned about the sustainable supply and demand of

water resources) dimensions. This model was adopted by the United Nations

Development Program (UNDP) and has been widely accepted as the basis of the

water governance model used for this study. Then in 2013, the INTERREG IVb

DROP project in Europe came up with its five (5) dimensions and four (4) quality

criteria. These dimensions are Levels & Scales, Actors & Networks, Perceptions &

Goals, Tasks & Resources, and Strategies & Instruments. The criteria used were

extent, coherence, flexibility, and intensity (DROP, 2013). In Addition, and more

recently, the OECD came up with its own version of a three (3) layered dimensional

approach which they described as the content layer, the institutional layer, and the

relational layer (Havekes, et al., 2016). Further, to organize these indicators into an

accessible database, the OECD, in 2015, published the OECD inventory of water

governance indicators and measurement frameworks (OECD, 2015). This provided a

quick reference secondary source of information for the study.

The creation of indicators leads to the development of various water governance

assessment tools that are currently in use today. It is noticeable from the literature that

these assessment tools are based on certain focuses such as performance, function,

output, and productivity which are designed to address the specific conditions of a

specific group. And although these tools have been proven to provide the

34
measurement information needed by the country where such assessment was

performed, a careful perusal of the indicators used reveals knowledge gaps such as

household water access service sustainability, which is important to the target

community.

Without having to re-invent the wheel, of particular interest and use for this study

is the inventory of water governance indicators and measurement frameworks

compiled by the OECD in 2015. The OECD’s inventory of indicators catalogs the

various assessment tools and arranges them according to what it measures and why it

is being measured, which further supports and verifies the UNDP approach to water

governance assessments (UNDP, 2013). Using thematic commonalities that can be

observed among accepted assessment indicators of good water governance (Araral &

Yu, 2009); (OECD, 2015) and sustainability (World Bank, 2017), combining the

functions, and attributes to produce outcomes resulting in the proper management of

water, that can be sustained for household use. Figure 3 provides a picture of the

water governance framework used.

35
 Figure 3. A Water Governance Framework

ATTRIBUTES
FUNCTIONS
• Multi-level
• Policy/Strategy
• Participation OUTCOMES
• Coordination
• Deliberation
• Planning/Preparedness • Enabling Conditions
• Inclusiveness
• Financing
• Management
Arrangements
+ • Accountability
• Transparency
• Evidence Based
= • Behavior Change
• Changes in Social /
Environmental conditions
• Monitoring, • Sustainability of Changes
• Efficiency
Evaluation, and made
• Impartiality
Learning
• Adaptiveness
• Regulatory
• Capacity Development
Source: (Jimenez, et al., 2020)

2.2 Perception

Studies have propounded that an individual’s perception plays a major part that

can support sustainable development (Lee T. H., 2013); (Lee & Jan, 2019). In fact,

there exist research on sustainability perceptions that conclude that an individual’s

experience on local issues can be the key for successful replications of community

good practices when they take ownership and take part in the operation and

management of its local rural water access service project given by its rural LGU

(UNMDG, 2013). (Bell, Green, Fisher, & Baum, 2001).

Perception and expectation are two very related concepts. The closer the

perception is to the individual’s expectation, the more positive the perception

becomes. Interventions should therefore focus on how these two concepts get

36
reconciled producing eventual desirable behavior Demuth, 2013: Dijksterhuis & van

Knippenberg, 1998.

Perception can therefore provide important insights and clues that in turn, help in

influencing future human actions and behavior, based on certain stimuli (Demuth,

2013); (Lin, Lee, & Wang, 2021).

The most appropriate method of measuring perception is to capture it through

self-reported mechanisms, such as Interviews, focus groups, and self-administered

surveys (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988). Yet, while much has been said of

Perception, little can be found on assessments using rural household perception as an

input that will provide rural LGUs an idea of the sustainability of their rural

community’s household water access service, in the context of community support to

the sustainability of such service (Lin, Lee, & Wang, 2021).

Perception studies of this type have been done mostly for marketing purposes

with the use of the pioneering research on service quality framework of SERVQUAL

(Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985) and rarely, if ever, used in conjunction with

water access service to enhance local rural water governance and sustainability. (See

Figure 4).

37
 Figure 4. Gap Identification Model

LGU
Perceived Community expectation of household water access services

Meeting expected household Water Access Service Standards

(Service Level I/II and III) Customer Gap
Policy Gap
Communication Gap

Delivery Gap Household water access (Service Level I/II and III)

Knowledge Gap

Perceived Household water access

service Satisfaction

Expected household water access service

Household/Personal Needs

Communications and
Previous Experience
Notices

RURAL HOUSEHOLDS

Source: Adapted from Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988

2.2.1 Community Perception

Community perception can be described as the mathematical mean of the

aggregate perception of the individual households within a community and can be

expressed as:

Community Perception (CP) = Total (expressed) Perception Value / # of (expressed)

households

38
2.2.2 Drivers of Perception

There have been studies establishing perception as a channel that reveals an

individual’s evaluation of an environment or situation that is founded on personal

experience (Mesch & Manor, 1998; Bell, Green, Fisher, & Baum, 2001) and is an

important factor in support of sustainable development (Lee T. H., 2013). Community

perception can therefore be regarded Using the household’s perception of their water

access service sustainable rural water access service in their locality, together with

the three-level classification of water access service in the Philippines, the study

provides both insight and application of an assessment mechanism that serves as

quick dipstick test that gives the level of sustainability of a household’s rural water

access service in a rural barangay.

It is a known fact that our brain, where inputs from our sensory receptors are

being continuously processed. How we see this information affects our social

interactions. Perception is about how we are able to organize, interpret , and

experience these information. It involves the dual processes of bottom-up and top-

down processing, where the former are perceptions formed from sensory input and the

latter depends on what we know, experiences we’ve gone through, and our own

thoughts which may be culturally influenced (Roberts, Curtis, Levy, & D., 2022).

Because perception provides clues about an individuals’ point of view as well as

its future behavior and attitude toward certain things, it is significant to sustainability

since it can make or break the locality’s sustainable practices (Demuth, 2013).

Sustainable practices are those that benefits both natural and man-made

environments, and together with the people who live and work in the area.

Households who fail to understand the impacts of their actions on the environment at

39
the same time have a low perception for the need for sustainable practices will

undoubtedly cause its failure (Sanchez-Hernndez, Maldonado-Briegas, Sanguino,

Barroso, & Barriuso, 2021).

One thing in common on existing studies about sustainability perceptions is that it

has been shown to promote actions that confronts rural water access challenges. (Fan,

Tang, & Park, 2019). In addition, community perceptions of risks to household water

access encourages overall community awareness resulting in effective water policy

enforcement with a more proactive programs on sustainability related community

concerns. Moreover, local community capacities have a strong influence in risk

reduction (Fan, Tang, & Park, 2019).

The higher the perception, the most likely the community will get involved by

supporting in its sustainability (Demuth, 2013) . Community perception of the

sustainability of household water access is dependent on a number of factors which

includes social, political, economic, and environmental community practices

(Messakh, Fanggidae, & Moy, 2020). But it is when the community takes ownership

of its household water access systems that paves the way for the sustainability of their

water access service level (UNMDG, 2013).

While causality relationships between perception and sustainability remain

unclear in the literature, common factors that have been observed to greatly influence

an individual’s sustainability perception of the of their rural household water access

service, such as water quality, service/technology reliability, accessibility,

affordability, and water supply conservation and protection (de Oliveira, 2017).

40
2.3 Sustainability

The concept of sustainability in the context of sustainable development of the

water sector gained impetus after the 1987 World Commission on Environment and

Development which came out with a report entitled Our common future. This report

defined sustainable development as being the kind of development that addresses

current needs without having a negative impact on the ability of future generations to

address their own needs (Brundtland, 1987). With this definition, the assessment of

sustainability entails determining whether the project will be sustained in the medium

or even longer-term after the project has been handed over to its intended

beneficiaries (Macharia, Mbassana, & Oduor, 2015). In the context of water

governance, sustainability is said to be a factor that integrates the social, political,

environmental, and economic responsibilities in the community (Berkes & Folke,

1994). In fact, because sustainability has strong implications to day-to-day living, it

has different meanings and perceptions to different people, with each choosing to look

at sustainability from different perspectives with varied significance attached to the

different aspects (Hodgkin, 1994). The triple bottom line approach was a well-known

principle of sustainability assessment, which make use of the environmental,

economic and social aspects of sustainability (Farsari & Prastacos, 2002); (Ekins,

Deutsch, Simon, & Folke, 2003).

A good example to illustrate Sustainability is shown in Figure 5, there the three

(3) pillars are very similar to the study’s own approach using the sustainability

components FTI, SP, and E. The intersections are the areas where the rural LGU

should be steered toward to. It is in these areas where Perception can be affected

(Buclet & Lazarevic, 2015).

41
Figure 5. Sustainability Pillars

Source: Adopted from the University of Nottingham, 2015

Sustainability is better appreciated and understood when taken into a specific

context. Current literature describes various contexts by which sustainability is used

but with common content which has the capacity to influence sustainability

(Macharia, Mbassana, & Oduor, 2015). Table 3 summarizes some of the contexts by

which sustainability in water resources is used in the study. These provided the

blueprint for the creation of the 3-FSAQ questions in the survey.

Sustainability is a state that may be described as the uninterrupted and continuous

enjoyment of a benefit derived from a public good or service. While lapses and breaks

occur, these are insignificant when there is an effort at sustainability (Adam, 2017). It

is not a goal to be simply attained. Sustainability entails monitoring and because of

42
 this, an understanding of the community’s sustainability perception of their rural

household water access service is needed to support its realization (Binder, 2008;

Abulencia, et al., 2010; Nikkhah & Redzuan, 2009 &Wanjiru, 2014).

Table 3. Indicators For Household Water Access Sustainability

Context Local Practices/Indicators Description

Ease of Use Intuitive and Easy to use
Financial, Technical &

Water Security Protection and Conservation

Water Quality Water Quality Standards
Institutional

Water Safety Efforts against pollution

(FTI)

Reliability The applied technology can be relied upon

Affordability Willingness to pay/share for water access services
LGU Responsiveness Responsiveness of LGU to water access problems
WSP Responsiveness Responsiveness of WSP to water access problems
Sufficiency Output produced meet household needs
Transparency Transparency of processes in to obtain water access
Accessibility Easily accessed services (in line with local practices)
Equitability Equitable distribution of water access services within
Socio-Political

Proper Technology Equipment used meets locality’s water needs

(SP)

Maintenance Easy to maintain

Monitoring Easy to monitor
Community Cohesiveness Kinship and sense of community
Cost Equality Costs are standardized across water users
Service Equality Service quality is the same for all water users
Water Conservation (personal) Conservation and protection efforts done personally
Environmental

Water Conservation (garden) Conservation and protection efforts when gardening

Water Conservation (laundry) Conservation and protection efforts doing laundry
(E)

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection awareness

Risk Reduction (solid Waste) Risk Reduction efforts for solid waste management
Risk Reduction (Biodegradables) Risk Reduction efforts such as recycling and waste
segregation
Source: Macharia, Mbassana, & Oduor, 2015; Binder, 2008; Dhaoui, 2019

Sustainability is said to be the commitment to meet service expectations and the

needs of communities in the long-term. (Binder, 2008; Narayan, 1994; Wakeman,

1995; van Wijk-Sijbesma, 1995; Paul, 1987; Yacoob & Walker, 1991; McCommon,

Warner, & Yohalem, 1990; Nikkhah & Redzuan, 2009; Dungumaro & Madulu, 2003;

& Livingstone & McPherson, 1993).

43
 Although the literature is filled with broad and varying definitions of

sustainability, a shared commonality of continuity and shared benefits can be

observed. Most differences lie in its emphasis. How sustainability is defined often

sets the parameters by which one can measure and understand the factors that

contribute to, or work against, sustainability

For the water supply and sanitation sector, sustainability was initially associated

with the financial aspects of water service delivery and highlighted the need for water

users to share in the costs (Black, 1998). From this perspective, sustainability includes

health benefits and the continued convenience of having household water access.

Table 4 shows the definitions of sustainability relevant to the proper

management of water resources that can be sustainable. From a one-dimensional to

multi-dimensional, the definition of sustainability in this table also shows how

community perception comes into play, paving the way for community behavior

concepts to be included when determining sustainability. It is therefore important to

identify the context by which sustainability is to be applied.

44
Table 4. Relevant Definitions Of Sustainability

Source Definition
Hodgkin, 1994 Uninterrupted delivery of benefits after initial
project inputs and support have terminated.

Abrams, 1998 Determines continuity over time.

Ability to provide the appropriate level of benefits

OECD/DAC, 1998 for long periods of time after all external forms of
support have been withdrawn.

Not concerned about the water project by itself but

Sara and Katz, 1997; Carter et on the water supply system and the needed service
al 1999 it provides.

Focuses on the project level together with its

Harvey et al, 2002 economy and replicability as determinants of the
project’s sustainability.

Taken in terms of community capacity to maintain

WSP, 2000; IRC, 2001 the desired service.
Source: Beder, 2006; Buclet & Lazarevic, 2015

2.3 Sustainability Assessments

Sustainability assessments often use engineering and technical indicators and

overlook the human factor which is important in both water governance and

sustainability (Bamberger, 1991). In assessing rural household water access

sustainability, the indicators used were discovered through the layering of existing

ones from the fields of water governance and sustainability.

When water access policy is made, there must also be a plan to assess the impact

such policy will have on water access sustainability (Juwana, Muttil, & OPerera,

2012).

45
 . The focus of this study is to find a way for rural barangays in the Philippines

to assess their household water access service using their community’s perception in

order for them to discover local ways to enhance their sustainability capabilities.

While, unfortunately, there exists little knowledge about how communities, as

rights-holders, perceive the sustainability of their own household water access service

and how such can inform local policies and programs to improve water access

delivery, there is sufficient information from water assessment literature that allows

the study to form a framework to achieve its goal.

2.3.1 Resilience and Sustainability

The concept of Resilience initially posed a challenge to this research as it closely

relates to the concept Sustainability. These two concepts are so much related yet mean

differently when used in the context of rural household water access service.

In fact, the initial research topic for the study was determining the resilience of

household rural water access services which lead to much confusion as to the real

problem being addressed by the paper. This was, fortunately, addressed and it was

agreed that Sustainability was the correct concept in play and not Resilience.

Far from being a technical paper, the study calls attention to sustainability, as a

state to be maintained and not a goal to be achieved. As such, monitoring and

reporting is required of the barangay as final distributor of public goods and services.

Resilience can thus be part of the greater Sustainability umbrella, but not vice

versa since it is more descriptive of an organization, system, or infrastructure.

46
 When the water access service is no different from alternatives provided, the

social playing field is leveled with the rich being as much affected as the poor by their

common lack of water. Their common need for water access can bring them to work

together to negotiate and effect change (Narayan, 1994). Other characteristics of equal

importance in influencing perception include gender, income, education, knowledge

and skills, and social cohesion. Certain leadership qualities together with the presence

of existing leadership are key when initiating change that results in sustainability

(Narayan, 1994).

In addition to the above, and equally important, is the role women play in the

collection, management, and use of water for the household. There is clear evidence

to support increasing the active involvement of women, especially in rural household

water access services (Mukherjee & van Wijk, 2003). It is therefore not surprising for

women involvement be identified as an important determinant of rural water access

service sustainability (Asian Development Bank, 2013; Carter, Tyrell, & Howsam,

1999).

Some studies identify motivation as another key to attaining water access

sustainability (IFAD, 2009). Household willingness to take part in the maintenance of

a water access system is based on a perceived benefit, which acts as the motivation. In

the case of a level II water access service, it is imperative that for the operation and

maintenance of a communal water supply system, motivation and willingness must be

generated on both the rural households and its community. External actors may also

be motivated to contribute towards supporting community- managed rural water

services when, for example, the local government identifies a political benefit to the

activity, or when the private sector detects profitability in the action, or when the

national government intervenes as part of a broader national development agenda. For

47
whatever reason, motivation is clearly a sustainability factor in rural household water

access.

In addition to the foregoing factors that positively influence sustainability, a

degree of propinquity within the rural community is fundamental for sustainability.

The rural community’s willingness to maintain sustainable rural household water

access is a form of social cohesion which arises from the enjoyment of a shared

benefit. On the other hand, this can also present as a challenge as some researchers

have suggested, this community spirit may be directly threatened by the development

project and splinter the rural community (Carter, Tyrell, & Howsam, 1999).

2.3.2 Community Perception and Sustainability

Community perceptions are the total of the individual perceptions from the same

community (Qiong, 2017). This shows that such data can be used to gauge the level

of satisfaction to a particular product or service and is seen as valuable primary

feedback for sustainability as well as give rise to additional benefits and solutions to

water access barriers when incorporated in a sustainability assessments (Ferguson &

Bargh, 2004). Such information is therefore critical for the sustainability of a water

access service. It is also through the individual’s perception that we can derive

information when designing targeted interventions to increase their capacity and

performance (Abulencia, et al., 2010; Binder, 2008). Sustainability perception,

although subjective, has been known to reflect the community’s attitudes, beliefs and

behavior toward sustainability issues. In the context of this study, a community’s

sustainability perception gives important insights into their current rural household

48
water access services, its water quality, reliability and affordability, in addition to

their attitudes toward sustainable water practices.

There has been little said in the literature regarding sustainability assessments on

household water access service using the perception of a household water access

service in our rural barangays. The bulk of perception research focuses on marketing

and customer satisfaction, and software applications are derivatives from the

predecessor in the field which is SERVQUAL (Bhandari & Grant, 2007). While these

were designed to improve customer satisfaction, the study applies the same concepts

but instead of customer satisfaction, the end result is a sustainable, and effective water

governance regime, especially in the rural setting.

2.4 Summary

Current literature has shown that there are several factors identified to have a

direct impact on the sustainability of a rural household’s water access service. With

studies indicating that the involvement of beneficiaries can largely determine the

sustainability of a rural project or initiative, , it is important to revisit our rural

communities and in the context of perception of a rural household’s access to water

service (Wanjiru, 2014).

A review on the work done after the first UN Millennium Development Goals

(MDG) deadline in 2015, globally, water and sanitation are seen to be driven by two

issues. First is the need for continuity in the pursuit of human development goals. This

is a politically challenge since, the Philippine government, from its supposed

independence from its colonial masters in pre-world II era, has been to favor US

49
interests and kowtow to international interest to meet the 2010 United Nations

General Assembly resolution on the universal human right of access to safe water and

sanitation (64/292 (WHO, 2012).

In the UN resolution, approved in 2010, reaffirmed the major role that equitable

access to safe, clean drinking water and sanitation plays as an integral component for

realizing human rights as well create the conditions necessary for making household

water access service sustainable as a goal (WHO, 2012).

Perception can affect institutions, and the main reason for low perception has

been the continued below par performance of those responsible for household water

access services. There has been a failure in framing important issues in institutional

rather than technological terms (Narayan, 1994). In fact, it has been found that to see

rural water access primarily as a technology issue reduces the community’s incentive

and lowers motivation as the creation of neighborhood associations are seen more of a

compliance issue than actual concern for the locality (Narayan, 1994); (Bhandari &

Grant, 2007).

Over the years, much has been done to ensure universal household access to

water for domestic use. Table 5 shows a summary of fallacies surrounding rural water

access. By shedding light on such misinformation about the sustainability of

household rural water access services, community self-confidence is cultivated and

provides a sense of empowerment to act which furthers the long-term viability of

household water access.

50
 Chapter 3, Methods and Methodology will discuss the study’s operational

research design, the required data for collection, and finally, the analysis of collected

data. Additionally, this chapter outlines the process taken by the research from

determining the sample study area to determining the adequate sampling size for data

collection.

51
 Table 5. Some Myths On Rural Water Access

Myth Fact Argument

• the poor can pay and • poor families are unable to avail themselves of
The poor should be
oftentimes must pay more wholesale water discounts and often pay for
provided with free
than the rich. water at retail prices that are much more than the
water because they
are unable to pay • the poor are willing to pay wholesale price which the rich can get.
for reliable water services • In addition, they also must spend time traveling
(Narayan, 1994). some distance to get water, impacting their
health.
• those in poverty are found
Poor people are
to be creative due to their • the poor are more flexible and can easily adapt to
helpless and do not
condition in life. meet new challenges.
know what is good
for them • they have a different • with enough assistance, they often rise to meet
perspective on life. their challenges
• they can adjust more easily
than their rich counterparts.

• people become alienated for limited water resources to be spread to a large

The access service
and unwilling to participate segment of the population:
must be set at a
in collective action when
minimum so that it • financial subsidies should not move away from
they do not get what they
can be delivered the self-selection process of the community.
need.
equitably and given • the service level should be based on the
to as many as • estranged people refuse to
willingness of the household or community.
possible. pay for the stated fees.

More women will be • unless specifically targeted • women rarely become community leaders and
to develop their often do not participate in decision making.
reached if
beneficiary
empowerment, women will • women are often more disadvantaged than men
not be reached because they get less income, are more isolated,
participation is made
a goal receive minimal information, have poor health,
and have less educational opportunities.

The main task is to • in rural areas with few • innovations are key to unlocking the challenges
build and construct economies of scale, the of ownership, organization, and management of
and success is engineering departments water assets.
measured on its have more success with • public agencies should provide monitoring and
completion. monitoring and providing technical assistance as locally needed
technical support.

• master plans stunt the • extensive planning before implementation

Prior to
growth and evolution of paralyzes community decision making and tends
implementation,
participatory programs. to manipulate community choices to fit what has
extensive data
gathering is needed • data collection needs to already been decided.
in order to come up continue throughout project • the success of a water project depends on
with a standard implementation. community initiatives and its choices
approach.

Community decision • the participatory process is • while there is a tendency to underestimate a rural
making should be about giving a voice and a community’s achievement, they have been found
limited to well- choice to the people. able to manage both communal and private
defined parameters. • the participatory processes resources effectively.
entail giving control to the
communities.
Source: Adapted from Narayan, 1994

52
 CHAPTER 3. WATER GOVERNANCE IN THE PHILIPPINES

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the current state of water governance in the country as it

specifically affects rural household water access. The first section outlines the water

policies and laws that serve as the legal and institutional basis for water governance in

the Philippines. The next section discusses the institutional arrangements of water

governance that directly affect household water access. The last section deals with the

prevailing and emerging issues of water governance and sustainability in the country

as it relates to rural household water access.

3.2 Institutional Bases In Philippine Water Governance

While there are numerous laws and regulations dealing with the country’s water

resources, the following lists those that directly affect household rural water access

services and indirectly. its sustainability:

• RA 6234 (1971) – Creating the MWSS to replace NAWASA

• PD 424 (1974) – Creating the NWRC, the precursor of the NWRB
• PD 1067 (1976) – Water Code of the Philippines
• PD 1206 (1977) – Public Service Commission Board of Waterworks functions
assigned to the NWRB
• PD 1152 (1977) – Environmental Code of the Philippines
• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• EO 124-A (1987) – Converted NWRC into the NWRB
• RA 7160 (1991) – Local Government Code
• RA 7718 (1994) – PPP

53
 • RA 8041 (1995) – National Water Crises Act
• RA 9275 (2004) – Philippine Clean Water Act
• DOH-AO No. 2017-0010 (2017) – Philippine National Standards for Drinking
Water

The various laws and regulations affecting the country’s water resources are

meant to appropriate, control, and conserve freshwater resources. These laws were

created with the intention of fully developing, using, conserving, and protecting water

resources. Because water has numerous applications, water resource management

functions have been conferred among various agencies, based on how these water

resources are seen and used under their areas of responsibility, such as the DOH,

MWSS, LWUA, DENR, and DILG. The responsibility for coordination and overall

management is bestowed on NWRB as its basic mandate.

Although these regulations look good on paper, their implementation and

enforcement leave room for improvement. The devolution of providing basic public

services, such as household water access, to LGUs has since been provided, but has

not been properly handed down to them. Often, these laws are conflicting, if not

confusing, leading the community to surrender certain household water access

liberties such as the choice to avail themselves of free household access to potable

water.

54
3.3 Water Institutions And Arrangements

In Chapter 1, the discussion of the state of water institutions throughout the

Philippines covers the many uses of freshwater resources. As such, it was observed

that numerous institutions involved have overlapping functions, resulting in a fracture

in implementation and enforcement. However, when it comes to providing household

water access services, the four main government agencies involved were:

• The Department of Health (DOH),

• The Metropolitan Water Works and Sewerage System (MWSS),

• Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

• The National Water Resources Board (NWRB), and

• The Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA).

The DOH is responsible for establishing the technical parameters for water

quality, as well as implementing rules and regulations to ensure that the water

delivered or used by households is safe for human consumption. Although their

main concern is general public health, the DOH recognizes the need for safe

drinking water to be part of a society’s well-being. As a national agency and part

of the executive branch, the DOH has a national mandate that is accomplished

through its field offices across the country. Thus, it is no surprise that the DOH

has issued numerous memos and administrative orders affecting the technical and

practical aspects of the country’s water quality. One such memo is circular 2021-

0063 which created an operation manual for local drinking water and the

establishment of the local drinking water quality monitoring committee

(LDWQMC) tasked with drinking quality monitoring. The other was the DOH

55
 Administrative Order (AO) 2017-0010, that provided the Philippine National

Standards for Drinking Water (PNSDW) to protect general public health. Part and

parcel of sound disaster risk management was also the reason for the DOH AO

2020-0032, that provided for a national policy on water, sanitation, and hygiene

(WASH), which is of great importance in times of crises, emergencies, and

disasters.

The MWSS, created by the Republic Act (RA) 6234, is mandated to

• Ensure the proper operation and maintenance of a waterworks system.

• Ensure the sustainability of supply and distribution of potable water

for household use.

• The proper monitoring and maintenance of sewerage systems.

Given their jurisdiction, which covers the entire metropolitan Manila, as well as

parts of Rizal and Cavite, the MWSS can be seen as a two-part agency, namely the

corporate office and the regulatory office. The functions are summarized in Table 6.

To further strengthen this institution, Executive Order (EO) 149 S.2021 was

issued, which transferred the administrative supervision of the MWSS from the

DPWH directly to the Office of the President.

56
Table 6. MWSS Functions

MWSS Area Functions

Collaborate with water concessionaires
in identifying and developing new water
sources
Improve the exercise of the agency
powers to the concessionaires
Proper appropriation of MWSS loans
used in the performance of its functions
as well as those of existing projects
Corporate Office
Assure effective and transparent control
over all retained earnings
Properly perform services or functions
as defined in concession agreements
Define and implement concession
agreements, including concessionaire
and customer contracts and service level
agreements
Audit & reporting
Responsible for the rules on cost
allocation and rate-setting methods
Reevaluation of water supply and
sewerage rates as well as the
Regulatory Office Extraordinary Price adjustments and
provisions on Rate Rebasing for water
Take action to prosecution and defense
proceedings before the Appeals panel
Take litigation and defense proceedings
before the Appeals panel

Source: mwss.gov.ph & ro.mwss.gov.ph, ND

The NWRB, was created in 1974 as the agency that will:

• Coordinate and regulate all water resources management and activities

• Formulate and develop national policies on water use and distribution

• Management and supervision of water utilities and franchises

• Perusal and management of water rates

57
 The NWRB’s main purpose is to ensure the orderly and scientific development of

all the water resources of the country, following the sustainable development principle

of maximum use, conservation, and protection of current needs without adversely

affecting its benefits for future generations.

LWUA is a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC) created by

PD 198 in 1973, later amended in 2010, to promote and regulate the development of

water supply systems through its financial and technical services and developing local

water districts to be sustainable. LWUA can be said to be the MWSS counterpart for

provinces and municipalities in the countryside. It has the authority and responsibility

to set standards that govern local water utilities, the WSP, and water districts. The

agency also collaborates with other government agencies to ensure its viability and

effectiveness.

These agencies interact, coordinate, and have been able to do their jobs well.

However, bureaucracy needs to flatten so as not to intimidate the citizenry it serves or

create the perception that government services take too much time. The use of

available technology and tools, such as desk/laptop computers and smartphones, can

expedite and streamline existing processes. However, the status quo appears to prefer

labor-intensive automation, and such a culture should be challenged. Figure 6

provides a picture of the relationship between water agencies that have a direct hand

with regard to household water access.

58
 Figure 6. Organizational Relationship of Water Agencies

Office of the
President
NWRB / LWUA

NEDA
Infrastructure

DOH
DPWH DA DENR DOE DILG
EHS/BRL
MWSS/BRS/PM BSWM/BFA FMB/EMB/ NPC/OEA/NEA LGUs/OMO-
O-RWS/PMO- R/NIA LLDA/NAMRIA/ WSSP
MFCP MGB

DOTC DOST DTI DND DOT

PPA PAGASA BOI OCD PTA
PCARNRRD PAF

Source: Adopted from PAcificWater.org, 2012 and Asian Development Bank, 2022

3.4 Prevailing And Emerging Issues

With the top-to-bottom unitary character of our government, composed of several

layers, the status quo of authority over water resources, especially in rural household

water access, remains with the top echelons. Despite an existing law mandating the

delegation and devolution of functions that provide basic public services to the LGU,

there is empirical evidence of the LGU’s heavy dependence on the central

government. Barangays, as the basic distribution mechanism of public goods and

services, are treated more as political units than administrative units. Hence, instead

59
of providing an equitable and efficient distribution service, political patronage and

rent seeking take over the process. Mismanagement occurs at the basic level.

This situation casts doubt on the sustainability of household water access,

especially in the countryside. When households in a community are ignored and kept

out of discussions regarding their household water access, community support wanes,

and with it, the maintenance and sustainability of such water access.

While actual devolution, as described in the Civil Code, does not seem to be on

the horizon, making for a gloomy setting, there is an emerging movement toward

togetherness as a nation initiated by both government and citizens.

Moreover, an observable shift in institutionalizing gender equality remains stable

and robust(Bhandari & Grant, 2007). This is no surprise since women have been

found to be the primary decision makers when it comes to rural household water

access services(UNDP, 2006). The involvement of women in rural water access

schemes leads to timely solutions that collectively benefit rural communities (Sandys,

2005). By capitalizing on their unique skills developed and sharpened through

traditional roles as household and child development managers, conservation and

awareness initiatives are better handled when women are employed (OECD, 2018);

(Benedict & Hussein, 2019) In fact, from121 rural supply projects financed by the

World Bank, those with active women involvement were found to be 6 to 7 times

more effective than those without(World Bank, 1995). Notwithstanding the invaluable

services and talent that women bring to the table, they still remain marginalized and

underrepresented in the context of sustainable household rural water access services

(Njie & T. Ndiaye; Sadoff, Borgomeo, & De Waal, 2017). The attainment of the goal

of having universally improved rural household water and sanitation access services

can be achieved sooner if women are allowed and encouraged to take part, as equals

60
to their male counterparts( FAO, 2016). This will result in LGUs’ ability to give

households in the community equal time and opportunities to seek other sources of

income and enable them to engage in local governance while at the same time

ensuring that community matters affect sustainable household water access services.

Sustainability is made easier if members of the community feel good about

themselves and are financially secure. An example is the AngatBuhay 2040 project

movement spearheaded by the NEDA in 2015. This program aims to uplift the

condition of the Filipino by encouraging the community to take charge of their future

through the realization of three defined Filipino character value goals: Matatag,

Maginhawa, and Panatag na Buhay(David C. , 2015). Through dialogues, tie-ups,

projects, and activities with government agencies, international institutions, and the

private sector, it is envisioned to be accomplished by 2040.

61
 CHAPTER 4. METHODS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the methods and methodology used in this study. With a

focus on the rural barangay as a basic unit that is comprised of constituent

households, this descriptive quantitative research aim is to determine:

• Determine the relationship between community perception and the

sustainability of their household rural water access service.

• Come up with an easy-to-use dipstick assessment mechanism for the rural

barangay, as the delivery arm of the local government, that will determine

the level of the sustainability of their rural water access service.

Through the application of quantitative research design, the study begins with the

identification of qualitative data needed by the study and ends with the final field

collection of said data, through a 3-FSAQ survey.

4.2 Research Design

The study employed a quantitative descriptive research design with an inductive

approach and guided by the SERVQUAL framework (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, &

Berry, 1988). The responses were then tallied and encoded into Excel as well as the

IBM SPSS programs to expedite data manipulation for statistical analysis.

62
 The specially designed structured self-administered survey (3-FSAQ) used the

three (3) sustainability components (FTI, SP and E) which follows the sustainability

model shown in Figure 5 (Chapter 2). The data collection was conducted in four (4)

rural barangays in the municipality of Victoria in the province of Tarlac, on the main

Philippine Island of Luzon. Additionally, an external desk review of secondary

sources was performed prior to review and gain some insights on rural household

water access service and ways to assess its sustainability.

The research also describes what was noticed and observed during the conduct of

the surveys and transcribed into informal notes which can be referred to in Appendix

14.

The 3-Factor self-administered questionnaire referred to as the 3-FSAQ) is the

mechanism that captures the quantitative (categorical, nominal, and ordinal) data,

utilizing the Likert five (5) scale measure and served as the primary instrument for

data collection. The 3-FSAQ is made up of two (2) parts, namely, the Profile section

and the Evaluation portion.

The Profile section gives data about the socio-demographic characteristics and

local water use practices of the local households. The second part, the evaluation

portion, is made up of three (3) sections. The first covers the FTI sustainability factors

and has nine (9) statements to evaluate, each representing a water sustainability

indicator. The second section covers the SP sustainability factors which are presented

and organized the same way as FTI component. The final part covers the E

sustainability component and has six (6) statements to evaluate.

This quantitative study addresses the gaps in knowledge previously outlined in

Chapter 1. Briefly, that there is a great need for more studies on community and

63
household perception and how it affects local capacity to sustain public services such

as the sustainability of a rural household’s water access service. Figure 7 summarizes

the quantitative research design adopted by the study.

Figure 7. Quantitative Research Design

3-FSAQ

2 Barangay level
I/II
2 Barangay level
Tally Into Frequency
Tables
- Each barangay
- By Access Service
Level

(Excel) Statistical
Analysis (Descriptive)
of the data’s Central
Tendencies, Normal
Distribution.

(IBM SPSS) Statistical Sustainability

FINDINGS:
Analysis using Scoring (SS).
Per Barangay
Spearman rho to Assigning values
All barangays
determine the presence represents, by
Per service level
of a relationship, its barangay then by
magnitude and service level
direction
Quantitative Analysis
(Exploratory Data Analysis)
Comparison of correlation and
SS findings using content
analysis

CONCLUSION

Source: Creswell, 2013; Behrens, 1997; Kothari, 1990

64
 The identification of the research data was accomplished in three (3) phases. The

first phase involves conducting a desktop search and eventual visit to

The identified possible sample study area, which in this study, is the province of

Source: (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985); (Tropp, 2007); (Creswell, 2013)

In Tarlac, while several municipalities looked promising on desktop review, a site

visit to the province was conducted. First, from the 19th to the 21st of July 2019 and

again from the 29th to the 31st of July 2019. The visits to the four (4) potential study

sites of Paniqui, Ramos, and Pura revealed a large information disparity between what

can be found, written or online, versus the actual local conditions. It was in the

municipality of Victoria, where the study’s criteria were met. Additional notes on this

activity can be found in Appendix 15 (Tarlac Field Notes).

Having identified the sample municipality, informal talks, and interview between

municipal officials (such as the Mayor, the Municipal Engineer, the Municipal

Planner and some representatives from the nearby barangays). The research team

made a courtesy call with the municipal Mayor for the purpose of introduction,

getting familiar with the locality as well as the identification of Level I/II and III rural

water access service coverage, per barangay, for all the barangays of the municipality.

Armed with the various information about the barangays in the municipality of

Victoria, in Tarlac province, came the second phase with the design of the 3-FSAQ,

and the formulation of the statements based on the conceptual framework. Figures 8

to 10 show the analytical framework and illustrate the process behind the statement

design and survey statements which will be evaluated in the 3-FSAQ, using a 5-point

Likert scale.

65
 use
Ease of
Our household water service is easy to use and
maintain

Water
security
Our household stores water for emergency use

Source: 3-FSAQ
Water
Quality
The water we get is good for both cooking and drinking.
Water
Safety
Our household stores water in properly sealed containers

We can always expect the same quality water access

Reliability

service at any time.

The cost for our household water access service is

affordable.
Affordability

We can expect our local government to take immediate action when our
household water access service is interrupted
LGU
Figure 8. Financial, Technical & Institutional (FTI) – Design Process

Our water provider listens to what our household needs to give

better water service
WSP
Responsiveness

Our rural water access service meets our households daily water
Financial, Technical, Institutional

needs.

66
Sufficiency
 Our household is always informed by the local government on
situations that may affect our water access service.

Transparency
Our household rural water is convenient and easily

Accessibility
accessible.

Source: 3-FSAQ
Our household can get drinking water from other available
water sources. Equitability

Our household immediately reports or fixes any

water leaks we detect.
Proper
Technology

Our household participates with the community in the

decision-making process that affects household water
Figure 9. Social-Political (SP) – Design Process

Maintenance

access.
Our household takes action when our water
Monitoring

access is interrupted.
Social-Political

Our household is always ready to help other households with

their water needs when needed.
Community
Cohesiveness

Any additional costs from our rural water access service are
Cost

evenly distributed among the households in a community.

Equality

67
Our household rural water access service is just like what other
Service
Equality

households have in our community.

 We turn off running water while brushing teeth, shaving and hand or
face washing.

Personal
Our household uses native plants for our garden.

Garden

Source: 3-FSAQ
Water Conservation
AL
Our household schedules when we do our laundry.

Laundry
Figure 10. Environment (E) – Design Process

We clean and maintain water canals and sewer

Protection
Environmental

drains near our house.

ENVIRONMENT

Our household disposes our garbage in designated garbage

collection points.
(Solid Waste)
Risk Reduction

Our household uses environmentally friendly products.

whenever possible

68
Risk Reduction
(Biodegradable)
 With the initial statements produced from the above process, a 3-Factor SAQ

survey was created (Appendix 1). Named by the research as the 3-FSAQ, the beta

version was tested for validity in an informal test survey conducted with 6 volunteer

households in barangay UP campus, in Quezon City.

The field survey team was made up of the researcher, a volunteer research

assistant, and seven (7) experienced survey enumerators who are residents of the

municipality who were locally referred by the LGU and took instructions directly

from the research team. The survey was carried out from the 16th to the 18th of August

2019, at the barangay halls of the selected barangays in the municipality of Victoria,

Tarlac.

69
4.3 Acronyms and Operational Definitions

The following terms are defined for this study:

Barangay: The basic political and administrative unit of the Philippine government
that oversees legally defined local communities. According to RA 7160, it is
composed of contiguous territories with a population of at least two thousand (2,000)
inhabitants (RA 7160, 1991). In this study, the word “community” is interchanged
with the barangay, and vice versa.

BFAR: Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

BRL: Bureau of Research and Laboratories

BSWM: Bureau of soil and Waste Management

DA: Department of Agriculture

CBD: Commercial Business District

Capacity development: The process by which an individual, community, society, or

organization, through the improvement of knowledge, skills, systems, and institutions,
develop their capacities to attain mutually agreed social and economic goals
(UNISDR, 2009).

Community Perception: Average of the aggregate household perception.

DENR: Department of Environment and Natural Resources

DILG: Department of Interior and Local Government

DILG-PMO-RWSS: DILG-Project Management Office-Rural Water Supply and

Sanitation Project

DND: Department of National Defense

DOE: Department of Energy

DOF: Department of Finance

DOH: Department of Health

DOT: Department of Tourism

DPWH: Department of Public Works and Highways

DPWH-PMO-MFCP: DPWH-Project Management Office-Major Flood Control

Project

DPWH-PMO-RWS: DPWH-Project Management Office-Rural Water Supply

70
DPWH-PMO-SWIM: DPWH-Project Management Office-Flood Control

DOST: Department of Science and Technology

DOT: Department of Transportation

DOTC: Department of Transportation and Communication

DTI: Department of Trade and Industry

Domestic use: Refers to the various uses of water by the household such as for
cooking, bathing, washing, drinking, backyard gardening, personal hygiene, and
sanitation (UNDP, 2013). Used interchangeably with Household use.

EHS: Environmental Health Sciences

EMB: Environmental Management Bureau

Engagement: Refers to the involvement and actions done by individuals from a given
community in the process of participation. Used interchangeably with Participation
(Dungumaro & Madulu, 2003).

FMB: Forest Management Bureau

Governance: The use of economic, political, and administrative authority in

managing all levels of a country’s affairs (UNDP, 1997).

Household: a basic social unit in a community, consisting of at least one (1) person,
living alone, or a group of persons who sleep in a common housing unit with food
preparation and consumption arrangement.1

Institutions: Longtime rules, procedures, and practices that continue to dictate or

affect human interactions. These rules can be formal (such as rules and laws) or
informal (such as norms, conventions, and traditions). In these contexts, it is used to
link society to nature with the aim of regulating societal use of the environment for
socio-ecological objectives (Burton, Cutter, & Emrich, 2010).

IWRM: A process that fosters the coordinated development and management of

water and related resources for the purpose of maximizing economic, and social
welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the environment (Global Water
Partnership, 2002).

LGU: Local Government Unit

LLDA: Laguna Lake Development Authority

1
PSA website at http://nap.psa.gov.ph/glossary/popn.asp accessed on January 14, 2019.

71
LWUA: Local Water Utilities Administration

MGB: Mines and Geosciences Bureau

MMDA: Metro Manila Development Authority

MWSS: Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System

NAMRIA: National Mapping and Resources Information Authority

NEA: National Electrification Administration

NAPOCOR: National Power Corporation

NEDA: National Economic Development Authority

NIA: National Irrigation Authority

NPC: National Power Corporation

NWRB: National Water Resources Board

OCD: Office of Civil Defense

PAF: Philippine Air Force

PAGASA: Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical, and Astronomical Services

Administration

PCAFNRRD: Philippine Council for Agriculture Forestry, Natural Resources and

Resource Research and Development

Participation: a voluntary process by which individuals from a community can

collectively influence or have some control over decisions and actions affecting their
water access. The spirit of such participation is founded in the democratic principle of
being heard and having alternative choices considered (Narayan, 1994).

Perception: A thought process that deals with the human sensory experience and
transforms any stimulus into meaningful and actionable information (Qiong, 2017). In
this study, household perception gives a clue to the community’s future behavior and
stand to support rural household water access service initiatives , such that the better
the perception, the more positive it is and is expected to contribute more to make such
service sustainability possible. It is also an individual impression of something that is
based on previous experience or a propagated idea.

PNSDW: Philippine National Standards for Drinking Water (2017)

PPA: Philippine Ports Authority

PTA: Philippine Tourism Authority

72
Resilience: In the context of sustainability, resilience is a characteristic of a system
that can survive the disastrous effects of a natural or man-made hazard and can
bounce back from such events better than before.

Retail Water: Retail water is defined in this paper as clean, filtered, and potable
water for drinking or personal hygiene that is purchased from commercial water
refilling stations and the like.

Rural Barangay: A barangay is considered rural if it has fewer than 5 establishments

with ten (10) to ninety-nine (99) employees, and less than five (5) facilities inside a
two (2) km radius from where the barangay hall is located. In addition, the absence of
any of the following further classifies a barangay into rural (PSA, 2015):

• A building that houses the town/city hall or the provincial capital

• A church, chapel, or mosque with services at least once a month

• A public plaza, park, or cemetery

• marketplace or building where trading activities are carried out at least once a
week.

• public building like school (elementary, high school, and college), hospital,
puericulture or health center, or library

• landline telephone system or calling station or cellular phone signal.

• postal service or public fire-protection service

• community waterworks system or public-street sweeper

• seaport in operation

Self-Sufficiency: The ability to independently decide upon a selection or a course of

action to be taken in case of sudden interruptions.

Sustainability: The management of water resources in a manner that ensures its

benefits for both current and future generations (Brundtland, 1987). In this study,
Sustainability is not a goal to be met but a state to be achieved and maintained (or
monitored) over periods in time. It can also be seen as a way of thinking that will
bring about the continued enjoyment of a common benefit.

Sustainability of water access service (Functional Sustainability): A state or

condition of a public service or function that satisfies a common need without
adversely affecting the environment, characterized by its continuity over periods of
time.

73
Safe Drinking Water: Water that is free of microorganisms or disease-producing
bacteria (pathogens). In addition, the water should not possess undesirable tastes,
odors, color, levels of radioactivity, turbidity or chemicals, and it should pass the
standards of the Philippine National Standards for Drinking Water. Operationally
considered sources of safe drinking water are: piped water, public tap, boreholes or
pump, protected well.(PSA, 2017).

Water District: a local corporation that is government-owned and/or controlled that

is set up to operate and maintain a water supply and delivery system in one or more
provincial cities or municipalities (LWUA, 2017).

Water Governance: Range of political, social, economic, and administrative systems

in place for the development of water resources as well as the delivery of water
services to the different levels of society (Rogers & Hall, 2003; Global Water
Partnership, 2002).

Water Quality: Determined by the smell, taste and clarity from a consumer’s
viewpoint. Technical specifications are determined by the DOH and conducted under
laboratory settings.

WSP: Water Service Provider

74
4.4 Study Area

In the Philippines, Luzon is the largest and most developed island and is located

at the northern part of the Philippine archipelago. It is also home to Metro-Manila

(MM) - the country’s largest metropolitan area with the highest population density.

Not surprisingly, Luzon is also the most developed island in the Philippines, serving

as home to the economic and political hubs of the country.

However, outside of MM are substantial scatterings of rural communities with

varying water access service levels. In choosing the study area, the location should be

mostly level land and landlocked. Of the country’s eighty-one (81) provinces, fifteen

(15) are landlocked. Of the fifteen (15) landlocked provinces, twelve (12) are in

Luzon (PhilAtlas, 2019). Of these, only the province of Tarlac has mostly plains.

Geographically and historically known to be the melting pot of Luzon, the

province of Tarlac, at the crossroads of four provinces, has a diversified population

hailing from most regions in Luzon. This Province plays a crucial role as a source of

agricultural produce as well as being a key steward to the Agno River basin and

watershed system which is a major source of freshwater for the rest of the main island

of Luzon, including Metro Manila.

The sampling method used to identify the study used both probability and

purposive sampling strategies in accordance with the quantitative research method.

This method involves dividing the target study population into the study’s identified

scale or level. This method is akin to taking a random sample of a small number of

units from a much bigger target population (Kemper, Stringfield, & Teddlie, 2003).

From Figure 11, mapping Victoria, Tarlac, we can see that the province of Tarlac

lies on a valley between the mountain ranges of Zambales to the west and Benguet on

75
its northeast. These qualities make the Province of Tarlac an ideal provincial area for

the study.

Figure 11. Mapping Victoria, Tarlac

Source: Google Maps

76
In choosing the municipality where the survey questionnaire will be fielded, the

following criteria were applied:

• It should have a Water Service Provider (WSP) such as a rural or

municipal water service district that provides water access service.

• It should have half its rural communities under level I or II water access

service.

The presence of an MWD or RWSP indicates that there are communities with

improved access to water for domestic use or those with level III type water access. It
S
also indicates a viable water access service and some processes or practices already in
a
place and as desired by the rural community. The second criteria arenrequired by the
t
study in the assessment of the sustainability of rural household watera access for
B
domestic use, where Level I/II and Level III water access will be compared and
a
correlated. r
b
Of the seventeen (17) municipalities of Tarlac, only the municipality
a of Victoria
r
meets the study’s criteria. Table 6 shows the population in the municipality
a of

Victoria, broken by class, barangay population, approximate households, and water

access service level.

The municipality of Victoria is in the northeast part of the province of Tarlac. It

has a land area of 110 km2 (40.60 mile2) representing 3.65% of the province’s total

land area. With a population of 63,715, Victoria represents 4.66% of the provincial

population or 0.57% of the overall population of the Central Luzon region. The

population density is 571 inhabitants per km2 or 1,480 inhabitants per mile2 (PSA,

2015). Table 7 provides the estimated average number of households by water access

service level in Victoria, Tarlac. Also, Table 6 also shows that of the twenty-six (26)

barangays in Victoria, eight enjoy Level III water access service provided by the

77
Balibago Water Service - a private water provider contracted by the municipality. Of

the remaining barangays, there are still eighteen (18) barangays with either Level I or

II water access service.

4.5 Target Population

As defined by (Grinnell & Williams, 1990), the target population is the totality of

persons or objects that the research is concerned or focused on. In this study, the

barangays in the municipality of Victoria are the target population and the unit of

analysis is the household.

4.6 Sample Size and Sampling Technique

To arrive at the target population sample size, the study identified the water

access service level of each barangay from information provided by the municipality.

Applying the stratified sampling technique, the study selected the top two (2)

barangays with the highest number of households per water access service level. This

will provide the study with four (4) sample barangays. From these four (4) barangays,

the number of households is summed up in Table 7 to provide the target population

sample size.

78
Table 7. No. Of Households And Water Access By Barangay (Victoria, Tarlac)

Barangay2 Class Bgy. Pop.3 # of HH4 Access Level

(I, II or III)
Baculong Urban 4087 950 II
Balayang Rural 3257 757 II
Balbaloto Rural 1942 452 II
Bangar Rural 2255 524 II
Bantog Rural 2207 513 II
Batangbatang Rural 1380 321 II
Bulo Rural 2428 565 II
Cabuluan Rural 1339 311 II
Calibungan Rural 2363 619 II
Canarem Rural 2181 507 II
Cruz Rural 1869 435 II
Lalapac Rural 2221 517 II
Maluid Rural 3081 717 III
Mangolago Rural 2477 576 II
Masalasa Rural 1691 393 II
Palacpalac Rural 1672 389 II
San Agustin Rural 3204 745 II
San Andres Rural 2211 514 II
San Fernando (Pob.) Rural 3098 720 III
San Francisco Rural 1603 373 III
San Gavino (Pob.) Rural 2268 527 III
San Jacinto Rural 3248 755 II
San Nicolas (Pob.) Rural 2739 637 III
San Vicente Rural 2103 489 III
Santa Barbara Rural 5230 1216 III
Santa Lucia (Pob.) Rural 1561 363 III
SOURCE: PSA, 2015 & Municipality of Victoria, 2019
Level I/II Level III

2
https://psa.gov.ph/classification/psgc/?q=psgc/barangays/036917000&page=1
3
As of 2015 census
4
Based on an average household size of 4.3 (Ave Tarlac Provincial # of HH + Ave Victoria # of HH /
2) from the 2015 census

79
 Using Survey Monkey5, we calculate an acceptable statistical sample size of three

hundred forty-eight (348) using the target population size of three thousand four

hundred forty-eight (3,448) with a ninety-five percent (95%) confidence level and a

five percent (5%) margin of error. Table 8 summarizes the figures used to determine

the barangay sample size.

Table 8. Barangay Sampling

Barangay Population Approx # of HH6 Sample Size7

Balayang 3,257 757 77

(22%)

San Jacinto 3,248 755 77

(22%)

Santa Barbara 5,230 1216 122

(35%)

San Fernando 3,098 720 72

(21%)
Total 3,448 348
Source: PSA, 2015 & Municipality of Victoria, 2019

5
Survey Monkey is an online survey and sampling service from
https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-
calculator/?cmpid=&cvosrc=&keyword=%2Bsurveymonkey%20%2Bsample&matchtype=b&network
=g&mobile=0&searchntwk=1&creative=291733534009&adposition=1t1&campaign=60_Shared_Goo
gle_WW_English_Search_Brand_Beta&cvo_campaign=60_Shared_Google_WW_English_Search_Br
and_Beta&cvo_adgroup=&dkilp=&cvo_creative=&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&utm_co
ntent=291733534009&utm_adgroup=56921819204&utm_term=%2Bsurveymonkey%20%2Bsample&
utm_bu=Core&utm_network=g&utm_campaign=1402109702&&gclid=Cj0KCQjwgezoBRDNARIsA
GzEfe5PzQ_tnvXE0XGpDASM1qhGlNfj0SaqxUFD18fjcgXMmXQCPXma3q4aAvXhEALw_wcB
accessed on June 15, 2019.
6
Approximation is arrived at by dividing Population by 4.3 (average HH size) (PSA, 2015)
7
Rounded

80
4.7 Selected Barangay Profiles8

This section details the profiles of the selected Barangays in the Municipality of

Victoria. This study requested the municipality to provide a list of all barangays and

their corresponding rural water service. From the list provided, two (2) barangays

with rural water access service Level I or II were selected with another two (2) with

service Level III. Respectively, these are San Jacinto and Balayang for Level I/II and

San Fernando and Santa Barbara for Level III.

4.7.1 Santa Barbara

Barangay Santa Barbara is located just east of the Municipal Hall. It has a

population of approximately 5,323 whose median age is 25 years old. With the

Barangay’s land area of 458.68 hectares, Santa Barbara is considered the most

densely populated barangay in the municipality of Victoria.

Barangay Santa Barbara’s main source of income comes mainly from agricultural

and farming services, where approximately 30% (or 1,597) of the barangay’s

population depend on it.

Residents of Barangay Santa Barbara are innovative hard workers and can be

described as self-sufficient and adaptable. This observation is further supported by the

existence of other sources of income coming from both regular salaries and through

outsourced service contracts (self-employment). It is classified by the municipality as

a level III rural water access. This access service level is made possible by a joint

8 Barangay profile information were provided by the Municipality of Victoria, 2018.

81
service contract between the Municipality of Victoria and Balibago Waterworks

System (Municipality of Victoria, Tarlac., 2019). Figure 12 shows the geographical

location of barangay Santa Barbara in the municipality of Victoria, Tarlac.

Figure 12. Map of Barangay Santa Barbara

Distance to
Municipal Hall /
Población Area):
2.43 km (1.51
miles)

Source: Google Maps, 2019

82
4.7.2 San Fernando

West of the Municipal Hall is barangay San Fernando, with a total land area of

153.40 hectares and home to some 3,120 people (PSA, 2015). With its various

commercial establishments, some family-owned, barangay San Fernando can be said

to be the commercial district of the Municipality of Victoria. It also houses the Tarlac

Electric Cooperative (TARELCO I), and the Memorial High School.

Other than farming, income sources in barangay San Fernando include local and

overseas employment, as well as outsourced service contracts.

The barangay also serves as the Población, where the Municipal Hall of Victoria

is located, and like barangay Santa Barbara, also enjoys Level III water access service

from Balibago Waterworks.

Figure 13 shows the geographical location of barangay Santa Fernando in the

municipality of Victoria, Tarlac.

83
Figure 13. Map of Barangay San Fernando

Distance to Municipal
Hall / Población
Area):
901.36 m (2,957.23
ft)

Source: Google Maps, 2019

84
4.7.3 Balayang

Barangay Balayang is located southeast of the Municipal Hall of Victoria. With a

land area of 729.41 hectares, and a population of 3,257 (PSA, 2015), barangay

Balayang is the most sparsely populated. Its main source of income comes from

farming and agricultural services. While self-employment and other work

opportunities exist, these are all related to agriculture.

With its low population density, it comes as no surprise that the barangay rural

water access service here is classified by the municipality of Victoria as Level I/II.

Figure 14 shows the geographical location of barangay Balayang in the

municipality of Victoria, Tarlac.

Figure 14. Map of Barangay Balayang

Distance to
Municipal Hall /
Población Area):
3.85 km (2.39
miles)

Source: Google Maps, 2019

85
4.7.4 San Jacinto

Barangay San Jacinto is southwest of the Municipal Hall of Victoria. It has a

population of 3,248 and a land area of 321.99 hectares. Like most barangays in the

municipality, the main industry in barangay San Jacinto is Farming and related

agricultural ventures.

The barangay, like Balayang, is classified by the municipality as having a Level

I/II rural water access service, and outside of the Balibago Waterworks system.

Figure 15 shows the geographical location of barangay San Jacinto in the

municipality of Victoria, Tarlac.

Figure 15. Map of Barangay San Jacinto

Distance to
Municipal Hall /
Población Area):
2.70 km (1.68 miles)

Source: Google Maps, 2019

86
4.8 Sampling Procedures

Using the sample size of three hundred forty-eight (348), and applying the sample

proportional-cluster sampling method, the study determined the number of samples

for each barangay using the proportions previously shown on Table 7.

Households, through a volunteer participant act as the representative family

member who is at least 21 years old and has some responsibility regarding their

household water access service, are invited to participate and chosen randomly by the

survey team on the day of the survey. The survey team were composed of

compensated volunteers from the local barangays where the survey was conducted.

Other requirements, such as use of the barangay hall and the distribution of thank-you

tokens to the survey participants, were made possible with the full support of the LGU

of Victoria.

4.9 Data Collection Tools /Techniques

The data collection tool of general acceptance in social research is the

survey/questionnaire, face to face interviews, observation, and focus groups. This

study will employ the survey/questionnaire, in particular the self-administered survey

(3-FSAQ) as its primary data collection method. In addition, data from relevant

national agencies such as the Department of Environment and Natural Resources

(DENR), the Department of Health (DOH), National Anti-Poverty Commission

(NAPC), Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), and the LGU’s will be sought.

Prior to the actual survey, the 3-F3-FSAQ was tested using a group of about ten

(10) volunteers from the municipality of Victoria. The feedback obtained during this

87
test was used to further improve the 3-FSAQ statements for evaluation to ensure the

validity, reliability and appropriateness of the sought data is collected. The test also

provided the survey team with better insights that will provide participants with clear

and easy to understand language.

The required time allotted for the actual 3-FSAQ was considered and is part of

the pre-departure activities as indicated in the Research Timeline in Appendix 2.

In addition, to facilitate the collection of the requisite data, Table 8 outlines the

study’s data sources.

The 3-FSAQ was designed following the conceptual framework of the study (see

Chapter 1, page 17). It is made up of two (2) main parts, namely the respondent

profile and the questionnaire portion.

The questionnaire portion is made up of 24 statements which are evaluated using

a five (5) point scale from highly agree, assigned to choose number one (1), followed

by agree (choice number 2), neither agree or disagree (choice number 3), disagree

(choice number 4) and highly disagree (choice number 5). The statements are

arranged according to the sustainability pillars of Financial, Technical, and

Institutional (FTI), Social-Political (SP) and Environmental (E). Thus statements 1 to

10 deals with FTI, statements 11 to 20 on SP and statements 21 to 30 on E (see

Figures 2-4 previously).

Informal field notes and audio interviews (where possible) were also performed

during a weeklong field visit of Victoria from late July (29th to 31) to early August

(1,2,5,6) in 2019, and provided additional ground information and insights to the

barangay’s situation. These visits were meant to primarily get a feel of the socio-

political and environmental atmosphere of the barangay as well as the municipality of

Victoria. The activities conducted during these times involved shadowing the

88
 municipal mayor9 as he made his daily rounds. Encounters with the public, as the

mayor made his rounds, were data collection opportunities and these informal field

notes helped in the analysis of the collected data. The 3-FSAQ survey was conducted

from the 16th to the 18th of August 2019 with the help of municipal worker volunteers,

who were given prior instructions and procedures. Additional data was identified,

together with its source, as shown in Table 9.

Table 9. Data Sources

Data Description Source
Water Availability
Water sources (main and Ground, Surface, Rain, Retail10 LGU, Water Districts, LGU
alternatives)
Water Collection and HH water storage, water access, Survey, LWUA, LGU
Distribution distance from the source
Water Quality
Water Pollution Protection, Conservation LGU, DENR
Water Contamination Water quality, monitoring, Water District, Health Dept.,
maintenance DOH
Water Practices
Cooking & Drinking Volume consumed per HH member per Survey, PSA, LGU
day
Hygiene & Sanitation The volume used per HH (member or survey, LGU, DOH, NAPC
HH)
Livelihood How it relates to the volume used by PSA, LGU
HH
Population
Household size Persons living in the HH
Survey
Migration Patterns How extended is the HH (transients,
LGU, PSA
visiting/out of town relatives, others)
Source: PSA & ICF, 2018

9
Mayor C. T. Yap
10
Retail water is defined as clean, filtered and potable water for drinking or personal hygiene that is
purchased from commercial water refilling station and the like.

89
4.9.1 3 Factor Self-Administered Questionnaire (3-FSAQ)

Saunders et al. (2016), defined a survey questionnaire as a method of collecting

data where participants are asked to respond to the same set of questions in a

predetermined order. The advantage of the 3-FSAQ is that it allows for the collection

of data from the sizeable population in a highly economical way, (Kothari, 1990).

Further, the questionnaire method has the following advantages of time and economy.

The main attraction of a 3-FSAQ is the relative ease of gathering a large set of

responses.

4.9.2 Document Review

To acquaint and familiarize the research on the state of household rural water

access sustainability of the locality, an external document review was conducted

focusing on historical as well as current information regarding factors that may affect

the perception of sustainability of a household rural water access at service levels II

and III. Permission to access these documents were given and provided by the

municipality of Victoria through the strong support and full cooperation of the Office

of the Mayor (Hon. C. T. Yap).

90
4.10 Data Reliability and Validity

Data reliability and validity are important concepts to consider ensuring the

quality of the research. These two (2) determines what effective research method and

techniques to be used in the study. Reliability can be seen to be about standards and

consistency of measures taken, while Validity is about the measure’s accuracy.

4.10.1 Reliability

Reliability is the extent to which results of a study are consistent over time and

there is an accurate representation of the total population under study (Golafshani,

2003). Reliability analysis aims at finding out the extent to which a measurement

procedure produces the same result when the process is repeated under the same

conditions (Toke, Gupta, & Dandekar, 2012).

To address reliability, the study made sure that the statements to be evaluated by

the respondents were related to the research questions and that the same steps and

procedures were always adhered to during the conduct of the 3-FSAQ survey.

4.10.2 Validity

Validity determines whether the research items truly measured what they were

intended to measure or how factual the research results are (Golafshani, 2003). To test

the extent to which the sample is representative of the study population, consultations

with research experts were performed and their opinion sought (Macharia, Mbassana,

& Oduor, 2015).

91
 Prior to the field application of this study, an informal pre-test survey was

conducted with households having the same profile as those being researched (i.e.

those with either Level I/II or level III). This pre-test provided the research with as

much response variations expected of a 3-FSAQ as the main instrument for data

collection and analysis needed by the study

4.11 Data Collection

The unit of analysis for this study is the rural barangay household. As quantitative

research, data were collected at the barangay household level.

The main research instrument for this research is the 3-FSAQ survey which will

be created using statements where the participant decides from a Likert scale from

one (1) to five (5), with one (1) being strongly agree, two (2) agree, three (3) as

neither agree nor disagree, four (4) as disagreeing and five (5) as strongly disagree.

The basis for scoring is the barangay perception, belief, and faith in their barangay’s

capability when it comes to the uninterrupted provision of water to the households.

The survey is organized into 3 parts, representing the three (3) sustainability

indicators of FTI, SP, and E.

The water governance and sustainability indicators, when utilized as a content

indicator, using the rural household sustainability perception of their water access

service, can provide revealing information about the rural community’s attitude

toward rural water access.

The study developed a questionnaire survey that can be used as an assessment

tool to provide the rural barangay with a snapshot of the community’s perceived level

of sustainability of their rural household water access service, as well as an affordable

and easy to use assessment tool. The approach is to use household perceptions using

92
behavior responses of the households. Appendix 1 provides additional information on

the data collection procedures of the study.

4.12 Data Analysis

This quantitative study will use descriptive and inferential statistics as well as

exploratory data analysis (EDA) method in evaluating the data obtained from the

structured self-administered questionnaire.

The 3-FSAQ has two (2) parts. The first part (“Profile”) provides the study with

socio-demographic profiles of respondents regarding certain characteristics and living

practices of the local households. The second part (“Perception”) contains the three

(3) sustainability sections which capture the rural household’s perception of the

sustainability of their rural water access service, in the context of the sustainability

components of FTI, SP, and E. Figure 16 illustrates a summary of the EDA analysis

process.

93
 Figure 16. Analysis Process

Problem Statement

Collection / Data

Sustainability Analysis Correlation

Score (SS) Spearman rho

Model

Conclusion

Source: (Bhatia & Jaggi, 2022)

4.12.1 Profiles

The first part of the 3-FSAQ captures certain characteristics and living practices

within the local community, such as length of residency in the community, livelihood

sources, household size, primary rural water access service used, length of use of the

primary rural household water access service, primary water access suitable for

cooking and drinking, availability of alternative household water access, alternative

water access suitable for cooking and drinking, household water consumption for

hygiene and sanitation, and household water consumption for daily general use.

94
 The 3-FSAQ were completed by volunteer respondents who are members of a

household within the selected barangay, is at least 21 years of age, and can make

decisions regarding their household water access. Appendix 6, Participant Profile

Tables, provides such data and reported per barangay.

4.12.2 Sustainability Perception Survey

In a perception study, sustainability deals with abilities that can meet current

needs without prejudice to the needs of future generations (Brundtland, 1987). Being

able to assess the sustainability of a rural community’s household water access service

using their household’ perception of its sustainability uncovers local beliefs and

attitudes regarding sustainable household water use as well as the community’s

willingness to adopt to sustainable water use practices.

To meet this end, the second part of the 3-FSAQ was designed to capture the

locality’s sustainability perception of their rural water access service by asking

participants to evaluate each statement, which has been grouped according to the

study’s three (3) components of sustainability, namely, the financial, technological,

and institutional (FTI), the Social-Political (SP) and the environmental (E) (Macharia,

Mbassana, & Oduor, 2015). The evaluation is through a five (5) point Likert scale that

goes from strongly disagree (choice number 1), agree (choice number 2), neither

agree or disagree (choice number 3), disagree (choice number 4) and strongly agree

(choice number 5). Table 8 outlines the sustainability components and their indicators

as used in the study.

95
 The data was tallied into the MS-Excel software program. These were then scored

(see Table 10). Using the mean of the frequency data, standard statistical tests for

central tendencies and normal distribution were performed. Once all the frequencies

were encoded into scores, a sustainability matrix (see Table 13) was arrived at, giving

an idea of the level of sustainability for each of the 3 sustainability factors, FTI, SP,

and E, by barangay and by water access service level.

With the perception section of the 3-FSAQ, the Spearman rank-order correlation

was used to examine, and determine, if there are any relationships or patterns that

exists in terms of how the households perceive the sustainability of their rural water

access service vis-à-vis the respondents socio-demographic characteristics and living

conditions such as Role in the Household, Length of Residence, Source of Livelihood,

Household Size, Level of Education, Main Water Source, Length of Use, Availability

of Other Water Sources, Bathroom Usage, and Household Consumption . The tables

in Appendix 12 on page 166 provide more detail from the Spearman Rho test results.

Table 10 summarizes the scoring scheme used in the indexing for SS. The score

given to score 3 is zero but is higher than scores 4 and 5. This is because the study

treats this moderate level as open minded and may well justly lack additional

information to make a decision. Unlike scores 4 and 5, which indicates a degree of

displeasure already arrived at. With this scoring system, the higher the number, the

higher the perceived sustainability of their rural household water access service.

96
Table 10. Scoring System

Description Likert Scale Value Score

Strongly Agree 1 2
Agree 2 1
Neither (Agree nor Disagree) 3 0
Disagree 4 -1
Strongly Disagree 5 -2

Source: 3-FSAQ

4.12.3 Financial, Technical, Institutional (FTI)

The Financial, Technical, Institutional (FTI) pillar is a sustainability component

that covers the reliability of the technology behind the water system used, the pricing

and affordability based on the technology used in the extraction, collection, treatment

and delivery of rural water and its relevant applicability to the economic state of the

locality. As such, a sustainable household water access be easy to use and is

responsive to the daily needs of the households in rural communities in the

Philippines which are either agriculture or tourism-based economies.

When water accessibility is curtailed, the responsiveness of both the water service

provider (WSP) and the local government unit (LGU) is imperative and can be

expedited through community cohesiveness.

The financial, technical and institutional (FTI) component also calls for the

security of local water sources, especially from natural and man-made hazards that

can contaminate and pollute the water supply and present a health risk to the general

public. These components and corresponding indicators are summarized in Table 11.

97
4.12.4 Social – Political (SP)

The Social-Political (SP) component is about striking a balance between the costs

involved for the water service and the ability of the household to pay for such a

service. The water technology should be proper and appropriate to the local

environment. Accessibility to water should be universal to all the communities. The

pricing, as well as the quality of service, should also be equally applied to all the

households in a barangay. To have transparency in the management of local water

resources, the community should be aware, if not involved in, of all water access-

related contracts and agreements and their impact on the delivery of water to their

household. The monitoring and maintenance of the water system should consider and

be designed according to the institutional support available to the community and

should be equitably provided and appropriate, if not complimentary, to the abilities of

locally available talent. The more knowledgeable and agreeable a community is to

water system in their community, the cohesive it becomes resulting in a more positive

perception of the sustainability of their community’s rural water access service, and

thus more likely to be more involved to ensure such rural water access service is

remains uninterrupted.

4.12.5 Environmental (E)

Finally, the Environmental component (E) is indicated by the presence of risk

reduction measures in the community as well as water conservation initiatives that are

easy to implement as it applies to personal, gardening and local laundering practices.

Protection of the environment is usually supported by regulation and its

98
implementation is usually spearheaded by local community leaders with support from

Civil Society Organizations (CSO), and the LGU at the municipal, provincial or

national levels.

The protection of the local environment by the community is also manifested by

the awareness and community practices in sound solid waste management. As well,

the reduction of household waste through recycling and re-use activities further

strengthens the sustainability of household rural water access within the barangay.

Climate change was an issue that was not brought up although it was informally

acknowledged by the locals as a challenge to their livelihood. As such, the study

focused on water’s domestic (household) use and was thus considered by this

researcher as being outside the scope of the research and may be a subject fit for

future research.

Lastly, as a point of reference in the interest of comparison regarding average

household water consumption, the amounts, in liters, are presented in Table 11.

Table 11. Sustainability Components And Their Indicators

Component Indicators
Financial, Technical, Ease of Use, Water Quality, Water Safety, Water Security,
and Institutional Reliability, Affordability, LGU Responsiveness, WSP
(FTI) Responsiveness and Sufficiency of the applied technology.
Social-Political Transparency, Accessibility, Equitability, Proper Technology,
(SP) Maintenance, Monitoring, Community Cohesiveness, Cost
Equality, and Service Equality.
Environmental Water Conservation (Personal), Water Conservation (Garden),
(E) Water Conservation (Laundry), Environmental Protection, Risk
reduction (Solid Waste) and Risk Reduction (Biodegradable).
Source: Abulencia, et al., 2010 & Basiago, 1999

99
 Keeping things in perspective and to serve as an example, the average water

consumption of an individual that is specific to household water consumption for

general daily use can be arrived at as follows:

High = (9 liters x No. of bathroom visit) + 18 liters or 27 liters a day, per person, with

1 bathroom visit, per day.

Low = (6 liters x No. of bathroom trips) + 18 liters or 25 liters a day, per person, with

1 bathroom visit, per day.

This average approximate water usage per individual per trip was derived using the

information found in Table 12.:

Table 12. Average (Approximate) Daily Household Water Consumption

Average Water Consumption

Activity
High Low
Toilet (sanitation) 9 to 20 liters 6 to 7 liters
Shower Up to 275 liters up to 90 liters
Dishwashing 50 liters 15 to 18 liters
Personal Health & Hygiene (bathing,
525 liters 230 liters
washing hands, brushing teeth, etc.)
General (washing car, housekeeping, etc.) 120 liters 60 liters
Garden Watering 1,000 liters 950 liters
Laundry 50 liters 38 liters
Source: US NAS, Engineering, and Medicine, 2012; Inocencio, Padilla, and Javier, 1999

100
4.13 Sustainability Scoring (SS)

In assigning scores to the collected data, the following convention is used in

converting the frequencies into a sustainability perception score:

Likert Scale Description Assigned Weight

1 Strongly Agree 2

2 Agree 1

311 Neither Agree nor Disagree 0

4 Disagree -1

5 Strongly Disagree -2

In determining the mathematical mean, from the frequency data of sustainability

components FTI, SP, and E, the following formula was used to determines average

sore:

FTI = Q1, Q2, … Q9 / 9

SP = Q10, Q11, … Q18 / 9

FTI = Q19, Q20, … Q24 / 6

Sustainability Score (SS) = (FTI + SP + +E) / 3

11
Note that choice 3 is given a weight higher than choices 4 and 5 since the study considers them open
minded, lacking the information to decide, than those of scales 4 and 5 who have their minds made up

101
 To interpret the SS values, the higher the scores are, the higher the sustainability

perception of the barangay community on their existing rural household water access

service which implies that such rural water access service level is sustainable through

community support. Table 13 provides the index of the range of scores and the

equivalent perceived level of sustainability, in the context of household water access

service, where the direction is denoted by a negative SS value.

Table 13. Sustainability Score (SS) Index

Level Range
Very High Sustainability 224 to 373
High Sustainability 76 to 225
Moderate (-74) to 75
Low Sustainability (-222) to (-73)
Very Low Sustainability (-372) to (-223)
Source: 3-FSAQ

In determining if any relationship exists between the sustainability factors FTI,

SP, and E, and socio-demographic characteristics of Length of Residence in

Community, Livelihood Sources, and Household Size, as well as, local water use

practices namely, Primary Household Water Access Service, Length of Use of

Primary Water Access, Primary Water Access Suitable for Cooking/Drinking,

Availability of Alternative Water Access, Alternative Water Access Suitable for

Cooking/Drinking, Household Water Consumption (Hygiene & Sanitation), and

Household Water Consumption (General Daily Use), the Spearman rho test for

correlation, magnitude and direction. In addition, descriptive and inferential statistics

and exploratory data analysis (EDA) tools available in Excel and IBM SPSS software

applications were also employed where needed.

102
 For the correlations, the following criteria were applied:

• A statistically significant association exists if:

(Sig.) or the P ≤ 0.05

• Magnitude of relationship:

Very Weak Weak Moderate Strong Very Strong

.00 to .19 .20 to .39 .40 to .59 .60 to .79 .80 to 1.0

-.19 to -.00 -.39 to -.20 -.59 to -.40 -.79 to -.60 -1.0 to -.80

• Direction of Relationship:

(+) is a positive relationship, where an increase in one variable would also

increase the other.

(-) is a negative relationship, where an increase in one variable would

decrease the other.

Having determined the level of the community’s sustainability perception score

(SS) of their community’s household water access service, the Spearman rho test for

correlation was used to find significant statistical relationships between these and

certain socio-demographic characteristics of Length of Residence in Community,

Livelihood Sources, and Household Size, as well as water use practices such as

Primary Household Water Access Service, Length of Use of Primary Water Access,

Primary Water Access Suitable for Cooking/Drinking, Availability of Alternative

Water Access, Alternative Water Access Suitable for Cooking/Drinking, Household

Water Consumption (Hygiene & Sanitation), and Household Water Consumption

(General Daily Use.

103
4.14 Ethical Considerations

Aside from the strict observation of the survey participant’s privacy and

anonymity, no other ethical concerns are associated or identified with this study.

Confidentiality was strictly observed and all participants, prior to taking part in the

survey, should have completed the study’s informed consent forms.

Other than refreshments and snacks during the survey, participants did not

receive any form of remuneration to ensure there is no induced bias in their responses.

However, to show appreciation for their voluntary participation, each participant was

given a small token of appreciation, upon full completion of the questionnaire, for

their voluntary participation in the survey.

104
 CHAPTER 5. FINDINGS

This chapter presents the findings and discussions of the study. The first part,

section 5.1, presents the community’s sustainable perception score (SS), reported by

barangay (sections 5.1.1 to 5.1.4), and then by water access service levels I/II and III

(section 5.1.5 to 5.1.6). Section 5.2 presents the profile association with sustainability

perception components. The section shows the statistical relationships between certain

socio-demographic characteristics and local water use practices. In addition, sections

5.2.1 to 5.2.4 provide a description of each of the participating barangay community

using the socio-demographic information provided about their living conditions as

well as the rural household’s water use practices.

Histogram charts were used to provide a visual idea of the data distribution,

variances and deviations. From these histograms, the study can safely assume a

normal distribution of the collected data. Section 5.3 compares the frequency and

correlation findings and presents an inductive discussion of these findings. Finally,

section 5.4 discusses the implications derived from all the information obtained.

5.1 Sustainability Perception Score (SS) - By Barangay

The sustainability perception score is based on the rural household’s

sustainability perception of their water access service. These frequencies were tallied

into Excel. Upon completion of the tallying, these were converted into a score using

the convention stated in section 4.13 of the previous chapter. Then, using the

Sustainability Score Index (Table 3), we obtain the level of sustainability of the

household water access service.

105
 Spearman rho correlation tests were performed to identify associations between

certain socio-demographic characteristic and local water use practices and the

elements within sustainability components FTI, SP, and E. These two results are then

compared to each other for further information mining that can prove useful in

improving the community’s sustainability perception of household water access

service especially in the rural areas of the country.

5.1.1 San Jacinto SS

From Table 14, barangay San Jacinto’s sustainability perception of their

household water access service can be said to be high negative (Average Mean =

144.23, n = 88) for all sustainability components FTI, SP and E.

97% of respondents are agreeable, of which 82% strongly agree, resulting in a

moderate-high sustainability perception of their rural household water access service

for the FTI sustainability component in barangay San Jacinto. 2% of respondents lack

information to make a decision and only 1% disagree with the current FTI component

of their water access service.

95% of respondents in barangay San Jacinto are agreeable, with 81% strongly

agreeing and giving a moderate-high sustainability perception of the SP component of

their rural household water access service. 4% need further information to decide and

1% do not agree.

Of the 97% who agree in barangay San Jacinto, 78% strongly agree, 3% need

further information to decide. Those who disagree are negligible. This gives a

medium-high sustainability perception of the E component of their rural household

water access service.

106
 Overall, across the 3 sustainability components of FTI, SP, and E, barangay San

Jacinto appears to have a medium-high sustainability perception of their current rural

household water access service with no observable urgent moves or behavior, on the

part of the rural households of the barangay, toward or away from having a level III

water access service level.

Table 15 provides further insights into the data collected for sustainability

component FTI. Here, the data is more centered around the

Table 14. San Jacinto Sustainability Score

San Jacinto
Component

Frequency

Score
Scale

Q112 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
1 68 53 73 74 74 73 67 61 72 615 137
2 18 28 8 4 9 11 16 12 8 114 13
FTI

3 0 0 2 2 3 0 2 4 1 14 0
4 0 0 4 3 1 1 1 1 0 11 -1
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18
1 65 77 67 67 66 74 71 70 67 624 139
2 11 6 16 12 12 9 14 9 19 108 12
SP

3 9 4 2 4 4 0 1 4 1 29 0
4 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 4 0 7 -1
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24
1 65 68 68 53 73 62 389 130
2 17 13 6 30 7 20 93 31
E

3 1 2 6 0 2 2 13 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
Source: 3-FAQ (Excel)

12
Q1 to Q24 represents the statements that were evaluated. See Appendix 5 (Codebook).

107
 Tables 15 to 17 provide further insights into the data collected from barangay San

Jacinto for sustainability components FTI, SP, and E respectively. Here, the frequency

data for barangay San Jacinto is more centered and less dispersed when compared to

the other barangays. These Tables show that households in San Jacinto have some

disagreements, but none strongly disagreed, which is evident from columns Low and

High.

Table 15. Frequency Summary FTI - San Jacinto

N Low High Mean Std. Dev. Var

Ease of Use 86 1 2 1.21 .409 .167
Water Security 81 1 2 1.35 .479 .229
Water Quality 87 1 4 1.28 .726 .528
Water Safety 83 1 4 1.20 .658 .433
Reliability 87 1 4 1.21 .553 .306
Affordability 85 1 4 1.16 .459 .211
LGU Responsiveness 86 1 4 1.27 .562 .316
WSP Responsiveness 78 1 4 1.29 .626 .392
Sufficiency 81 1 3 1.12 .367 .135
Source: 3-FSAQ

Table 16. Frequency Summary SP - San Jacinto

N Low High Mean Std. Dev. Var.

Transparency 85 1 3 1.34 .665 .442
Accessibility 87 1 3 1.16 .479 .230
Equitability 87 1 4 1.30 .631 .398
Proper Technology 83 1 3 1.24 .532 .283
Maintenance 82 1 3 1.24 .534 .285
Monitoring 83 1 2 1.11 .313 .098
Community Cohesiveness 87 1 4 1.22 .515 .266
Cost Equality 87 1 4 1.33 .773 .597
Service Equality 87 1 3 1.24 .457 .209
Source: 3-FSAQ

108
Table 17. Frequency Summary E - San Jacinto
N Low High Mean Std. Dev. Var.
Accessibility 87 1 3 1.16 .479 .230
Equitability 87 1 4 1.30 .631 .398
Proper Technology 83 1 3 1.24 .532 .283
Maintenance 82 1 3 1.24 .534 .285
Monitoring 83 1 2 1.11 .313 .098
Community Cohesiveness 87 1 4 1.22 .515 .266
Cost Equality 87 1 4 1.33 .773 .597
Service Equality 87 1 3 1.24 .457 .209
Water Conservation (Personal) 83 1 3 1.23 .451 .203
Water Conservation (Garden) 83 1 3 1.20 .462 .214
Water Conservation (Laundry) 80 1 3 1.23 .573 .328
Environmental Protection 83 1 2 1.36 .483 .234
Risk Reduction (Solid Waste) 82 1 3 1.13 .409 .167
Risk Reduction (Biodegradable) 86 1 5 1.36 .701 .492
Source: 3-FSAQ

5.1.2 San Fernando SS

From Table 18, barangay San Fernando’s sustainability perception of their

household water access service is moderate negative (Average Mean = 27.59, n = 87)

for all sustainability components FTI, SP and E.

54% of respondents are agreeable, of which 17% strongly agree, resulting in a

moderate-high sustainability perception of their rural household water access service

for the FTI sustainability component in barangay San Fernando. 17% of respondents

lack information to make a decision and 29% disagree with the current FTI

component of their water access service.

49% of respondents in barangay San Fernando are agreeable, with 21% strongly

agreeing and giving a moderate-high sustainability perception of the SP component of

their rural household water access service. 17% need further information to decide

109
and 34% do not agree.

Of the 52% who agree in barangay San Fernando, 25% strongly agree, 17% need

further information to decide, and 29% do not agree, giving a moderate-high

sustainability perception of the E component of their rural household water access

service.

Table 18. San Fernando Sustainability Score

San Fernando
Component

Frequency
Scale

Score
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
1 14 18 18 17 11 14 11 13 14 130 29
2 40 47 24 30 25 29 36 32 27 290 32
FTI

3 13 11 19 13 25 12 13 14 10 130 0
4 16 15 20 33 15 20 25 24 22 190 -21
5 4 5 2 3 6 6 3 3 5 37 -8
Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18
1 13 12 16 16 16 17 13 14 14 131 29
2 19 21 28 21 20 17 16 22 16 180 20
SP

3 12 9 10 15 12 11 17 8 15 109 0
4 22 22 29 13 17 17 22 22 22 186 -21
5 3 5 4 4 3 7 1 3 2 32 -7
Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24
1 18 12 16 21 22 16 105 35
2 20 19 16 19 19 20 113 38
3 12 18 12 7 9 14 72 0
E

4 15 17 21 18 13 17 101 -17
5 4 3 3 4 6 2 22 -7
Source: 3-FAQ (Excel)

Tables 19 to 21 provide further insights into the data collected from barangay San

Fernando for sustainability components FTI, SP, and E respectively. Here, the

frequency data for barangay San Fernando is less centered and more dispersed when

compared to the other barangays. These Tables show that households in San Fernando

have strong disagreements as seen from the Low and High columns.

110
Table 19. Frequency Summary FTI - San Fernando

N Low High Mean Std. Dev. Var.

Ease of Use 69 1 5 2.62 1.214 1.474
Water Security 68 1 5 2.56 1.297 1.683
Water Quality 69 1 5 2.54 1.195 1.429
Water Safety 87 1 5 2.72 1.227 1.504
Reliability 69 1 5 2.83 1.188 1.410
Affordability 69 1 5 2.78 1.293 1.673
LGU Responsiveness 69 1 5 2.83 1.200 1.440
WSP Responsiveness 69 1 5 2.75 1.230 1.512
Sufficiency 69 1 5 2.78 1.293 1.673
Source: 3-FSAQ

Table 20. Frequency Summary SP - San Fernando

N Low High Mean Std. Dev. Var.

Transparency 69 1 5 2.75 1.218 1.483
Accessibility 69 1 5 2.81 1.263 1.596
Equitability 87 1 5 2.74 1.234 1.522
Proper Technology 69 1 5 2.54 1.208 1.458
Maintenance 68 1 5 2.57 1.226 1.502
Monitoring 69 1 5 2.71 1.351 1.827
Community Cohesiveness 69 1 5 2.74 1.146 1.313
Cost Equality 69 1 5 2.68 1.243 1.544
Service Equality 69 1 5 2.74 1.196 1.431
Source: 3-FSAQ

Table 21. Frequency Summary E - San Fernando

N Low High Mean Std. Dev. Var.

Water Conservation (Personal) 69 1 5 2.52 1.256 1.577
Water Conservation (Garden) 69 1 5 2.71 1.152 1.327
Water Conservation (Laundry) 68 1 5 2.69 1.261 1.590
Environmental Protection 69 1 5 2.49 1.324 1.754
Risk Reduction (Solid Waste) 69 1 5 2.45 1.345 1.810
Risk Reduction (Biodegradable) 69 1 5 2.55 1.182 1.398
Source: 3-FSAQ

111
5.1.3 Santa Barbara SS

From Table 22, barangay Santa Barbara’s sustainability perception of their

household water access service is high negative (Average Mean = 118.09, n = 88) for

all sustainability components FTI, SP and E.

98% of respondents agree, of which 43% strongly agree, resulting in a moderate-

high sustainability perception of their rural household water access service for the FTI

sustainability component in barangay Santa Barbara. 1% of respondents lack

information to make a decision and those who disagree being negligible.

99% of respondents in barangay Santa Barbara are agreeable, with 40% strongly

agreeing and giving a moderate-high sustainability perception of the SP component of

their rural household water access service. 1% need further information to decide and

those who disagree are negligible.

Of the 97% who agree in barangay Santa Barbara, 41% strongly agree, 2% need

further information to decide, and those who disagree being negligible, giving a

moderate-high sustainability perception of the E component of their rural household

water access service.

112
Table 22. Santa Barbara Sustainability Score

Santa Barbara
Component

Frequency
Scale

Score
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
1 39 42 39 42 37 36 33 31 35 334 74
2 48 43 47 41 48 51 51 54 49 432 48
FTI

3 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 13 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18
1 32 36 35 33 32 36 34 31 34 303 67
2 53 49 49 49 47 47 51 54 51 450 50
SP

3 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 9 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24
1 37 28 28 35 36 42 206 69
2 46 52 52 48 43 42 283 94
E

3 0 2 3 0 4 3 12 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: 3-FSAQ

Tables 23 to 25 provide further insights into the data collected from barangay

Santa Barbara for sustainability components FTI, SP, and E respectively. Here, the

frequency data for barangay Santa Barbara is more centered and less dispersed when

compared to barangay San Fernando. These Tables show that households in Santa

Barbara have no disagreements but have more Neither Agree nor Disagree (selection

“3”) as seen from the Low and High columns.

113
Table 23. Frequency Summary FTI – Santa Barbara

N Low High Mean Std. Dev. Var.

Ease of Use 88 1 3 1.57 .521 .271
Water Security 87 1 3 1.54 .546 .298
Water Quality 87 1 3 1.56 .522 .272
Water Safety 84 1 3 1.51 .526 .277
Reliability 86 1 3 1.58 .519 .270
Affordability 88 1 3 1.60 .515 .265
LGU Responsiveness 87 1 4 1.67 .584 .341
WSP Responsiveness 87 1 3 1.67 .521 .271
Sufficiency 86 1 3 1.62 .535 .286
Source: 3-FSAQ

Table 24. Frequency Summary SP – Santa Barbara

N Low High Mean Std. Dev. Var.

Transparency 86 1 3 1.64 .507 .257
Accessibility 86 1 3 1.59 .517 .268
Equitability 86 1 3 1.62 .535 .286
Proper Technology 83 1 3 1.61 .514 .264
Maintenance 80 1 3 1.61 .515 .266
Monitoring 83 1 2 1.57 .499 .249
Community Cohesiveness 86 1 3 1.62 .513 .263
Cost Equality 86 1 3 1.65 .503 .253
Service Equality 86 1 3 1.62 .513 .263
Source: 3-FSAQ

Table 25. Frequency Summary E – Santa Barbara

N Low High Mean Std. Dev. Var.

Water Conservation (Personal) 83 1 2 1.55 .500 .250
Water Conservation (Garden) 82 1 3 1.68 .518 .269
Water Conservation (Laundry) 83 1 3 1.70 .535 .286
Environmental Protection 83 1 2 1.58 .497 .247
Risk Reduction (Solid Waste) 83 1 3 1.61 .581 .337
Risk Reduction (Biodegradable) 87 1 3 1.55 .566 .320
Source: 3-FSAQ

114
5.1.4 Balayang SS

From Table 26, barangay Balayang’s sustainability perception of their household

water access service is moderate positive (Average Mean = 99.09, n = 87) for all

sustainability components FTI, SP and E.

89% of respondents agree, of which 40% strongly agree, resulting in a moderate-

high sustainability perception of their rural household water access service for the FTI

sustainability component in barangay Balayang. 7% of respondents lack information

to make a decision and only 3% disagree with the current FTI component of their

water access service.

90% of respondents in barangay Balayang are agreeable, with 36% strongly

agreeing and giving a moderate-high sustainability perception of the SP component of

their rural household water access service. 6% need further information to decide and

4% do not agree.

Of the 95% who agree in barangay Balayang, 42% strongly agree, 2% need

further information to decide, and 2% do not agree, giving a moderate-high

sustainability perception of the E component of their rural household water access

service.

115
Table 26. Balayang Sustainability Score

Balayang
Component

Frequency

Score
Scale Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
1 28 28 36 37 31 32 34 25 51 302 67
2 51 44 35 43 43 39 40 40 34 369 41
FTI

3 6 9 9 1 9 6 2 8 1 51 0
4 0 3 4 2 1 4 0 1 0 15 -2
5 1 2 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 11 -2
Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18
1 21 38 43 29 29 31 32 26 21 270 60
2 50 43 39 39 49 48 43 39 51 401 45
SP

3 9 4 1 3 1 4 6 11 6 45 0
4 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 3 4 19 -2
5 0 0 1 3 2 1 0 0 1 8 -2
Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24
1 31 32 34 38 39 39 213 71
2 43 42 45 44 45 47 266 89
3 3 6 0 1 0 1 11 0
E

4 2 5 4 0 0 0 11 -2
5 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 -1
Source: 3-FAQ (Excel)

Tables 27 to 29 provide further insights into the data collected from barangay

Balayang for sustainability components FTI, SP, and E respectively. Here, the

frequency data for barangay Balayang is more centered and less dispersed when

compared to barangay San Fernando with the opposite being true with barangay San

Jacinto and Santa Barbara. These Tables show that households in Santa Barbara have

strong disagreements as seen from the Low and High columns.

116
Table 27. Frequency Summary FTI - Balayang

N Low High Mean Std. Dev. Var.

Ease of Use 86 1 5 1.78 .676 .456
Water Security 86 1 5 1.92 .884 .782
Water Quality 86 1 5 1.85 .952 .906
Water Safety 85 1 5 1.69 .817 .667
Reliability 84 1 4 1.76 .688 .473
Affordability 82 1 5 1.82 .862 .744
LGU Responsiveness 77 1 5 1.62 .670 .448
WSP Responsiveness 76 1 5 1.88 .848 .719
Sufficiency 86 1 3 1.42 .519 .270
Source: 3-FSAQ

Table 28. Frequency Summary SP - Balayang

N Low High Mean Std. Dev. Var.

Transparency 82 1 4 1.90 .678 .460
Accessibility 87 1 4 1.66 .679 .461
Equitability 86 1 5 1.59 .742 .550
Proper Technology 76 1 5 1.83 .929 .864
Maintenance 83 1 5 1.78 .797 .635
Monitoring 84 1 5 1.71 .669 .448
Community Cohesiveness 83 1 4 1.73 .700 .490
Cost Equality 79 1 4 1.89 .784 .615
Service Equality 83 1 5 1.95 .795 .632
Source: 3-FSAQ

Table 29. Frequency Summary E - Balayang

N Low High Mean Std. Dev. Var.

Water Conservation (Personal) 79 1 4 1.70 .667 .445
Water Conservation (Garden) 85 1 4 1.81 .809 .655
Water Conservation (Laundry) 84 1 5 1.73 .797 .635
Environmental Protection 84 1 5 1.60 .642 .413
Risk Reduction (Solid Waste) 85 1 5 1.58 .624 .390
Risk Reduction (Biodegradable) 87 1 3 1.56 .522 .272
Source: 3-FSAQ

117
5.1.5 Level I/II Service SS

From Table 30, water access service level I/II barangay’s (i.e., barangays San

Jacinto and Balayang) sustainability perception of their household water access

service is high negative (Average Mean = 235.34, n = 175) for all sustainability

components FTI, SP and E.

93% of respondents agree, of which 61% strongly agree, resulting in a moderate-

high sustainability perception of their rural household water access service for the FTI

sustainability component with level I/II water access service level. 4% of respondents

lack information to make a decision and 3% disagree with the current FTI component

of their level I/II water access service.

96% of respondents in barangay with level I/II water access service level are

agreeable, with 81% strongly agreeing and giving a moderate-high sustainability

perception of the SP component of their rural household water access service. 3%

need further information to decide and .6% do not agree.

Of the 97% who agree in barangay with level I/II water access service level, 80%

strongly agree, 2% need further information to decide, and .6% do not agree, giving a

moderate-high sustainability perception of the E component of their rural household

water access service.

118
Table 30. Level I/II Sustainability Score

Level I/II
Component

Frequency

Score
Scale
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
1 96 81 109 111 105 105 101 86 123 917 204
2 69 72 43 47 52 50 56 52 42 483 54
FTI

3 6 9 11 3 12 6 4 12 2 65 0
4 0 3 8 5 2 5 1 2 0 26 -3
5 1 2 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 11 -2
Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18
1 132 77 132 135 134 127 144 132 155 1168 260
2 30 6 33 25 18 39 21 29 19 220 24
SP

3 10 4 3 6 10 0 3 6 1 43 0
4 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 5 0 8 -1
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24
1 104 156 68 53 73 62 516 172
2 37 13 6 30 7 20 113 19
E

3 3 2 6 0 2 2 15 0
4 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0
5 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 -1
Source: 3-FAQ (Excel)

Tables 31 to 33 provide further insights into the data collected from water access

service level I/II barangays (San Jacinto and Balayang) for sustainability components

FTI, SP, and E respectively. Here, the frequency data for water access service level

I/II barangays (San Jacinto and Balayang) is less centered and more dispersed. These

Tables show that households from water access service level I/II barangays (San

Jacinto and Balayang) have strong disagreements as seen from the Low and High

columns.

119
Table 31. Frequency Summary FTI - Level I/II

N Low High Mean Std. Dev. Var.

Ease of Use 172 1 5 1.49 .626 .392
Water Security 167 1 5 1.64 .770 .593
Water Quality 173 1 5 1.56 .891 .794
Water Safety 168 1 5 1.45 .780 .608
Reliability 171 1 4 1.48 .680 .463
Affordability 167 1 5 1.49 .759 .577
LGU Responsiveness 163 1 5 1.44 .639 .408
WSP Responsiveness 154 1 5 1.58 .798 .637
Sufficiency 167 1 3 1.28 .474 .225
Source: 3-FSAQ

Table 32. Frequency Summary SP - Level I/II

N Low High Mean Std. Dev. Var.

Transparency 167 1 4 1.62 .726 .527
Accessibility 174 1 4 1.41 .636 .405
Equitability 173 1 5 1.45 .702 .493
Proper Technology 159 1 5 1.52 .802 .643
Maintenance 165 1 5 1.52 .729 .532
Monitoring 167 1 5 1.41 .604 .364
Community Cohesiveness 170 1 4 1.47 .663 .440
Cost Equality 166 1 4 1.60 .824 .679
Service Equality 170 1 5 1.59 .735 .540
Source: 3-FSAQ

Table 33. Frequency Summary E - Level I/II

N Low High Mean Std. Dev. Var.

Water Conservation (Personal) 162 1 4 1.46 .611 .374
Water Conservation (Garden) 168 1 4 1.51 .726 .527
Water Conservation (Laundry) 164 1 5 1.48 .739 .546
Environmental Protection 167 1 5 1.48 .579 .335
Risk Reduction (Solid Waste) 167 1 5 1.36 .573 .328
Risk Reduction (Biodegradable) 173 1 5 1.46 .624 .390
Source: 3-FSAQ

120
5.1.6 Level III Service SS

From Table 34, water access service level III barangays (i.e., barangays San

Fernando and Santa Barbara) sustainability perception of their household water access

service is high negative (Average Mean = 142.20, n = 175) for all sustainability

components FTI, SP and E.

76% of respondents agree, of which 33% strongly agree, resulting in a moderate-

high sustainability perception of their rural household water access service for the FTI

sustainability component in barangay with level III water access service. 9% of

respondents lack information to make a decision and 16% disagree with the current

FTI component of their level III water access service.

76% of respondents in barangays with level III water access service are

agreeable, with 31% strongly agreeing and giving a moderate-high sustainability

perception of the SP component of their rural household water access service. 3.7%

need further information to decide and .1% do not agree.

Of the 97% who agree in barangays with level III water access service, 78%

strongly agree, 8% need further information to decide, and 15% do not agree, giving a

moderate-high sustainability perception of the E component of their level III water

access service.

Overall, across the 3 sustainability components of FTI, SP, and E, barangays with

level III water access service appears to have a moderate-high sustainability

perception of their current rural household water access service and no urgent moves

toward or away from improving the service they currently receive can be observed.

121
Table 34. Level III Service Sustainability Score
Level III
Component

Frequency

Score
Scale
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
1 53 60 57 59 48 50 44 44 49 464 103
2 70 62 63 67 64 69 71 74 68 608 68
FTI

3 14 13 18 12 23 13 13 12 11 129 0
4 16 15 16 30 14 19 25 23 22 180 -20
5 4 5 2 3 6 6 3 3 5 37 -8
Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18
1 45 48 51 49 48 53 47 45 48 434 96
2 72 70 77 70 67 64 67 76 67 630 70
SP

3 13 10 12 16 13 11 18 9 16 118 0
4 22 22 29 13 17 17 22 22 22 186 -21
5 3 5 4 4 3 7 1 3 2 32 -7
Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24
1 55 40 44 56 58 58 311 104
2 66 71 68 67 62 62 396 66
E

3 12 20 15 7 13 17 84 0
4 15 17 21 18 13 17 101 -17
5 4 3 3 4 6 2 22 -7
Source: 3-FSAQ

Tables 35 to 37 provide further insights into the data collected from water access

service level III barangays (Santa Barbara and San Fernando) for sustainability

components FTI, SP, and E respectively. Here, the frequency data for water access

service level III barangays are less centered and more dispersed. These Tables show

that households from water access service level III barangays have strong

disagreements as seen from the Low and High columns.

122
Table 35. Frequency Summary FTI - Level III

N Low High Mean Std. Dev. Var.

Ease of Use 157 1 5 2.03 1.034 1.069
Water Security 155 1 5 1.99 1.075 1.156
Water Quality 156 1 5 1.99 1.006 1.013
Water Safety 171 1 5 2.13 1.125 1.266
Reliability 155 1 5 2.14 1.076 1.157
Affordability 157 1 5 2.12 1.106 1.222
LGU Responsiveness 156 1 5 2.18 1.075 1.155
WSP Responsiveness 156 1 5 2.15 1.052 1.107
Sufficiency 155 1 5 2.14 1.111 1.235
Source: 3-FSAQ

Table 36. Frequency Summary SP - Level III

N Low High Mean Std. Dev. Var.

Transparency 155 1 5 2.14 1.051 1.105
Accessibility 155 1 5 2.14 1.105 1.222
Equitability 173 1 5 2.18 1.103 1.218
Proper Technology 152 1 5 2.03 1.006 1.012
Maintenance 148 1 5 2.05 1.029 1.058
Monitoring 152 1 5 2.09 1.133 1.284
Community Cohesiveness 155 1 5 2.12 1.019 1.038
Cost Equality 155 1 5 2.11 1.042 1.085
Service Equality 155 1 5 2.12 1.044 1.090
Source: 3-FSAQ

Table 37. Frequency Summary E - Level III

N Low High Mean Std. Dev. Var.

Water Conservation (Personal) 152 1 5 1.99 1.039 1.079
Water Conservation (Garden) 151 1 5 2.15 1.005 1.010
Water Conservation (Laundry) 151 1 5 2.15 1.054 1.112
Environmental Protection 152 1 5 1.99 1.064 1.132
Risk Reduction (Solid Waste) 152 1 5 1.99 1.083 1.172
Risk Reduction (Biodegradable) 156 1 5 1.99 1.019 1.039

123
5.2 Profile Associations With Sustainability Perception

In exploring statistical associations between Socio-demographic profile

characteristics of Length of Residence in Community, Livelihood Sources, and

Household Size and community water use practices, that conveys their sustainability

perception of their household water access service, such as Primary Household Water

Access Service, Length of Use of Primary Water Access, Primary Water Access

Suitable for Cooking/Drinking, Availability of Alternative Water Access, Alternative

Water Access Suitable for Cooking/Drinking, Household Water Consumption

(Hygiene & Sanitation), and Household Water Consumption (General Daily Use), the

indicators within the sustainability components of FTI, SP, and E, the study applied

the Spearman rho test to identify statistically significant connections. This section

presents only those profiles found to have such relationships. Complete correlation

tables can also be seen in Appendix 18 (Spearman rho Correlation Tables).

5.2.1 Correlations in Barangay San Jacinto

From information shown in Figure 17, Barangay San Jacinto is described as an

agricultural community where 64.8% of the barangay populace earn their main living

from agriculture, and 75% of whom have been residents of the barangay community

for at least five years,

Barangay San Jacinto is classified by the municipality as a level I/II water access

service level community. This implies that basic infrastructures for a level III water

access service level have yet to be realized or become operational. Nor surprisingly,

72.7% of households in San Jacinto access their household water needs using hand

124
pumps, 35.2% of which are communal and either free or with minimal fees that are

used for monitoring and maintenance expenses incurred by the barangay unit. 70.5%

of the rural households in this barangay have been using these pumps as their main

water access service for at least the last seven years.

On the quality of water from this access service level, about 94.3% signified their

confidence in its quality that they use it for cooking and drinking. With some 63.7%

of households indicating to having an alternative rural water access service as a

second source back-up for their primary water access service level, these were still

delivered using hand pumps, often from other locations within the municipality.

84.1% of households trust and are confident of the water quality from these

alternative water access service level and use it for cooking and drinking as well.

On average daily rural household water consumption, 44.3% reported using the

bathroom 3 to 5 times a day and 36.4% noted their bathroom visits to be from ten to

15 times a day. 42% of households noted consuming an average of six (6) to ten liters

(10) of water for general household use such as washing to clean the car or house,

gardening, taking a shower to cool off, and for purposes other than that for sanitation

and hygiene (such as flushing the toilet, taking daily bath, brushing teeth, etc.).

Figure 17. Profile Frequency Histograms For San Jacinto

125
126
127
5.2.2 Correlations in Barangay San Fernando

From Figure 18, in barangay San Fernando, 85% of households have lived in the

same community for more than five years, with 21.8% deriving their income from

agriculture. While 51.7% of respondents reported themselves as self-employed, these

were still agriculture based.

With regard to their rural household water access service, barangay San Fernando

falls in the level III category. Despite this, 65.5% report obtaining their daily water

requirement from hand pumps, and of which 32.2% are communal. Even with the

availability of a level III water access service, 81.6% of respondents have been using

these level I/II hand pumps as their primary rural household water access service for

at least seven years.

On the quality of their water from this primary water access service, 66.7%

confidently use this water for cooking and drinking. Surprisingly, 39.1% of the

households indicated the availability of an alternative water access service, these were

level I/II services rather than, as one would expect, level III service. Like barangay

San Jacinto, these alternative water access service hail from other locations within the

municipality and with only 47.1% having the confidence and trust of its water quality

to use it for cooking and drinking.

Regarding their rural household water consumption, 41.4% use the bathroom

three to five times a day, with an additional 23% household members using it more

often, from six to nine times a day. On average, 42.5% of the respondent’s report

consuming from six to ten liters of water for their daily general water use.

128
Figure 18. Profile Frequency Histograms For San Fernando

129
130
5.2.3 Correlations in Barangay Santa Barbara

Figure 19 show that half of the respondents have lived in the community more

than five years, and 56.8% earn their main living from agriculture.

With regard to their household rural water access, 71.6% obtain their household

water requirement from pumps, and 17% get rural water access through their water

service provider. 35.2% have been using these water access as their main source for at

least seven years. Regarding the quality of their water from this source, 87.5% are

confident of its quality that they use it for cooking and drinking. 63.6% indicated their

secondary source of water was from communal pumps from other locations, within

the municipality. 79.5% trust the water quality from this secondary source to use it for

131
cooking and drinking. On their household water consumption, 46.6% use the

bathroom six to nine times a day, while 26.1% use it three to five times a day. 47.7%

consume six to ten liters for general water use, which includes hand washing,

brushing teeth, taking a bath, and other hygienic purposes.

Figure 19. Profile Frequency Histograms For Santa Barbara

132
133
134
5.2.4 Correlations in Barangay Balayang

Figure 20 shows that around eighty six percent of the respondents have lived in

the community more than five years, and 47.1% earn their main living from

agriculture, with another 24.1% as self-employed contract for service.

With regard to their household rural water access, 65.5% obtain their household

water requirement from communal pumps and 34.5% are private. 81.6% have been

using these pumps as their main source for at least seven years. On the quality of their

water from this source, 71.3% are confident of its quality that they use it for cooking

and drinking. While 79.3% indicated a second source of water, these were still from

pumps but from other locations, within the municipality. 70.1% trust the water quality

from these secondary sources and use it for cooking and drinking.

Regarding their household water consumption, 29.9% use the bathroom six to

nine times a day, while 24.1% use it three to five times a day. 34.5% consume six to

ten liters a day for general water use, which includes hand washing, brushing teeth,

taking a bath, and other hygienic purposes.

135
Figure 20. Profile Frequency Histograms For Balayang

136
137
5.3 Sustainability Perception Score And Correlation Analysis

The closer an individual’s perception of something desired to an expectation of it,

the more positive the perception becomes. This would often result in beneficial

behaviors that prolongs the benefits enjoyed from the thing desired (Fan, Tang, &

Park, 2019). Armed with the SS results as well as a list of associations identified,

through the Spearman rho test, as having statistically significant relationship to certain

socio-demographic characteristics and local water use practices, the study brought

these results together to determine if any further information can be derived that the

LGU can use in evaluating projects that affect their barangay’s household water

access.

138
5.3.1 Barangay San Jacinto

Barangay San Jacinto is classified by the municipality of Victoria as a community

with level I/II water access service. This implies that the community lacks the

infrastructure and support for indoor plumbing that normally accompanies a level III

water access service. Users of level I/II water access service share in the maintenance

and repair of the water delivery equipment such as pipes, pumps, faucets, and the like.

The barangay leadership takes the lead in the collection of such expenses and any

other applicable fees for such service. The amounts involved in availing the level I/II

service are not as expensive as those with level III services and are very affordable.

This is not surprising since level III service requires substantial capital investments

and requires a certain level of population density to properly operate at a reasonable

cost, which is not readily accessible or present at the LGU level.

Table 38 summarizes the correlations revealed by the Spearman rho test between

socio-demographic and the local water use practices data with the household

sustainability perception of sustainability elements in component FTI.

All Socio-demographic characteristics and local water use practices have weak

relationships that are both negative and positive with their FTI elements.

139
Table 38. Profile - FTI Correlation San Jacinto
Magnitude
Profile FTI r p-value Size
Direction
Livelihood Sources Water Quality 0.024 0.253 80 Weak Positive
Affordability 0.000 0.390 77 Weak Positive
LGU
0.024 0.255 78 Weak Positive
Responsiveness
WSP
0.035 0.244 75 Weak Positive
Responsiveness
Sufficiency 0.001 0.386 77 Weak Positive
Household Size Water Security 0.004 -0.337 72 Weak Negative
Primary Household
Ease of Use 0.038 0.237 77 Weak Positive
Water Access Service
Length of use of
Water Security 0.009 0.297 76 Weak Positive
Primary Water Access
Water Quality 0.014 -0.273 81 Weak Negative
Water Safety 0.003 -0.334 77 Weak Negative
LGU
0.032 -0.242 79 Weak Negative
Responsiveness
WSP
0.001 -0.382 75 Weak Negative
Responsiveness
Availability of
Alternative Water Ease of Use 0.009 0.286 82 Weak Positive
Access
Household Water
Consumption (Hygiene Ease of Use 0.000 0.396 85 Weak Positive
and Sanitation)
WSP
0.043 -0.229 78 Weak Negative
Responsiveness
Household Water
Consumption (General Ease of Use 0.011 0.278 84 Weak Positive
Daily Use)
Water Security 0.001 0.352 79 Weak Positive
Source: 3-FSAQ

Table 39 summarizes the correlations revealed by the Spearman rho test between

socio-demographic and the local water use practices data with the household

sustainability perception of sustainability elements in component SP.

Of note are the moderate relationships between socio-demographic

characteristic Length of Residence in the Community and SP element Monitoring

(negative), characteristic Livelihood Sources and SP element Community

Cohesiveness (positive), and water use practice Length of Use of Primary Water

140
Access and SP element Transparency (negative). All other relationships have a weak

effect on their SP elements.

Table 39.Profile - SP Correlation San Jacinto

Magnitude
Profile - San Jacinto SP r p-value Size
Direction
Length of Residence in
Monitoring 0.000 -0.423 79 Moderate Negative
Community
Livelihood Source Equitability 0.030 0.242 80 Weak Positive
Maintenance 0.005 0.320 76 Weak Positive
Community
0.000 0.474 80 Moderate Positive
Cohesiveness
Primary Household Water Proper
0.024 -0.261 75 Weak Negative
Access Service Technology
Length of use of Primary
Transparency 0.000 -0.459 79 Moderate Negative
Water Access
Equitability 0.000 -0.385 81 Weak Negative
Proper
0.023 -0.259 77 Weak Negative
Technology
Maintenance 0.007 -0.305 76 Weak Negative
Monitoring 0.013 -0.282 77 Weak Negative
Cost Equality 0.007 -0.296 81 Weak Negative
Service Equality 0.012 -0.279 81 Weak Negative
Availability of Alternative Proper
0.018 -0.264 80 Weak Negative
Water Access Technology
Monitoring 0.003 -0.327 80 Weak Negative
Household Water
Consumption (Hygiene Transparency 0.044 -0.221 84 Weak Negative
and Sanitation)
Equitability 0.005 0.302 86 Weak Positive
Maintenance 0.022 -0.254 81 Weak Negative
Service Equality 0.046 -0.216 86 Weak Negative
Household Water
Consumption (General Equitability 0.005 -0.304 85 Weak Negative
Daily Use)
Maintenance 0.007 -0.300 80 Weak Negative
Source: 3-FSAQ

Table 40 shows the correlations revealed by the Spearman rho test between

socio-demographic and the local water use practices data with the household

sustainability perception of sustainability elements in component E.

The Socio-demographic characteristic Length of Residence in Community has

a moderate but negative effect on E element Risk Reduction (Biodegradable). Water

141
use practice Household Water Consumption (Hygiene and Sanitation) has a moderate

and positive effect on E element Risk Reduction (Biodegradable). The rest of the

relationships have weak with both positive and negative effects.

Table 40. Profile - E Correlation San Jacinto

Magnitude
Profile - San Jacinto E r p-value Size
Direction
Length of Residence in Water Conservation
0.018 -0.265 79 Weak Negative
Community (Personal)
Risk Reduction (Solid
0.001 -0.355 78 Weak Negative
Waste)
Risk Reduction
0.000 -0.407 82 Moderate Negative
(Biodegradables)
Water Conservation
Livelihood Source (Personal)
0.034 0.243 76 Weak Positive
Risk Reduction
Household Size (Biodegradables)
0.007 0.313 74 Weak Positive
Primary Household Water Conservation
0.001 -0.399 72 Weak Negative
Water Access Service (Laundry)
Length of use of Water Conservation
0.004 -0.324 77 Weak Negative
Primary Water Access (Personal)
Water Conservation
0.007 -0.304 77 Weak Negative
(Garden)
Availability of
Water Conservation
Alternative Water (Laundry)
0.005 -0.318 77 Weak Negative
Access
Household Water
Water Conservation
Consumption (Hygiene (Garden)
0.029 -0.241 82 Weak Negative
and Sanitation)
Risk Reduction
0.000 0.444 85 Moderate Positive
(Biodegradables)
Household Water
Water Conservation
Consumption (General (Garden)
0.015 -0.269 81 Weak Negative
Daily Use)
Environmental
0.002 -0.332 81 Weak Negative
Protection
Risk Reduction
0.004 0.312 84 Weak Positive
(Biodegradables)
Source: 3-FSAQ

5.3.2 Barangay San Fernando

Table 41 shows the correlations revealed by the Spearman rho test between

socio-demographic and the local water use practices data with the household

sustainability perception of sustainability elements in component FTI.

142
 The Socio-demographic characteristic Household Size has a weak and

negative effect on FTI element Water Safety. Characteristic Livelihood Source has

weak but positive effect with FTI elements Ease of Use Water Quality Water Safety

Reliability Affordability WSP Responsiveness and Sufficiency, but a moderate and

positive effect with FTI Element LGU Responsiveness.

Except for local water use practice Primary Household Water Access Suitable for

Cooking/Drinking and FTI element Water Safety, practice Availability of Alternative

Household Water Access and FTI element Water Safety, practice Household Water

Consumption (General Daily Use) and FTI elements Water Safety and Affordability,

which has moderate and negative effect, other water use practices have weak and

negative effects.

143
Table 41. Profile - FTI Correlation San Fernando
p- Magnitude
Profile - San Fernando FTI r Size
value Direction
Livelihood Source Ease of Use 0.001 0.400 69 Weak Positive
Water Quality 0.007 0.322 69 Weak Positive
Water Safety 0.004 0.305 87 Weak Positive
Reliability 0.005 0.332 69 Weak Positive
Affordability 0.012 0.300 69 Weak Positive
LGU
0.000 0.477 69 Moderate Positive
Responsiveness
WSP
0.001 0.396 69 Weak Positive
Responsiveness
Sufficiency 0.001 0.400 69 Weak Positive
Household Size Water Safety 0.000 -0.389 86 Weak Negative
Primary Household Water Access
Water Safety 0.014 -0.262 87 Weak Negative
Service
Primary Household Water Access Moderate
Water Safety 0.000 -0.450 82
Suitable for Cooking/Drinking Negative
Availability of Alternative Water
Water Quality 0.018 -0.284 69 Weak Negative
Access
Moderate
Water Safety 0.000 -0.492 87
Negative
Alternative Household Water
Access Suitable for Water Safety 0.021 -0.317 53 Weak Negative
Cooking/Drinking
Household Water Consumption
Water Safety 0.000 -0.396 87 Weak Negative
(Hygiene & Sanitation)
Household Water Consumption
Water Security 0.004 -0.345 68 Weak Negative
(General Daily Use)
Water Quality 0.004 -0.344 69 Weak Negative
Moderate
Water Safety 0.000 -0.524 86
Negative
Reliability 0.006 -0.326 69 Weak Negative
Moderate
Affordability 0.000 -0.429 69
Negative
LGU
0.035 -0.255 69 Weak Negative
Responsiveness
WSP
0.015 -0.292 69 Weak Negative
Responsiveness
Source: 3-FSAQ

Table 42 shows the correlations identified by the Spearman rho test between

socio-demographic and the local water use practices data with the household

sustainability perception of sustainability elements in component SP.

The Socio-demographic characteristic Livelihood Source has a moderate and

positive effect with SP elements Accessibility, Monitoring, Community Cohesiveness,

Cost Equality, and Service Equality. Water use practice Availability of Alternative

Water Access also has a moderate but negative effect on SP element Equitability, as

with Household Water Consumption (General Use) and SP element Equitability.

144
 Table 42. Profile - SP Correlation San Fernando
Profile - San Magnitude
SP r p-value Size
Fernando Direction
Livelihood Source Transparency 0.001 0.393 69 Weak Positive
Accessibility 0.000 0.441 69 Moderate Positive
Equitability 0.006 0.292 87 Weak Positive
Proper
0.001 0.380 69 Weak Positive
Technology
Maintenance 0.001 0.394 68 Weak Positive
Monitoring 0.000 0.429 69 Moderate Positive
Community
0.000 0.503 69 Moderate Positive
Cohesiveness
Cost Equality 0.000 0.472 69 Moderate Positive
Service
0.000 0.483 69 Moderate Positive
Equality
Household Size Equitability 0.001 -0.346 86 Weak Negative
Primary Household
Equitability 0.000 -0.366 87 Weak Negative
Water Access Service
Primary Household
Water Access
Equitability 0.001 -0.370 82 Weak Negative
Suitable for
Cooking/Drinking
Maintenance 0.036 -0.261 65 Weak Negative
Availability of
Alternative Water Equitability 0.000 -0.436 87 Moderate Negative
Access
Alternative
Household Water
Equitability 0.025 -0.307 53 Weak Negative
Access Suitable for
Cooking/Drinking
Household Water
Consumption
Equitability 0.002 -0.328 87 Weak Negative
(Hygiene and
Sanitation)
Proper
0.014 -0.296 69 Weak Negative
Technology
Household Water
Consumption Transparency 0.010 -0.309 69 Weak Negative
(General Daily Use)
Equitability 0.000 -0.423 86 Moderate Negative
Proper
0.002 -0.362 69 Weak Negative
Technology
Maintenance 0.003 -0.351 68 Weak Negative
Monitoring 0.021 -0.277 69 Weak Negative
Community
0.038 -0.250 69 Weak Negative
Cohesiveness
Cost Equality 0.033 -0.257 69 Weak Negative
Source: 3-FSAQ

145
 Table 43 shows the correlations revealed by the Spearman rho test between

socio-demographic and the local water use practices data with the household

sustainability perception of sustainability elements in component E.

The Socio-demographic characteristic Livelihood Source has a moderate and

positive effect with E element Environmental Protection. All other have weak

relationships.

Table 43. Profile - E Correlation San Fernando

Magnitude
Profile - San Fernando E r p-value Size
Direction
livelihood Source Water Conservation (Personal) 0.010 0.309 69 Weak Positive
Water Conservation (Garden) 0.005 0.337 69 Weak Positive
Water Conservation (Laundry) 0.002 0.376 68 Weak Positive
Moderate
Environmental Protection 0.000 0.444 69 Positive
Risk Reduction (Solid Waste) 0.022 0.275 69 Weak Positive
Risk Reduction
(Biodegradables) 0.002 0.368 69 Weak Positive
Weak
Household Size
Water Conservation (Garden) 0.035 -0.254 69 Negative
Weak
Water Conservation (Laundry) 0.044 -0.245 68 Negative
Primary Household Water
Access Suitable for Weak
Cooking/Drinking Water Conservation (Garden) 0.032 -0.264 66 Negative
Risk Reduction Weak
(Biodegradables) 0.039 -0.255 66 Negative
Availability of Alternative Weak
Water Access Water Conservation (Garden) 0.040 -0.248 69 Negative
Household Water
Consumption (Hygiene and Weak
Sanitation) Water Conservation (Laundry) 0.035 -0.256 68 Negative
Household Water
Consumption (General Daily Weak
Use) Water Conservation (Personal) 0.016 -0.289 69 Negative
Weak
Water Conservation (Garden) 0.001 -0.383 69 Negative
Weak
Water Conservation (Laundry) 0.002 -0.361 68 Negative
Weak
Risk Reduction (Solid Waste) 0.016 -0.289 69 Negative
Risk Reduction Weak
(Biodegradables) 0.004 -0.338 69 Negative
Source: 3-FSAQ

146
5.3.3 Barangay Santa Barbara

Barangay Santa Barbara is classified by the municipality of Victoria as a level III

water access service level. It is the second closest barangay to the Municipal Hall,

after barangay San Fernando, which is just some meters away.

Table 44 shows the correlations revealed by the Spearman rho test between

socio-demographic and the local water use practices with the household sustainability

perception of sustainability elements in component FTI are all seen as weak with both

positive and negative effects.

Table 44. Profile – FTI Correlation Santa Barbara

Magnitude
Profile - Santa Barbara FTI r p-value Size
Direction
Livelihood Source Affordability 0.036 0.224 88 Weak Positive
WSP
0.015 0.260 87 Weak Positive
Responsiveness
Availability of Alternative
Affordability 0.005 0.296 88 Weak Positive
Water Access
Household Water
Consumption (Hygiene & Water Safety 0.032 -0.236 83 Weak Negative
Sanitation)
Reliability 0.023 -0.246 85 Weak Negative
Source: 3-FSAQ

Table 45 shows correlations revealed by the Spearman rho test between socio-

demographic and the local water use practices with the household sustainability

perception of sustainability elements in component SP are all seen as weak with both

positive and negative effects.

147
 Table 45. Profile - SP Correlation Santa Barbara

Magnitude
Profile - Santa Barbara SP r p-value Size
Direction
Length of Residence in the
Accessibility 0.041 -0.228 81 Weak Negative
Community
Proper Technology 0.032 -0.243 78 Weak Negative
Length of Use of Primary
Service Equality 0.020 -0.253 84 Weak Negative
Water Access
Availability of Alternative
Equitability 0.047 0.215 86 Weak Positive
Water Access
Household Water
Consumption (Hygiene and Proper Technology 0.004 -0.313 82 Weak Negative
Sanitation)
Community
0.024 -0.244 85 Weak Negative
Cohesiveness
Cost Equality 0.042 -0.221 85 Weak Negative
Source: 3-FSAQ

Table 46 shows the correlations revealed by the Spearman rho test between

socio-demographic and the local water use practices with the household sustainability

perception of sustainability elements in component E are all seen as weak with

negative effects

Table 46. Profile - E Correlation Santa Barbara

Magnitude
Profile - Santa Barbara E r p-value Size
Direction
Length of Residence in the Water Conservation
0.009 -0.293 78 Weak Negative
Community (Personal)
Risk Reduction
0.028 -0.243 82 Weak Negative
(Biodegradables)
Length of Use of Primary Risk Reduction
0.022 -0.248 85 Weak Negative
Water Access (Biodegradables)
Household Water
Water Conservation
Consumption (Hygiene & 0.002 -0.340 82 Weak Negative
(Personal)
Sanitation)
Environmental
0.048 -0.219 82 Weak Negative
Protection
Source: 3-FSAQ

148
5.3.4 Barangay Balayang

Table 47 shows the correlations revealed by the Spearman rho test between

socio-demographic and the local water use practices with the household sustainability

perception of sustainability elements in component FTI. are all seen as weak with

positive effects. Barangay Balayang is classified as a level I/II water access service

level by the municipality of Victoria.

Table 47. Profile - FTI Correlation Balayang

Magnitude
Profile - Balayang FTI r p-value Size
Direction
Length of Residence in
Water Security 0.010 0.280 83 Weak Positive
the Community
Water Safety 0.022 0.253 82 Weak Positive
WSP Responsiveness 0.021 0.269 73 Weak Positive
Sufficiency 0.007 0.296 83 Weak Positive
Household Size Reliability 0.029 0.238 84 Weak Positive
Primary Household
Water Access Suitable Ease of Use 0.043 0.225 81 Weak Positive
for Cooking/Drinking
LGU Responsiveness 0.041 0.241 72 Weak Positive
WSP Responsiveness 0.049 0.234 71 Weak Positive
Alternative Household
Water Access Suitable Water Quality 0.026 0.248 81 Weak Positive
for Cooking/Drinking
Source: 3-FSAQ

Table 48 shows the results of the Spearman rho test between profile and the

sustainability perception components of SP as reported by the respondent’s

perception. Barangay Balayang is classified as a level I/II water access service level,

as categorized by the municipality.

149
Table 48. Profile - SP Correlation Balayang
Magnitude
Profile - Balayang SP r p-value Size
Direction
Length of Residence in the Community Accessibility 0.000 0.375 84 Weak Positive
Equitability 0.002 0.337 83 Weak Positive
Maintenance 0.039 0.231 80 Weak Positive
Community
0.002 0.349 80 Weak Positive
Cohesiveness
Service Equality 0.021 0.257 80 Weak Positive
Primary Household Water Access
Maintenance 0.011 0.287 78 Weak Positive
Suitable for Cooking/Drinking
Cost Equality 0.002 0.358 74 Weak Positive
Service Equality 0.038 0.236 78 Weak Positive
Alternative Household Water Access
Monitoring 0.036 0.236 79 Weak Positive
Suitable for Cooking/Drinking
Source: 3-FSAQ

Table 49 shows correlations revealed by the Spearman rho test between socio-

demographic and the local water use practices with the household sustainability

perception of sustainability elements in component E. are all seen as weak with

positive effects.

Table 49. Profile - E Correlation Balayang

Magnitude
Profile - Balayang E r p-value Size
Direction
Length of Residence in Water Conservation
0.006 0.300 82 Weak Positive
the Community (Garden)
Alternative Household
Water Conservation
Water Access Suitable 0.047 0.223 80 Weak Positive
(Garden)
for Cooking/Drinking
Source: 3-FSAQ

150
5.3.5 Level I/II Water Service Barangays

Table 50 show the results of the Spearman rho test conducted between respondent

profile and the sustainability perception components of FTI as reported by the

respondent’s perception from Level I/II Water Service Barangays, as categorized by

the municipality. Statistically significant associations have been highlighted for easier

identification.

Table 50. Profile - FTI Correlation Level I/II

Profile - Level I-II FTI r p-value Size Magnitude
Direction
Length of Residence in 0.002 0.246 161
Water Security Weak Positive
Community
Sufficiency 0.007 0.209 163 Weak Positive
Livelihood Source Ease of Use 0.005 0.218 163 Weak Positive
Water Quality 0.013 0.192 165 Very Weak Positive
Water Safety 0.009 0.207 160 Weak Positive
Reliability 0.007 0.209 163 Weak Positive
Affordability 0.005 0.220 158 Weak Positive
WSP Responsiveness 0.024 0.183 150 Very Weak Positive
Sufficiency 0.011 0.200 162 Very Weak Positive
Primary Household Water 0.039 -0.161 163
Reliability Very Weak Negative
Access Service
WSP Responsiveness 0.048 -0.162 159 Very Weak Negative
Length of use of Primary 0.011 0.199 162
Water Security Very Weak Positive
Water Access
Primary Household Water 0.000 0.319 162
Access Suitable for Ease of Use Weak Positive
Cooking/Drinking
Water Security 0.024 0.179 158 Very Weak Positive
Water Quality 0.000 0.288 163 Weak Positive
Water Safety 0.000 0.311 158 Weak Positive
Reliability 0.001 0.250 161 Weak Positive
Affordability 0.000 0.299 157 Weak Positive
LGU Responsiveness 0.000 0.308 153 Weak Positive
WSP Responsiveness 0.000 0.321 147 Weak Positive
Alternative Water Access 0.015 0.196 153
Suitable for Ease of Use Very Weak Positive
Cooking/Drinking
Water Security 0.019 0.192 148 Very Weak Positive
Water Quality 0.000 0.297 154 Weak Positive
Water Safety 0.003 0.242 149 Weak Positive
Reliability 0.003 0.243 152 Weak Positive
Affordability 0.043 0.167 148 Very Weak Positive
LGU Responsiveness 0.036 0.175 144 Very Weak Positive
WSP Responsiveness 0.003 0.255 136 Weak Positive
Household Water 0.000 0.312 171 Weak Positive
Consumption (Hygiene and Ease of Use
Sanitation)
Household Water 0.024 0.174 169 Very Weak Positive
Consumption (General Daily Ease of Use
Use)
Source: 3-FSAQ

151
 Table 51 shows the results of the Spearman rho test between respondent profile

and the sustainability perception components of SP as reported by the respondent’s

perception from Level I/II Water Service Barangays, as categorized by the

municipality. Statistically significant associations have been highlighted for easier

identification.

Table 51. Profile - SP Correlation Level I/II

Magnitude
Profile - Level I-II SP r p-value Size
Direction
Length of Residence in Community Accessibility 0.013 0.193 167 Very Weak Positive
Equitability 0.014 0.190 166 Very Weak Positive
Community
0.019 0.183 163 Very Weak Positive
Cohesiveness
Livelihood Source Transparency 0.003 0.231 159 Weak Positive
Proper Technology 0.013 0.202 151 Weak Positive
Maintenance 0.013 0.198 158 Very Weak Positive
Monitoring 0.024 0.179 159 Very Weak Positive
Community
0.002 0.239 162 Weak Positive
Cohesiveness
Primary Household Water Access
Transparency 0.007 -0.214 159 Weak Negative
Service
Accessibility 0.030 -0.168 166 Very Weak Negative
Proper Technology 0.001 -0.272 151 Weak Negative
Monitoring 0.008 -0.210 159 Weak Negative
Cost Equality 0.039 -0.164 158 Very Weak Negative
Length of use of Primary Water
Transparency 0.005 -0.220 161 Weak Negative
Access
Equitability 0.015 -0.188 167 Very Weak Negative
Proper Technology 0.049 -0.159 153 Very Weak Negative
Primary Household Water Access
Transparency 0.000 0.282 157 Weak Positive
Suitable for Cooking/Drinking
Accessibility 0.002 0.237 164 Weak Positive
Equitability 0.050 0.154 163 Very Weak Positive
Proper Technology 0.006 0.224 149 Weak Positive
Maintenance 0.000 0.352 155 Weak Positive
Monitoring 0.000 0.310 157 Weak Positive
Community
0.016 0.190 160 Very Weak Positive
Cohesiveness
Cost Equality 0.000 0.390 156 Weak Positive
Service Equality 0.000 0.345 160 Weak Positive
Alternative Water Access Suitable
Transparency 0.002 0.255 148 Weak Positive
for Cooking/Drinking
Accessibility 0.001 0.269 155 Weak Positive
Proper Technology 0.032 0.182 140 Very Weak Positive
Maintenance 0.004 0.236 147 Weak Positive
Monitoring 0.000 0.318 148 Weak Positive
Community
0.011 0.206 151 Weak Positive
Cohesiveness
Cost Equality 0.002 0.259 147 Weak Positive
Service Equality 0.004 0.235 151 Weak Positive
Household Water Consumption
Monitoring 0.008 0.205 166 Weak Positive
(Hygiene and Sanitation)
Source: 3-FSAQ

152
 Table 52 show the results of the Spearman rho test between respondent profile

and the sustainability perception components of E as reported by the respondent’s

perception from Level I/II Water Service Barangays, as categorized by the

municipality.

Table 52. Profile - E Correlation Level I/II

Magnitude
Profile - Level I-II E r p-value Size
Direction
Length of Residence in Water Conservation
0.005 0.219 161 Weak Positive
Community (General)
Water Conservation
Livelihood Source 0.001 0.257 154 Weak Positive
(Personal)
Water Conservation
0.035 0.167 160 Very Weak Positive
(Garden)
Risk Reduction (Solid
0.040 0.162 160 Very Weak Positive
Waste)
Risk Reduction
Household Size 0.009 0.206 161 Weak Positive
(Biodegradables)
Primary Household Water Water Conservation
0.001 -0.270 156 Weak Negative
Access Service (Laundry)
Primary Household Water
Water Conservation
Access Suitable for 0.000 0.316 152 Weak Positive
(Personal)
Cooking/Drinking
Water Conservation
0.000 0.324 158 Weak Positive
(Garden)
Water Conservation
0.023 0.183 154 Very Weak Positive
(Laundry)
Environmental
0.020 0.185 157 Very Weak Positive
Protection
Risk Reduction (Solid
0.000 0.320 157 Weak Positive
Waste)
Risk Reduction
0.006 0.215 163 Weak Positive
(Biodegradables)
Availability of Alternative Environmental
0.009 0.203 163 Weak Positive
Water Access Protection
Alternative Water Access
Water Conservation
Suitable for 0.003 0.245 143 Weak Positive
(Personal)
Cooking/Drinking
Water Conservation
0.000 0.308 149 Weak Positive
(Garden)
Environmental
0.019 0.192 148 Very Weak Positive
Protection
Risk Reduction (Solid
0.048 0.162 149 Very Weak Positive
Waste)
Risk Reduction
0.024 0.182 154 Very Weak Positive
(Biodegradables)
Household Water
Risk Reduction (Solid
Consumption (Hygiene 0.032 0.167 166 Very Weak Positive
Waste)
and Sanitation)
Risk Reduction
0.000 0.287 172 Weak Positive
(Biodegradables)
Source: 3-FSAQ

153
 Table 53 show the results of the Spearman rho test between respondent profile

and the sustainability perception components of FTI as reported by the respondent’s

perception from Level III Water Service Barangays, as categorized by the

municipality.

Table 53. FTI Profile Perception - Level III

Magnitude
Profile - Level III FTI r p-value Size
Direction
Length of Residence in Community Ease of Use 0.008 0.216 151 Weak Positive
Water Security 0.007 0.220 149 Weak Positive
Reliability 0.007 0.219 149 Weak Positive
Affordability 0.006 0.221 151 Weak Positive
WSP Responsiveness 0.040 0.168 150 Very Weak Positive
Livelihood Source Ease of Use 0.000 0.368 157 Weak Positive
Water Security 0.001 0.264 155 Weak Positive
Water Quality 0.001 0.256 156 Weak Positive
Water Safety 0.000 0.398 171 Weak Positive
Reliability 0.000 0.302 155 Weak Positive
Affordability 0.000 0.406 157 Moderate Positive
LGU Responsiveness 0.000 0.411 156 Moderate Positive
WSP Responsiveness 0.000 0.449 156 Moderate Positive
Sufficiency 0.000 0.368 155 Weak Positive
Primary Household Water Access Service Ease of Use 0.013 0.199 157 Very Weak Positive
Water Security 0.008 0.212 155 Weak Positive
Water Quality 0.041 0.164 156 Very Weak Positive
Reliability 0.009 0.208 155 Weak Positive
Affordability 0.000 0.298 157 Weak Positive
LGU Responsiveness 0.000 0.311 156 Weak Positive
WSP Responsiveness 0.000 0.303 156 Weak Positive
Sufficiency 0.037 0.168 155 Very Weak Positive
Length of use of Primary Water Access Ease of Use 0.001 0.260 154 Weak Positive
Water Security 0.009 0.212 152 Weak Positive
Water Quality 0.033 0.172 153 Very Weak Positive
Water Safety 0.016 0.186 168 Very Weak Positive
Reliability 0.001 0.273 152 Weak Positive
Affordability 0.01 0.207 154 Weak Positive
LGU Responsiveness 0.033 0.173 153 Very Weak Positive
WSP Responsiveness 0.004 0.230 153 Weak Positive
Sufficiency 0.010 0.209 152 Weak Positive
Primary Household Water Access Suitable for
Ease of Use 0.042 0.170 143 Very Weak Positive
Cooking/Drinking
Affordability 0.037 0.175 143 Very Weak Positive
LGU Responsiveness 0.034 0.178 142 Very Weak Positive
Sufficiency 0.008 0.221 141 Weak Positive
Availability of Alternative Water Access Water Safety 0.001 -0.241 171 Weak Negative
Affordability 0.026 0.178 157 Very Weak Positive
Alternative Water Access Suitable for
Ease of Use 0.037 0.201 107 Weak Positive
Cooking/Drinking
Reliability 0.005 0.271 105 Weak Positive
Affordability 0.001 0.313 107 Weak Positive
Household Water Consumption (Hygiene and
Water Safety 0.000 -0.278 170 Weak Negative
Sanitation)
Household Water Consumption (General Daily Water Safety 0.008 -0.203 169 Weak Negative
Use)
Source: 3-FSAQ

154
 Table 54 show the results of the Spearman rho test between respondent profile

and the sustainability perception components of SP as reported by the respondent’s

perception from Level III Water Service Barangays, as categorized by the

municipality. Statistically significant associations have been highlighted for easier

identification.

Table 54. SP Profile Perception – Level III

Magnitude
Profile - Level III SP r p-value Size
Direction
Length of Residence in
Transparency 0.034 0.174 149 Very Weak Positive
Community
Maintenance 0.016 0.202 142 Weak Positive
Community Cohesiveness 0.028 0.180 149 Very Weak Positive
Cost Equality 0.036 0.172 149 Very Weak Positive
Service Equality 0.035 0.173 149 Very Weak Positive
Livelihood Source Transparency 0.000 0.362 155 Weak Positive
Accessibility 0.000 0.348 155 Weak Positive
Equitability 0.000 0.392 173 Weak Positive
Proper Technology 0.001 0.266 152 Weak Positive
Maintenance 0.000 0.403 148 Moderate Positive
Monitoring 0.000 0.409 152 Moderate Positive
Community Cohesiveness 0.000 0.394 155 Weak Positive
Cost Equality 0.000 0.424 155 Moderate Positive
Service Equality 0.000 0.408 155 Moderate Positive
Primary Household Water
Transparency 0.022 0.184 155 Very Weak Positive
Access Service
Accessibility 0.001 0.254 155 Weak Positive
Maintenance 0.003 0.240 148 Weak Positive
Monitoring 0.002 0.245 152 Weak Positive
Community Cohesiveness 0.000 0.287 155 Weak Positive
Cost Equality 0.001 0.270 155 Weak Positive
Service Equality 0.008 0.212 155 Weak Positive
Length of use of Primary
Transparency 0.007 0.217 152 Weak Positive
Water Access
Accessibility 0.008 0.216 152 Weak Positive
Equitability 0.046 0.154 169 Very Weak Positive
Monitoring 0.026 0.181 150 Very Weak Positive
Community Cohesiveness 0.048 0.160 152 Very Weak Positive
Cost Equality 0.039 0.168 152 Very Weak Positive
Primary Household Water
Access Suitable for Accessibility 0.043 0.171 141 Very Weak Positive
Cooking/Drinking
Monitoring 0.024 0.192 138 Very Weak Positive
Community Cohesiveness 0.028 0.185 141 Very Weak Positive
Availability of Alternative
Equitability 0.039 -0.157 173 Very Weak Negative
Water Access
Monitoring 0.028 0.178 152 Very Weak Positive
Alternative Water Access
Suitable for Accessibility 0.001 0.326 105 Weak Positive
Cooking/Drinking
Proper Technology 0.011 0.248 104 Weak Positive
Monitoring 0.003 0.284 104 Weak Positive
Household Water
Consumption (Hygiene and Equitability 0.018 -0.180 172 Very Weak Negative
Sanitation)
Proper Technology 0.016 -0.195 151 Very Weak Negative
Household Water
Consumption (General Daily Equitability 0.026 -0.170 171 Very Weak Negative
Use)

Source: 3-FSAQ

155
 Table 55 show the results of the Spearman rho test between socio-demographic

characteristic Length of Residence in the Community, and Livelihood Sources as well

as water use practices Primary Water Access Service, Length of Use of Primary Water

Access, and Alternative Water Access Suitable for Cooking/Drinking.

Table 55. profile - E correlation for Level III

Magnitude
Profile - Level III E r p-value Size
Direction
Length of Residence Water Conservation
0.018 0.196 145 Very Weak Positive
in Community (Garden)
Water Conservation
0.026 0.185 145 Very Weak Positive
(Laundry)
Water Conservation
Livelihood Source 0.001 0.257 152 Weak Positive
(Personal)
Water Conservation
0.000 0.405 151 Moderate Positive
(Garden)
Water Conservation
0.000 0.374 151 Weak Positive
(Laundry)
Environmental Protection 0.000 0.328 152 Weak Positive
Risk Reduction (Solid
0.000 0.286 152 Weak Positive
Waste)
Risk Reduction
0.000 0.349 156 Weak Positive
(Biodegradables)
Primary Household Water Conservation
0.040 0.167 152 Very Weak Positive
Water Access Service (Personal)
Water Conservation
0.002 0.253 151 Weak Positive
(Garden)
Water Conservation
0.003 0.237 151 Weak Positive
(Laundry)
Environmental Protection 0.010 0.208 152 Weak Positive
Risk Reduction
0.000 0.308 156 Weak Positive
(Biodegradables)
Length of use of
Water Conservation
Primary Water 0.032 0.175 150 Very Weak Positive
(Personal)
Access
Water Conservation
0.026 0.182 149 Very Weak Positive
(Laundry)
Risk Reduction
0.023 0.184 153 Very Weak Positive
(Biodegradables)
Alternative Water
Water Conservation
Access Suitable for 0.012 0.247 103 Weak Positive
(Garden)
Cooking/Drinking
Risk Reduction
0.042 0.198 106 Very Weak Positive
(Biodegradables)
Source: 3-FSAQ

156
 5.4 Implications of The Sustainability Perception Score (SS) And Correlations

How do households from select barangays in the municipality of Victoria in

Tarlac, perceive the sustainability of their household water access service?

Specifically, what is the community’s self-assessment of the sustainability of water

service in terms of the following dimensions: financial, technical and institutional;

socio-political; and environmental?

Table 56 shows the common profiles among the barangays. From this, we can see

no common profile shared among all the four (4) barangays.

Table 56. Common Profiles - By Barangay

San Jacinto San Fernando Santa Barbara Balayang

Household Water
Livelihood Consumption Length of Residence
Profiles with Significant Statistical Correlation

Livelihood Sources
Sources (Hygiene & in Community
Sanitation)
Alternative Water
Primary Household Water
Household Size Access Suitable for
Access Service
Cooking/Drinking
Primary Water
Length of Use of Primary Access Suitable
Water Access for
Cooking/Drinking
Availability of
Availability of Alternative
Alternative Water
Water Access
Access
Household Water
Household Water
Consumption
Consumption (Hygiene &
(Hygiene &
Sanitation)
Sanitation)
Household Water
Household Water
Consumption
Consumption (General
(General Daily
Daily Use)
Use)
Source: 3-FSAQ

Each barangay communities self-assessment of the sustainability of water access

service in rural areas and in terms of components FTUI, SP and E ranges from a High

157
(-) to moderate (+), implying that either rural barangays are confident of their water

access service or regards it as smaller problem to making ends meet.

Table 57 shows the common profiles by water access service level I/II and III.

There are three commonalities found, namely the socio-demographic characteristics

Length of Residence in the Community, Livelihood Source, and Primary Household

Water Access Service.

Table 57. Common Profiles By Water Access Service Level

Water Access Service Level I/II Water Access Service Level III
Common Profiles with Significant

Length of Residence in Community Length of Residence in Community

Statistical Correlation

Livelihood Sources Livelihood Sources

Primary Household Water Access Service Primary Household Water Access Service

Primary Water Access Suitable for

Length of Use of Primary Water Access
Cooking/Drinking

Alternative Water Access Suitable for

Cooking/Drinking

Source: 3-FSAQ

Is there any relationship between the household’s water access service level and

its perceived sustainability? Intuitively, we can say that a rural household’s water

access service level can affect its perceived sustainability. This is due to the obvious

differences in the living standards and the presence of economies of scale between

urban and rural life in the country. While the findings support the intuition, it is not

just due to the same reasons. Livelihood opportunities are needed to improve local

perceptions.

158
 Is a higher rural water access service level less sustainable in the eyes of the

community? For rural households, improved water access does not mean a higher

service level. It can also mean an upgrade to their level I/II service such as additional

communal pumps or providing a closer access.

Table 58 gives us a summary of the average frequency totals from the data

collected. The sustainability component FTI received the highest sustainability

perception score by the four (4) barangay communities. Component E follows closely

while component SP has the lowest sustainability perception. This may be an

indication that rural barangays regard being self-sufficient as more reliable than

getting government assistance. Self-sufficiency is a common traditional value,

especially in rural areas that have agriculturally based communities, where growing

food and raising animals for household consumption is practiced.

From the data collected, important information was derived, such as, in particular

the level of sustainability using the SS matrix, where we see that rural households

from the selected barangays in the municipality of Victoria, Tarlac, generally have

Moderate (+) to High (-) perception of their rural households’ water access service

level.

Table 58. Summary Average Frequency Totals

San Santa
San Jacinto Balayang Ave
Fernando Barbara
FTI 148.8 31.77 121.12 104.11 101.45
SP 143.3 21.34 117.32 100.62 95.65
E 140.6 29.67 115.83 92.5 94.65
Ave 144.23 25.59 118.09 99.08
High - Moderate + Moderate + Moderate +
Source: 3-FSAQ

159
 Turning our focus on the strongest relationship uncovered, Table 59 outlines the

strongest relationships which are those found with moderate magnitude. Here we see

a common socio-demographic character namely, Livelihood Source.

Barangays Santa Barbara and Balayang did not have any moderate relationships,

which may mean limited livelihood sources and opportunities in the area.

Table 59. Moderate Correlations

Profile Component Element
Length of Residence in Community SP- Monitoring -
San Jacinto

Livelihood Source SP - Community Cohesiveness +

Length of use of Primary Water Access SP - Transparency -
Length of Residence in Community E - Risk Reduction (Biodegradables) -
Household Water Consumption (Hygiene and E - Risk Reduction (Biodegradables) +
Sanitation)

Livelihood Source FTI - LGU Responsiveness +

Primary Household Water Access Suitable for FTI - Water Safety -
Cooking/Drinking
Availability of Alternative Water Access FTI - Water Safety -
Household Water Consumption (General Daily Use) FTI - Water Safety -
San Fernando

Household Water Consumption (General Daily Use) FTI - Affordability -

Livelihood Source SP - Accessibility +
Livelihood Source SP - Monitoring +
Livelihood Source SP - Community Cohesiveness +
Livelihood Source SP - Cost Equality +
Livelihood Source SP - Service Equality +
Availability of Alternative Water Access SP - Equitability -
Household Water Consumption (General Daily Use) SP - Equitability -
Livelihood Source E - Environmental Protection +

Livelihood Source FTI - Affordability +

Livelihood Source FTI - LGU Responsiveness +
Livelihood Source FTI - WSP Responsiveness +
Level III

Livelihood Source SP - Maintenance +

Livelihood Source SP - Monitoring +
Livelihood Source SP - Cost Equality +
Livelihood Source SP - Service Equality +
Livelihood Source E - Water Conservation (Garden) +
Source: 3-FSAQ

160
 Are there any patterns in terms of how the household perceives the sustainability

of their household water access service? The pattern that forms is one that revolves

around the presence of livelihood opportunities, especially in rural and agricultural

areas.

Do socio-demographic characteristics such as length of residence in the

community, livelihood sources, and household size play a role? Of these

characteristics, livelihood sources appear to have the biggest influence on their

sustainability perception of their household water access. Length of residence in the

community and household size also play a part but need other factors to be effective.

Do water use practices—primary household water access, length of use of

primary household water sources, primary water access suitable for cooking and

drinking, availability of alternative household water access, alternative water access

suitable for cooking and drinking, household water consumption for hygiene and

sanitation, and household water consumption for daily use—influence the households’

assessment of sustainability? Together, these practices play a big role in influencing

how the rural household perceives the sustainability of their water access. However, it

is not clear what combination is best and what other factors should be considered.

A pattern is also further observed when take in the account of a barangay’s

proximity to the municipal hall where the Mayor holds office. It seems that the farther

a barangay is from the municipal town hall, the more the barangay has self-reliance

and observes sustainable water use practices which help prolong a more sustainable

water access service.

161
 6.0. CONCLUSIONS, FURTHER STUDY AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

This final chapter discuss the study’s findings, talks about further studies, and

offer recommendations. It is organized into three (3) parts. The first, section 6.1,

makes a discussion of the findings and provides a conclusion. Section 6.2 puts

forward next steps and further studies that make use of perception in strengthening

sustainability efforts as an effective tool for imparting good water governance,

especially in the area of providing rural household water access. The third part,

Section 6.3, offers recommendations based on the study’s findings and conclusion.

6.1 Conclusion

Community perception needs to be integral to any and all rural water access

projects. It has been proven that any one-size-fits-all solution does not guarantee

success. Rather, community’s involvement is a must for any rural water access project

to become sustainable.

Realizing that the barangay was formed as a political mechanism to mainly take

the place of the plebiscite requirement outlined in the constitution for any

amendments to the highest law of the country. As a result, the barangay became

institutionalized from all these years of neglect and political control by higher levels

of government, as a political unit whose leadership performed and acted as the local

chief and gate-keepers to rent-seekers. (Kendall, 1976). Good governance concepts

such as those advanced by Tropp, (2007) and Turton, et al., (2007) were taken out of

162
context and misused as rationale for the current state of local governance and served

only to preserve the political and social status quo.

The study’s findings support the notion espoused by good water governance

literature for an empowered citizenry and, as water right users, able to take ownership

of its water resources if it is to be sustainably supported by the community.

In assessing the sustainability of a household rural water access in select

barangays of Victoria, Tarlac, there appears a direct relationship between a

household’s sustainability perception of their rural household water access service

with the socio-demographic characteristic livelihood sources.

One of the problems facing our rural communities is the large income disparities

when compared to their urban counterparts. The implication here is that across

barangays, as more livelihood sources are available, with weak to moderate

associations, the following impacts to the three (3) sustainability dimensions are

discussed:

As the Country races to meet its obligations under the UN SDG 2030, specifically

goal number 6, calling for universal and improved water access, the tendency toward

achieving a level III water access service has been the national government’s push in

meeting this end. Although, admittedly the most convenient water access service, it

should not be forced upon rural communities since rural environments may only have

limited ability and only able to support an upgrade to its current water access service

delivery designs instead of committing to large water infrastructure projects that pave

the way for a level III service contracting out rural household water access service to

privately held water service providers (WSP) without any community consultation.

163
 Thus, the findings lead the study to conclude that through a rural household’s

sustainability perception, together with certain socio-demographic characteristics, as

well as local water use practices, does have an impact/effect on the actual

sustainability of its rural household water access.

The study successfully argued, in support of existing sustainability literature, that

a preponderance of established sustainability indicators increases and strengthen its

level of sustainability (Beder, 2006). Albeit difficult to get an accurate measure of

sustainability, household perception of sustainability has been shown to have an effect

on the actual sustainability state of a desirable public service such as the provision of

rural household’s water access service (Bohm, Essenburg, & Fox, 1993; Binder,

2008).

To the extent that level I/II service is more sustainable, through the proper use

and maintenance, by the people directly using and benefitting from such a system.

Community involvement, through feedback and response to any problems that may

cause disruptions to the service, also enhances its sustainability, through proactive

community actions and activities.

On the other hand, level III service can be said to be more sustainable in

communities with higher length of residence in the community, more livelihood

sources, and higher household densities. Additionally, the presence of alternative

rural water access services can be another plus factor that contributes to the

sustainability of the barangay’s constituent household rural water access service, as it

lessens the reliance to only one service and increases the household’s self sufficiency

in obtaining water access.

As a pilot mechanism for assessing the sustainability level of a rural household

water access, with timely and frequent use, the 3-FSAQ can be further improved to

164
provide more relevant feedback from local factors that was previously not considered

by the study.

Households, in select barangays in Victoria, have a weak to moderate perception

of the sustainability of their rural water access service. This is especially evident in

communities where agriculture is the main source of livelihood and where the

infrastructure for a piped network system, such as those required in level III water

access, has yet to be completed or implemented. These communities have also been

observed to consume water for irrigating land, which at times also serves as an

alternative water source for their households, with the same water quality used for

household consumption.

When compared across water service levels, the relationship between a

household’s sustainability perception of their rural household water access service

with the socio-demographic factor of livelihood sources becomes moderate or

stronger in level III water access barangays. This may be due to the availability of

alternative water sources as these barangay households have various water access

such as private deep wells with water pumps which are not readily available to their

level I/II counterparts.

Outside of the socio-demographic characteristics and local water use practices, a

barangay’s proximity to the municipality has an observable effect on a community’s

sustainability perception of their household rural water access service, in that the

farther the community, the higher their perception of sustainability of their household

water access service becomes.

The study established a negative relationship between a rural household’s

water access service level and its sustainability perception. It can be said that in a

165
rural setting, households with level III water access service are less sustainable than

ones with a level I/II water access service level.

The 3-FSAQ has been proven to be a very useful and less intrusive data

collection tool for barangays to use, that provides them with an idea of the degree of

sustainability of their rural household water access service. Moreover, the 3-FSAQ

can be customized to their own localized specifics to further enhance their

household’s water access service sustainability perception.

Across barangays, there is also a negative relationship that was observed with

regard to certain socio-demographic characteristics and local water use practices with

a rural household’s water access service level. This suggests that barangay households

with level I/II water service is seen to be more sustainable than those with a level III

service.

Between water access service levels, there was a stronger but still negative

relationship. This supports our previous report that level I/II water access service is

perceived to be more sustainable than those rural households with level III water

access service.

Finally, between the household’s water access service level and its perceived

sustainability, there is evidence of stronger perception of the sustainability of their

rural water access in level I/II service than level III water service.

Unlike in urban and highly commercialized districts, water concessions have been

given the monopoly over large areas, where the only water access alternative would

be from retail and commercial outlets or through LGU intervention (i.e., firetrucks,

and water rationing).

Considering these, and outside of large urban areas, instead of a policy of seeking

improved rural water access services throughout the country, maybe the push should

166
be toward sustainable rural water access services, which is far more economical and

sustainable in a rural environment.

The 3-FSAQ, as designed in the study, shows a lot of promise as an initial

example of how barangays can be assisted to become better empowered as well as

effective and efficient final providers of public goods and services, and secondly as a

basic template that can be easily designed locally. Such results can even be performed

virtually, using advances in IT technology and becoming more in tune with the times

as a result of the recent pandemic that was experienced world-wide.

Intuitively, it does not come as a surprise that a level III rural water access service

is, at least on the short term, unsustainable because of the absence of the economies of

scale in a rural setting, where agriculture is the main source of economic activity.

The select barangays in Victoria, Tarlac, namely San Jacinto, San Fernando,

Santa Barbara and Balayang, generally has a strong perception of the sustainability of

their household’s water access service. Changes in the magnitude is apparent among

barangays as well as through their rural water access service levels. It can also be

implied, from the data collected, that the 3-FSAQ provides a dip-stick assessment that

barangays can use to provide them with an idea of the sustainability level that their

household rural water access has, based on how the community perceives it.

Moderate relationship patterns were found, in terms of how the household assess

the sustainability of the water access service vis-à-vis certain socio-demographic

characteristics and living conditions, namely, role in the household length of

residence in the community, livelihood sources, household size, educational

attainment, household water sources (e.g. main and alternative source available to the

household), length of use of current water source, and daily water consumption (e.g.

167
bathroom use and household water consumption) across rural water service levels,

while a weak to very weak relationships are observed across barangays.

The sustainability of a barangay’s rural water access service lies on the

availability, and feasibleness, of its existing rural water access service. The study has

shown that community perception can be used and tapped as an excellent source of

user information, based on primary data, which can easily be obtained in real time

with today’s technology. In this case it was demonstrated that through the 3-FSAQ,

the barangay can obtain a dipstick measure of their current situation which can

pinpoint needed and targeted interventions to strengthen their weak points and further

improve their capacities to become an effective and efficient final delivery

mechanism of public goods and services of the government.

More than the statistically significant relationships were those whose relationship

were missing and not statistically established. It was observed by this researcher that

households in those barangays that were farthest from the municipal seat (i.e., the

población) had a higher perception of the sustainability of their household rural water

access service than those closer to it. It appears that barangays with close proximity to

the local seat of political authority and power have a tendency to be dependent on the

municipality instead of being self-reliant enough as to be confident of their own

sustainability in rural water access. And although there were patterns that can be

established in terms of socio-demographic characteristics and living conditions vis-à-

vis their perception of sustainability of their water access service, the barangay’s

geography, household density and local economy are observed to have a bigger

impact on the level of perceived sustainability to their household water access service.

This holds true when the available water service level comes into play, where it is

168
clear that a higher service level is not sustainable in far flung barangays with less

household density.

6.2 Further Studies

With additional resources for further study, the following have been identified as

topics for further study:

Because sustainability involves certain points in time to serve as a benchmark for

additional assessments. There is there a need to conduct more longitudinal studies on

how a rural barangay’s perception of their household water access service is further

influenced and how such can be affected by other factors such as climate change, the

increased role of women and children in household water access sustainability as well

as other factors that may not have been previously considered.

At the municipality level, barangay water programs and activities that promote a

sustainability mindset in the context of household rural water access should be

undertaken to enhance local knowledge and increase sustainability perception. There

should be close collaboration and cooperation between the barangay, as the basic

delivery arm of the national government, and the municipal and provincial LGU level.

Recognizing the benefit that the 3-FSAQ brings to the LGU at the barangay level,

additional studies should look into the use of household perception as a feedback

source for the community-based monitoring system (CBMS) as outlined in RA 11315

of 2019. By doing so, it furthers our understanding of perception-based feedback in

bringing about an improved and sustainable rural water access service for current

users as well as for those rural communities unable to financially meet obligations

required of level III water access service and complements government initiatives

169
outlined in the Philippine Water Supply and Sanitation Master Plan (PWSSMP)

which currently guides our country’s water policy until the year 2030.

There is also a need to further improve the interaction of both government and

non-governmental organizations when it comes to the practical and relevant

implementation of the integrated water resources management (IWRM), especially at

the barangay level.

Current regulatory set up for rural water access which has become complicated

over the years and should be reviewed in favor of the local community. Overlaps in

responsibilities within the government should be properly addressed at the national

level but empowering at the barangay level.

As a community feedback mechanism, the 3-FSAQ is proven to be an effective

tool that the barangay can easily and economically utilize to effect social equitability

in its mandate to deliver basic public services. Such tool should be considered

dynamic and further research is suggested to continually improve this mechanism and

make it customizable to be more locally relevant. A cross examination of data among

barangays from different municipalities in the same or similar provinces can also shed

valuable insights for provincial, and even national issues and concerns. Additional

factors such as gender equitability, water supply sources and climate change is worth

the investigation.

Local knowledge and practices should be aligned with sustainability efforts in the

delivery of basic public service, such as providing sustainable household rural water

access. At the barangay level, more studies should be encouraged to inculcate

equitable and responsible general management and administrative support services to

constituent households. This can be further achieved by additional research that result

in inexpensive ways and methods that can be easily implemented at the community

170
level. Practical approaches using good governance concepts can result in better

community engagement at the barangay level, fostering social equity. These studies

should aim to invigorate a more humanized, and therefore sustainable, program in the

delivery of basic public services to households.

In addition, creating awareness in household sustainability perception of climate

change issues should be looked into as it affects their attitude toward sustainable rural

water access service sustainability and prepare the barangay in improving their

performance to better serve the general community.

The advent of new and the development of information technology such as the

use of smart phones should also be mentioned for further researchers as ready tools to

position the barangay into the future and possibly pave the way for the use of artificial

intelligence in the delivery of public service.

Finally, further studies are needed to enhance our understanding not only of the

local rural level dynamics that influences the local water access sustainability

perception but also into identifying common factors among respondents within a

barangay that can quite possibly have policy implications on sustainable rural

household water access at both the national and global levels of governance. An

example, nationally, is to assess if a barangay’s proximity to the municipal and

provincial seats of power affects their water access sustainability perception and thus

their attitude toward a higher rural water access service level. Globally includes

climate change, and other factors that result in inverse positive relationships.

Longitudinal studies at the local level should also be pursued.

171
6.3 Recommendations

The following recommendations are therefore provided:

1. Conduct Community Education and Awareness Programs: Where barangays can

organize community education and awareness programs to increase awareness about

the importance of sustainable water usage and conservation. This can also help to

raise awareness about the challenges and consequences of water pollution,

contamination and depletion.

2. Encourage Water Conservation Practices: The barangays can encourage households

to conserve water by promoting the adoption of water-saving measures such as using

low-flow showerheads, repairing leaks and reducing water wastage.

3. Identify and Manage Water Sources: Barangays can identify and manage water

sources to ensure that the supply of clean water is consistent, especially during

extreme weather conditions or periods of high demand.

4. Establish Appropriate Technologies: Barangays can adopt appropriate water

treatment and purification technologies to ensure that the water supplied to

households is clean, safe and free from contaminants.

5. Develop Community Partnerships: Barangays can develop partnerships with

community organizations, private businesses, and government agencies to enhance

the capacity of the community to manage their water resources as well as improve the

locale’s talent pool.

172
6. Monitor & Evaluate Household Consumption: The barangays can monitor and

evaluate household water consumption to ensure that the supply is consistent with the

demand. This can involve participating in household water usage surveys, tracking

water usage trends, and implementing water billing systems that factor in the quantity

and quality of water consumed by households.

By promoting water conservation, adopting appropriate technologies, monitoring

and evaluating household water consumption, and collaborating with community

organizations and government agencies, Philippine barangays can improve the

sustainability of their water access service and ensure continued service.

The research further recommends increasing the awareness and participation of

the community in policy designs for the provision of sustainable clean water. This can

be accomplished through seminars provided by the responsible agency.

Moreover, to meet this end, the Local Government Code (RA 7160) should be up

for review in the legislature for the purpose of updating such to better reflect the

current needs of our society at large.

Needed capital and equity infusion, estimated (in 2018) at between 22 to 56

billion pesos, is needed if the country is serious in meeting its 2030 water supply and

sanitation targets (Velasco L. , 2018).

At the barangay level, in suggesting the de-politization of the barangay and

turning it into an administrative body, a review and update of the local government

code should be done to make it timelier in today’s environment.

Finally, there should be more transparency between barangay and municipality

relations since the COA does not cover the barangay who is under the purview of the

municipal Treasurer/Auditor and whose report is not easily accessible.

173
 Environmentally beneficial practices that were traditionally effective but was

replaced by modern techniques should be re-introduced to the barangay to come up

with simple and easily implemented and enforced sustainability practices such as anti-

littering, volunteerism and the like.

Finally, as we scramble to meet the UN-SDG #6 deadline in 2030, the spirit of

these UN goals should not be lost amidst the greed that often accompanies large infra

water projects. The sustainability problem of household rural water access service lies

not in the amount of money thrown at it, but in the commitment and dedication of the

barangay and its community to ensure that this basic public service remain non-

exclusive and non-rivalrous to all water rights holders.

174
 Bibliography

FAO. (2016). How can women control water?, Social Policies and Rural Institutions
Division (ESP). AGL.

Abulencia, J. P., Gallardo, S., Abraham, N., Caraccio, A., Ruffini, N., McDonnell, K.,
& Tañala, F. (2010). Sustainability of Water Resources for the Poor.
Consilience: The journal of sustainable development, 4, 155-166.

Adam, H. (2017). Steps to sustainability: A road map for WASH. Waterlines, 185-
203. doi:10.3362/1756-3488.17-00002

Araral, E., & Wang, Y. (2013). Water governance 2.0: A review and second
generation research agenda. Water Resources Management, 27(11), 3945-
3957.

Araral, E., & Yu, D. (2009). Asia Water Governance Index. Public Policy Institute.

Asian Development Bank. (2013). Philippines: Water Supply and Sanitation Sector
Assessment, Strategy and Roadmap. Mandaluyong City: ADB. doi:ISBN 978-
92-9092-941-3 (Print), 978-92-9092-942-0 (PDF)

Asian Development Bank. (2022, 4 25). Retrieved from Pacificwater.org: chrome-

extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://www.pacificwater.org/u
serfiles/file/iwrm/philippines.pdf

Awortwi, N., & (Netherlands), & I., &. (1999). The riddle of community development:
Factors influencing organisation, participation and self-management in 29
African and Latin American communities. The Hague: Institute of Social
Studies.

Bamberger, M. (1991). The Importance of Community Participation. Public

Adminisration and Development, II(3), 281-284.

Basiago, A. D. (1999). Economic, Social, and Environmental Sustainability in

Development Theory and Urban Planning Practice. The Environmentalist, 19,
145-161.

Beder, S. (2006). The Sustainability Principle. In UNSW, Environmental Principles

and Policies.

Beder, S. (2006). The Sustainability Principle. In Environmental Principles and

Policies. London: UNSW Press.

Behrens, J. T. (1997). Principles and Procedures of Exploratory Data Analysis. APA

Psyc, 2(2), 131-160.

175
Bell, P., Green, T., Fisher, J., & Baum, A. (2001). Environmental Psychology, 5th ed.
Belmont CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

Benedict, S., & Hussein, H. (2019). An Analysis of Water Awareness Campaign

Messaging in the case of Jordan. Water, 11(6). Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w11061156

Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1994). Linking Socio-ecological systems for resilience and
sustainability. Stockholm: The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

Berner, E., & Phillips, B. (2005). Left to their Own Devices? Community Self-Help
between Alternative Development and Neo-Liberalism. Community
Development Journal, 17.

Bhandari, B., & Grant, M. (2007). User Satisfaction and Sustainability of Drinking
Water Schemes in Rural Communities in Nepal. Science, Practice and Policy,
3(1). doi:10.1080/15487733.2007.11907988

Bhandari, P. (2022, 3 22). Correlational Research: When and How to use. Retrieved
from Scribbr: https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/correlational-research/

Bhatia, V. K., & Jaggi, S. (2022, 12 17). icar-iasri. Retrieved from Exploratory Data
Analysis: chrome-
extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://bioinformatics.iasri.res.i
n/ePublication/book/module1/VKBhatia-Exploratory_data_analysis.pdf

Binder, D. (2008). Sustainability of Water Service Delivery in Rural Environment:

Past Approaches and the Way Forward. Emerging Markets Group-Water
Sector.

Black, M. (1998). Learning What Works. Washington DC: UNDP.

Bohm, R. A., Essenburg, T. J., & Fox, W. F. (1993). Sustainability of potable water
services in the Philippines. Water Resources Research Journal, 29(7), 1955-
1963.

Botes, L. (2013). Participatory Development as an Alternative Development

Approach. . South Africa: University of Free State.

British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA), 2. (2009). Guide to principles of

good governance.

Brown, B. C. (2011). Conscious Leadership for Sustainability: A study of how leaders

and change agents with postconventional consciousness design and engage in
complex change initiatives. Ashridge International Research.

Brundtland, G. (1987). Our common future. World Commission on Environment.

Buclet, N., & Lazarevic, D. (2015). Principles for Sustainability.

176
Burton, C. G., Cutter, S. L., & Emrich, C. T. (2010, January). Disaster Resilience
Indicators for Benchmarking Baseline Conditions. Journal of Homeland
Security and Emergency Management, 7(1), 1-18. doi:10.2202/1547-7355
1732

Carter, R., Tyrell, S., & Howsam, P. (1999). The Impact and Sustainability of
Community Water Supply and Sanitation Program in Developing Countries.
Water and Environment Journal, 13(4), 292-296.

Cavagnaro, E., & Curiel, G. (2012). The three levels of sustainability. Sheffield:
Greenleaf Publishing Ltd.

Columbia Water Center. (2012). Designing Sustainable and Scalable Rural Water
Supply Systems: Evidence and Lessons from Northeast Brazil. Columbia
University.

Constitution. (1987). The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Pilippines.

Retrieved from Official Gazette of the Philippine Government:
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/1987-constitution/

Cox, C. K. (2005). Organic leadership: The co-creation of good business, global

prosperity, and a greener future. Benedictine University.

Creswell, J. (2013). Steps in conducting a scholary mixed method study. DBER

speakerseries.

Daemane, M. (2015). The AnalyticConceptual Framework for Comprehending

Factors Essential to Realize Sustainability in Rural Communites' Water
Supply Systems. Global Journal of Guman Social Science, 15(5).

David, C. (2015). Vision 2040: Discussions with the Filipino Youth. NEDA.

David, C. C., & Inocencio, A. B. (1996). Understanding Household Demand and

Supply of Water: The Metro Manila Case. Philippine Institute for
Development Studies, 1-11.

Davies, A., & Lemma, T. (2009). Capacity Development: A UNDP Primer.

Dayrit, H. (2001). Review of the National Experience in the Formulation of a

National Water Vision. In L. Ti, & T. Facon (Eds.), From Vision to Action: A
synthesis of Experiences in Southeast Asia. Bankgkok: FAO/ESCAP. doi:974-
88406-3-8

de Oliveira, C. M. (2017). Sustainable access to safe drinking water: fundamental

human right in the international and national scene. Ambiente & Agua - An
InterdisciplinaryJournal of Applied Science.

177
Demuth, A. (2013). Perception Theories. Towarzystwo Słowaków w Polsce. doi:978-
83-7490-606-7

Dhaoui, I. (2019). Good Governance for Sustainable Development. Munich

PersonalRePEe Archive.

Dhaoui, I. (2019). Good Governance for Sustainable Development. Munich Personal

RePEc Archive. Retrieved from https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/92544

Dijksterhuis, A., & van Knippenberg, A. (1998). The Relation Between Perception
and Behavior, or How to Win a Game of Trivial Pursuit. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 865-877.

Diola, F. (2009). Social capital formation through peace and development initiatives
in selected conflict areas in Mindanao and implications for local governance.
UP NCPAG, 1-34;418-434.

Dohner, R. S., & Intal, P. J. (1989). Government Interventions and Rent Seeking. In J.
D. Sachs, & S. M. Collins (Eds.), Developing Country Debt and Economic
Performance, Vol 3: Country Studies - Indonesia, Korea, Philippines, Turkey
(Vol. 3). University of Chicago Press. doi:ISBN: 0-226-30455-8

DROP. (2013). Water governance assessment tool. Retrieved November 28, 2015,
from DROP: http://doc.utwente.nl/86879/1/Governance-Assessment-Tool-
DROP-final-for-online.pdf

Dungumaro, E., & Madulu, N. (2003). Public participation in integrated water

Resources Management:the case of Tanzania. Physics and Chemistry of the
Earth, 1009-1014.

Ekins, P., Deutsch, L. M., Simon, S., & Folke, C. (2003). A Framework for the
practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong
sustainability. Ecological Economics, 44(2-3), 165-185.

Falkenmark, M., Berntell, A., Jagerskog, A., Lundqvist, J., Matz, M., & Tropp, H.
(2007). On the verge of a new water scarcity: A call for good governance and
human ingenuity. SIWI. Retrieved August 11, 2016, from
http://www.unwater.org/downloads/SIWI_PB_Water_Scarcity.pdf

Fan, Y., Tang, Z., & Park, S. C. (2019). Effects of Community Perceptions and
Institutional Capacity on Smallholder Farmers’ Responses to Water Scarcity:
Evidence from Arid Northwestern China. Sustainability, 11(483).

Farsari, Y., & Prastacos, P. (2002). Sustainable Development Indicators : An

overview.

Ferguson, M., & Bargh, J. (2004). How social perception can automatically influence
behavior. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 8(1). doi:10.1016

178
Fleurbaey, M., Kartha, S., Bolwig, S., Chee, Y. L., Chen, Y., Corbera, E., . . . Sagar,
A. D. (2014). Sustainable Development and Equity. In O. R.-M. Edenhofer, J.
Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel, & J. C. Minx (Eds.),
Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of
Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J.
(2010). Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and
Transformability. Ecology ans Society, 15(4).

Gleick, P. (1996, June). Basic Water Requirements for Human Activities: Meeting
Basic Needs. Water International, 21, 83-92.
doi:10.1080/02508069608686494.

Global Water Partnership. (2002). Dialogue on Effective Water Governance. Sweden:

Elanders Novum AB.

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative

Research. Science and Education, 597-607.

Gosling, L., & Edwards, M. (1995). Toolkits: A practical Guide to Assessment,

Monitoring, Review and Evaluation. London: Save the Children.

Graham, J., Amos, B., & Plumptre, T. (2003). Principles for Good Governance in the
21st Century. Institute on Governance. Otawa: Institute on Governance.
Retrieved August 11, 2016, from
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UNPAN/UNPAN0118
42.pdf

Grinnell, R., & Williams, M. (1990). Grinnell, R;& Williams, M 1990. Research in
social work: a primer. Itasca: FE Peacock Publishers. Itasca: FE Peacock
Publishers.

Hall, R. A., Abansi, C. L., & Lizada, J. C. (2018). Laws, Institutional Arrangements,
and Policy Instruments. In A. C. Rola, J. M. Pulhin, & R. A. Hall (Eds.),
Water Policy in the Philippines (pp. 41-64). Springer Nature.

Hall, R., Lizada, J., Dayo, H., Abansi, C., David, M., & Rola, A. (2015). To the last
drop: the political economy of Philippine water policy. Water Policy, 17, 946-
962. Retrieved AUGUST 11, 2016, from https://ovpaa.up.edu.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2015/10/WPOL-D-14-00150-2.pdf

Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science. Vol 162 (3859). Pp 1243-
1248. DOI: 10.1126/science.162.3859.1243, 162(3859), 1243-1248. doi:DOI:
10.1126/science.162.3859.1243

179
Harris, J. M. (2000). Basic Principles of Sustainable Development. Global
Development and Environment Institute. Medford: Tuft University.

Harrison, L. (2016). From Abrasive to Impressive Leadership.

Havekes, H., Hofstra, M., van der Kerk, A., Teeuwen, B., van Cleef, R., & Oosterloo,
K. (2016). Building Blocks for good governance. Hague: Water Governance
Centre (WGC). Retrieved August 26, 2016, from
http://watergovernance.s3.amazonaws.com/files/P085-01-16-006-
eindpubBB.pdf

Hiwasaki, L., Luna, E., Syamsidik, & Shaw, R. (2014). Local & indigenous
knowledge for community resilience: Hydro-meteorological disaster risk
reduction and climate change adaptation in coastal and small island
communities. Jakarta: UNESCO. doi:ISBN 978-602-9416-11-4 (UNESCO)

Hodgkin, J. (1994). Sustainability of donor-assisted rural water supply projects.

Washington: WASH technical report, 94.

Horbulyk, T., & Price, J. P. (2018). Pricing reforms for sustainable water use and
management in the Philippines. UNEP.

IFAD. (2009). Sustainability of rural development projects: Best practices and

Lessons learned bt IFAD in Asia. Kegan: Tango International.

Inocencio, A. B., Padilla, J. E., & Javier, E. P. (1999). How Much Water Do
Households Require. Philippine Institute for Developmental Studies, 1-8.

Inocencio, A., Padilla, J., & Javier, E. (1999). Determination of Basic Household
Requirements. Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

Israel, D. (2009). Local Service Delivery of Potable Water in the Philippines:

National Review and Case Analysis. Makati: Philippine Institute for
Development Studies.

Jenkins, W. (2013). The Future of Ethics: Sustainability, Social Justice, and Religious
Creativity. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.

Jimenez, A., Saikia, P., Gine, R., Avello, P., Leten.J, Lymer, B., . . . Ward, R. (2020).
Unpacking Water Governance: A Framework for Practicioners. Water, 2(827).
doi:10.3390/w12030827

Juwana, I., Muttil, I. J., & OPerera, B. J. (2012). Indicator-based Water Sustainability
Assessment – A Review. Science of the Total Environment,, 438, 357-371.

Kakabadse, A. P., & Kakabadse, N. K. (2007). CSR in practice: Delving deep. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.

180
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.

Kemper, E. A., Stringfield, S., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Mixed Methods Sampling
Strategies in Social Research. .

Kendall, S. H. (1976). The Barangays as Community in the Philippines. Meeting

World Housing Needs, 41(242), 15-19.

Kothari, C. (1990). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Delhi:

Wishwa.

Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research
Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 607-610.

Kumar, S. (2002). Methods for community participation: A complete guide for

practitioners. London: ITDG .

Lee, T. H. (2013). Influence Analysis of Community Resident Support for Sustainable

Tourism Development. Tourism Management, 37-46.

Lee, T. H., & Jan, F. H. (2019). Can Community Based Tourism Contribute to
Sustainable Development? Tourism Management, 368-380.

Lin, H., Lee, H., & Wang, K. (2021). Influence Analysis of Sustainability Perceptions
on Sense of Community and Support for Sustainable Community
Development. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health.

Livingstone, A., & McPherson, H. (1993). Management strategies for rural water
development: A Case From Sudan. United Nations Sustainable Development
Journal, 7(4), 294-301. doi:doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.1993.tb00189.x

Llanto, G. M. (2013). Water Financing Programs in the Philippines:Are we making

Progress? PIDS.

LWUA. (2017). Water Districts in the Philippines. Quezon City. Retrieved from
http://lwua.gov.ph

Macharia, E. W., Mbassana, M., & Oduor, J. (2015). Assessing Sustainability of

Rural Water Projects in Naivasha, Kenya, Case Study: Maraigushu Water
Project. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 52-83.

Malayang, B. I. (2004). A Model of Water Governance in the Philippines. In A. Rola,

H. Francisco, & J. Liguton (Eds.), Winning the Water Wars: watersheds,
water policies and water institutions (pp. 59-84). PCARRD. doi:ISBN 971-
564-075-3

181
Masduqi, A., Soedjono, E. S., Endah, N., & Hadi, W. (2009). Prediction of Rural
Water Supply Systems Sustainability Using a Mathematical Model.

McCommon, C., Warner, D., & Yohalem, D. (1990). Community Management of

Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Services. Washington: WASH Technical
Report No. 67.

Mesch, G., & Manor, O. (1998). Social Ties, Environmental Perception and Local
Attachment. Environmental Behavior, 504-519.

Messakh, J., Fanggidae, R. E., & Moy, D. L. (2020). Perceptions of Rural

Communities Towards Sustainable Water Supply in Arid Tropical Regions in
Indonesia. Earth and Environmental Science, 426(2020).

Miranda, L., Hordijk, M., & Molina, R. (2011). Water Governance Key Approaches:
An Analytical framework, A Literary Review. Amsterdam.

Mukherjee, N., & van Wijk, C. (2003). Sustainability Planning and Monitoring in
Community Water Supply and Sanitaion. The World Bank.

Municipality of Victoria, Tarlac. (2019).

Narayan, D. (1994). The Contribution of People's Participation: Evidence from 121

rural water supply projects. New York: World Bank.

NEDA. (2019). Philippine Water Supply and Sanitation Master Plan (PWSSMP).
Manila: NEDA. Retrieved 11 23, 2022, from https://neda.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2021/09/120921_PWSSMP_Main-Report.pdf

NEDA. (2019). Philippine Water Supply and Sanitation Master Plan 2019-2030.
Manila: NEDA.

NEDA. (2021). Philippine Water Supply and Sanitation Master Plan. Manila: NEDA.
Retrieved 11 23, 2022, from https://neda.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2021/09/120921_PWSSMP_Main-Report.pdf

Nikkhah, H. A., & Redzuan, M. (2009). Participation as a Medium of Empowerment

in Community Development. European Journal of Social Sciences, 11(1),
170-176.

Njie, N., & T. Ndiaye, T. (n.d.). Women and Agricultural Water Resource
Management. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/women-
and-agricultural-water-resource-management

OECD. (2015). Governance challenges and suggested tools for the implementation of
the water-related Sustainable Development Goals. UN-Water.

OECD. (2015). Inventory of water governance indicators and measurement

frameworks. OECD Water governance initiative.

182
OECD. (2015). OECD.org. Retrieved from oecd.org/governance/oecd-principles-on-
water-governance.htm

OECD. (2018). OECD.org. Retrieved April 5, 2021, from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264292659-en

OECD. (2018). Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development and Gender Equality:
Fostering an Integrated Policy Agenda. OECD.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of

service. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41-50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-

item scale for measuring consumer perceptionsof service quality. Journal of
Retailing, 6(1), 12-40.

Pascual, C. M., Abadilla, C. P., & Acedebo, F. A. (2007). People-Centered

Approaches in Sustaining Water, Food and Environmental Sanitation in the
Philippines: A Review.

Pasimio, H. J. (2011). Turning the Tide: Improving water resource management in the
Philippines. Manila: Senate Economic Planning Office. Retrieved August 11,
2016, from https://www.senate.gov.ph/publications/PB%202011-08%20-
%20Turning%20the%20Tide.pdf

Paul, S. (1987). Community Participation in Development Projects: The World Bank

Experience. Washington: World Bank.

Peltz, C. (2008). Community water supply: project effectiveness and sustainability.

Peltz, C. (2008). Community water supply: project effectiveness and
sustainability. Masters Degree. Fort Collins: Colorado State University.
[retrieved online on 23 January 2019] http://digitool.library.
colostate.edu///exlibris/dtl/d3_1/apache_media/L2V4. Retrieved February 6,
2019, from http://digitool.library.
colostate.edu///exlibris/dtl/d3_1/apache_media/L2V4

PhilAtlas. (2019, April 22). PhilAtlas. Retrieved from PhilAtlas:

https://www.philatlas.com/philippines.html

Pommells, M. (n.d.). Gender Violence as a Water, Sanitation, and Hygene Risk:

Uncovering Violence Against Women and Girls as it Pertains to Poor WaSH
Access. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218754410

PSA & ICF. (2018). Philippines National Demographic and Health Survey 2017: Key
Indicators Report. Rockville: USAID.

PSA. (2015). Philippine Census.

183
PSA. (2019). Most Filipino Families Have Access to Improved Source of Drinking
Water. Quezon City: PSA. Retrieved 12 13, 2022

PwC. (2012). Key trends in Human Capital 2012: A global perspective.

Qiong, O. (2017). A brief Introduction to Perception. Studies in Literature and

Language, 15(4), 18-28. doi:10.3968/10055

RA 7160. (1991, October 10). Local Government Code of the Philippines. Local
Government Code of the Philippines. Manila: Philippine Official Gazette.
Retrieved November 21, 2015, from RP Official Gazette:
http://www.gov.ph/1991/10/10/republic-act-no-7160/

Roberto, E. L. (2002). How to Make Local Governance Work. Makati: The Asian
Institute of Management.

Rogers, P., & Hall, A. (2003). Effective Water Governance. Sweden: Global Water
Partnership Technical Committee (TEC).

Rola, A., Lizada, J., Pulhin, J., Dayo, H., & Tabios III, G. (2015). Challenges of
Water Governance in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Science, 144(2),
197-208.

Sadoff, C. E., Borgomeo, E., & De Waal, D. (2017). Turbulent Waters. Pursuing
Water Security in Fragile Contexts. Washinton, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.worldbank.org/water.

Sahlin, J. P. (1998). How much technical training does a project manager need in
project management?

Saith, A. (1992). The Rural Non-Farm Economy: Processes and Policies. Senge:
International Labour Organisation.

Sanchez-Hernndez, M., Maldonado-Briegas, J., Sanguino, R., Barroso, A., &

Barriuso, M. (2021). Users’ Perceptions of Local Public Water and Waste
Services: A Case Study for Sustainable Development. Energies, 14(3120).
doi:10.3390

Sandys, E. (2005). Women 2000 and Beyond.

Sarker, A., Baldwin, C., & Ross, H. (2009). Managing groundwater as a common-
pool resource: an Australian case study. . Sarker, A., Baldwin, C. & Ross, H.
2009. Managing groundwater as a common-pool resource: an Australian case
study. Research Article|October 01 2009. Water Policy (2009) 11 (5): 598-
614. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2009.076. doi:doi.org/10.2166/wp.2009.076

Saunders, M., Thornhill, A., & Coleman-Lewis, P. (1997). Research Methods for
Business Students, 7th Edition. Google Books.

184
Saunders, W., & Becker, J. (2015). A discussion of resilience and sustainability: Land
use planning recovery from the Canterbury earthquake sequence, New
Zealand. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 14, 73-81.

Scoones, I. (2016). The Politics of Sustainabiity and Development. The Annual

Review of Environment and Resources, 293-311.

Senge, P., Smith, B., Kruschwitz, N., Laur, J., & Schleyn, J. (2008). The Necessary
Revolution. Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Sherry, J. (2017). Perceptions of water services and innovations to improve water

services in Tanzania.

Shynu, R. V., Santhosh Kumar, K. G., & D., S. (2021). Factors Influencing
Environment Perception: A systematic Review. Journal of Physics:
Conference Services.

Smets, S. (2015). Water supply and sanitation in the Philippines : turning finance into
services for the future. In Water and Sanitation Program Washington, D.C. :
World Bank Group. Wash. DC: World Bank Group.

Smets, S. (n.d.). Water supply and sanitation in the Philippines : turning finance into
services for the future (English). In Water and Sanitation Program
Washington, D.C. : World Bank Group.
doi:http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/469111467986375600/Water-
supply-and-sanitation-in-the-Philippines-turning-finance-into-services-for-the-
future

Smith, J. W. (2010). Drinking Water Issues and Management in the Republic of the
Philippines.

Stojanovic, I., Ateljevic, J., & Stevic, R. S. (2016). Good Governance as a Tool of
Sustainable Development. European Journal of Sustainable Development,
5(4), 558-573. doi:10.14207/ejsd2016.v5n4p558

Tabios, G. Q. (2020). Physical Features and State of Water Resources and Status of
Water Governance in the Philippines. In W. W. Resources, Water Resources
Systems of the Philippines: Modeling Studies (Vol. 4). Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-030-25401-8

The Urban Partnerships Foundation. (2012). Water Supply and Sanitation. Retrieved
from Ombudsman.gov.ph: https://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/UNDP4/wp-
content/uploads/2012/12/Chap-08.-Water-Supply-and-Sanitation-30Nov06-
UPF.pdf

Toke, L. K., Gupta, R. C., & Dandekar, M. (2012). An empirical study of green supply
chain management in Indian perspective. Research Gate.

185
Torbert, W. R., Cook-Greuter, S. R., Fisher, D., & Foldy, E. G. (2004). Action
inquiry: The secret of timely and transformational leadership. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.

Tropp, H. 2. (2007). Water governance: trends and needs for new capacity
development. Water Policy, 919(30). doi:10.2166/wp.2007.137

Turton, A., Hattingh, H., Maree, G., Roux, D., Claasen, M., & Strydom, W. (2007).
Governance as a Trialogue: Government-Society-Science in Transition. (A.
Turton, H. Hattingh, G. Maree, D. Roux, M. Claasen, & W. Strydom, Eds.)
pp. 29-37.

UN. (2015). Water for a sustainable world. Paris: UNESCO.

UNDP. (1997). Human Development Report 1997. New York: Oxford University
Press. doi:ISBN 0-19-511996-7 (cloth) ISBN 0-19-511997-5 (paper)

UNDP. (2006). Mainstreaming Gender in Water Management. UNDP.

UNDP. (2013). Use's guide on assessing water governance.

UNESCO. (2006). Gender, Water and Sanitation: A policy Brief. Retrieved from
http://www.wsscc.org

UNISDR. (2009). Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva: United Nations

International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR).

UNMDG. (2013). Enhancing Access to and Provision of Water Services with the
Active participation of the poor. Final Narrative Report.

van Velsor, E. (2009). Introduction: Leadership and corporate social responsibility.

Corporate Governance, 9(9), 3-6.

van Wijk-Sijbesma, C. (1995). Participation of Women in Water Supply and

Sanitation: Roles and Realities. The Hague: International Reference Center for
Community Water Supply and Sanitation.

Velasco, L. (2018). An Assessment of the Financial Sustainability and Performance of

Philippine Water Districts. Philippine Journal of Development, 45(2), 49-70.

Velasco, L. G., Diokno-Sicat, C. J., Castillo, A. F., & Maddawin, R. B. (2020). The
Philippine Local Government Water Sector. Quezon City: Philippine Institute
for Development Studies.

Wakeman, W. (1995). Gender Issues Source book for Water and Sanitation Projects.
Washington: UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation for Health Program.

186
Wanjiru, M. M. (2014). DETERMINANTS OF SUSTAINABILITY OF COMMUNITY
WATER PROJECTS IN KIENI EAST DISTRICT, NYERI COUNTY. University
of Nairobi.

WHO. (2012). Health Indicators of sustainable water in the Context of the Rio+20
UN Conference on Sustainable Development. New York: WHOI/UNICEF.

WHO-UNICEF. (2017). Progress on drinking water, sanitation and hygiene: 2017

update and SDG baselines. New York: WHO/UNICEF.

Wiek, A., & Larson, K. (2012). Water, People and Sustainability-A Systems
Framework for Analyzing Water Governance Regimes.

World Bank. (1995). The Contribution of Peoples Paticipation Evidenced from 1212
Rural Water Supply Projects. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank. (2015). Water Supply and Sanitation in the Philippiines: Turning
Finance into services for the future.

World Bank. (2017). Sustainability Assessment of Rural Water Service Delivery

Models: Findings of a Multi-Country Review. Washington DC: World Bank.

World Bank. (2017). Sustainability Assessment of Rural Water Service Delivery

Models: Findings of a Multi-Country Review. Washington DC: Worl Bank.

Yacoob, M., & Walker, J. (1991). Community Management in Water Supply and
Sanitation Projects: Costs and Implications. 40(1), 30-34.

Yttredal, E., & Homlong, N. (2020). Perception of Sustainable Development in a

Local World Heritage Perspective. Sustainability, 12(8825). doi:10.3390

187
 University of the Philippines
National College of Public Administration and Governance
Diliman, Quezon City

Appendix 1. 3-FSAQ

Salamat sa pagsali sa aming survey! (Thank you for participating in our survey!)
Ang pananaliksik na ito ay bahagi ng isang pag-aaral sa ilalim ng Doctor of Public Administration Program
(DPA) ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas National College of Public Administration and Governance (UP-
NCPAG). Ang iyong kontribusyon sa survey na ito ay makakatulong sa pagsulong ng ating pag-unawa sa
mga paraan makamit ang mapanatiling pag-access ng tubig sa mga kabahayan sa kanayunan .(This survey
is part of a research study under the Doctor of Public Administration program (DPA) of the University of the
Philippines National College of Public Administration and Governance (UP-NCPAG). Your contribution to this survey
will help advance our understanding of ways to achieve sustainable water access by rural households).

Ang pag kumpleto ng questionnaire ay maaring tumagal ng labinlima (15) hanggang

dalawampung (20) minuto. (The questionnaire will take approximately fifteen (15) to twenty (20)
minutes to complete).

Kompidensiyalidad, Paglahok at Pahintulot (Confidentiality, Participation and Consent)

Mangyaring panigurado ang iyong pangalan at personal na impormasyon ay pinananatiling lihim at hindi
isasaliwalat sa sinumang nasa labas ng pag-aaral na ito. Ang anumang impormasyong ibinigay sa survey
na ito ay bibigyan ng lubos na pag-aalaga para manatiling kumpidensyal at hindi masusubaybayan sa iyo.
Lahat ng impormasyon ay gagamitin lamang para sa mga layuning pang-akademiko. (Please be assured that
your name and personal information are kept confidential and will not be disclosed to anyone outside of this study.
Any information provided in this survey will be treated with the utmost care to remain confidential and cannot be
traced back to you. All information provided will be used solely for academic purposes only).

Ang iyong pakikilahok sa survey na ito ay kusang-loob at maaari kang umatras kahit kailan nang walang
anumang kahihinatnan sa iyong pagkatao o katayuan sa komunidad. (Your participation in this survey is
voluntary and you may withdraw anytime without any consequence to your person or status in the community).

Gastos, Pakinabang, Pagbabayad at Insentibo (Costs, Benefits, Compensation and Incentive)

Walang anumang gastos ang pakikilahok sa survey na ito. Isang maliit na tanda ng pagpapahalaga ay
ibibigay para sa iyong oras at pagsisikap sa aming survey. (Participation in this survey is free of charge and a
small token of appreciation will be given for your time and effort in our survey).

Detalye para Makipag-ugnay (Contact Details)

Anumang katanungan tungkol sa survey na ito o sa pag-aaral sa pangkalahatan, ay ipadala ke G. Bertrand
J. Lesaca sa: [email protected]. (Any questions about this survey, or the study in general, should be sent to
Mr. Bertrand J. Lesaca at [email protected]).

188
 University of the Philippines
National College of Public Administration and Governance
Diliman, Quezon City

RESPONDENT PROFILE

Mababa sa isang taon (Less than 1 yr)

Gaano ka na katagal nakatira sa komunidad na ito? (How long have 1-3 taon (1-3 yrs)
you lived in this community?) 3-5 taon (3-5 yrs)
Higit sa 5 taon (More than 5 yrs)

Agrikultura (Agriculture)
Pangunahing pinagkukunan ng kabuhayan (Main source of Negosyo (Business)
livelihood) Self-employed (Self-employed)
Empleyado ng Gobyerno (Government employee)
Iba pa (Others):______________________

1-5 (1-5)
Bilang ng tao sa inyong sambahayan (Number of people in your 6-9 (6-9)
household) 10 o higit pa (10 or more)

Balon (Deep well)

Pangunahing pinagkukunan ng tubig para sa iyong Gripo/bomba ng barangay (Barangay pump or faucet)
sambahayan (Main source of water for your household) Sariling poso (Our own pump)
Tagabigay ng serbisyo ng tubig (Water service provider)
Bumibili ng tingi (Buy Retail)
Iba pa (Others):______________________________

Di hihigit sa 1 taon (less than a year)

Gaano katagal niyo na ginagamit ang pangunahing mapagkukunang tubig 1-3 taon (1-3 yrs)
na ito? (How long have you been using this water source?) 4-6 taon (4-6 yrs)
7 o higit pa na taon (7+ yrs)

Dito nyo rin ba nakukuha ang iyong tubig para sa pagluluto at pag-inom? (Is this where you also Oo (Yes)
get your water for cooking and drinking?) Hindi (No)

189
 University of the Philippines
National College of Public Administration and Governance
Diliman, Quezon City

RESPONDENT PROFILE (continued)

Balon (Deep well)

Ano ang iba pang puedeng mapagkukunan ng tubig Gripo/bomba ng barangay (Barangay pump or faucet)
para sa iyong sambahayan? Piliin ang lahat ng Sariling poso (Our own pump)
naaangkop. (What other sources of water do you have Tagabigay ng serbisyo ng tubig (Water service provider)
for your household? choose all that apply.) Bumibili ng tingi (Buy Retail)
Iba pa (Others):______________________________

Puede ba dito makuha ang inyong tubig pang-luto o pang-inom? (Can you get your water for cooking Oo (Yes)
and drinking here?) Hindi (No)
3 hanggang 5 beses (3 to 5 times)
Ilang beses sa karaniwan ginagamit ng iyong sambahayan ang 6 hanggang 9 beses (6 to 9 times)
banyo/paliguan? (On average, how many times does your household 10 hanggang 15 beses (10 to 15 times)
use the bathroom/toilet?) 16 o higit pang beses (16 or more times)

Gaano karaming tubig sa karaniwan ang iniinom ng iyong 6 hanggang 10 litro (6 to 10 liters)
sambahayan sa isang araw? (How much drinking water does your 11 hanggang 15 litro (11 to 15 liters)
household consume in a day?) 15 hanggang 20 litro (15 to 20 liters)
Higit sa 20 litro (20 + liters)

Maaari ba kaming makipag-ugnayan sa iyo upang linawin ang iyong mga sagot sa survey na ito? (Can Oo (Yes)
we contact you to clarify your answers to this survey?) Hindi (No)
Kung oo, pakibigay ang detalye (If Yes, kindly Telepono (Telephone) :_________________________________
provide your contact details): Email (Email):________________________________________
Kompidensiyalidad (Confidentiality)
Ang pagbigay ng inyong impormasyong personal ay kusang-loob at laging mananatiling lihim at hindi bibigyan ng anumang uri ng
pagpapakilala upang tumugma sa iyong mga sagot. Lahat ng kabatirang ibinigay dito ay estriktong gagamitin lamang sa layuning
pang-akademiko. (Providing your personal information is voluntary and will always remain confidential and will not be given any form of identifier
to match your answers. All information provided herein is strictly for academic purposes only.)

190
 Basahin ang mga sumusunod na pahayag at suriin ito batay sa mga sumusunod, at
markahan ang naaangkop na kahon. (Read the following statements and evaluate it based on
the following, and mark the appropriate box):
1 Strongly agree / Malakas na sumasangayon
2 Agree / Sumasangayon
3 Neither Agree or Disagree / Ni sangayon o di sangayon
4 Disagree / Di Sumasangayon
5 Strongly disagree / Malakas na hindi sumasang-ayon

1 2 3 4 5
Ang aming serbisyo sa tubig pang sambahayan ay madaling gamitin at
ipanatili. (Our household water service is easy to use and maintain.)
Ang aming sambahayan ay nag-iimbak ng tubig para sa emerhensiyang
panggamit. (Our household stores water for emergency use.)
Ang tubig na nakukuha namin para sa aming sambahayan ay maaring
gamitin para sa pagluluto at pag-inom. (The water we get for our
household is good for cooking and drinking.)
Nag-iimbak ng tubig ang aming sambahayan sa maayos na mga
selyadong lalagyan (Our household stores water in properly sealed
containers)
Laging namin maasahan ang parehong kalidad ng serbisyo ng tubig sa
anumang oras. (We can always expect the same quality of water service at
any time.)
Ang gastos para sa pag-access ng tubig para sa aming sambahayan ay
abot kaya namin. (The cost for our household water access service is
affordable.)
Maasahan naming ang agarang aksyon ng aming local na pamahalaan
kapag naantala ang serbisyo ng tubig para sa aming sambahayan. (We
can expect our local government to take immediate action when our
household water access is interrupted.)
Nakikinig ang aming taga bigay ng tubig sa kung ano ang kailangan ng
aming sambahayan upang makapagbigay ng mas mahusay na serbisyo sa
tubig. (Our water service provider lkstens to what our household needs in order to
give better water service.)
Ang aming serbisyo sa tubig ay sapat para sa pang araw-araw na
pangangailangan ng aming sambahayan. (Our water access service meets
our daily household water needs. )

191
 Basahin ang mga sumusunod na pahayag at suriin ito batay sa mga sumusunod, at
markahan ang naaangkop na kahon. (Read the following statements and evaluate it based on
the following, and mark the appropriate box):
1 Strongly agree / Malakas na sumasangayon
2 Agree / Sumasangayon
3 Neither Agree or Disagree / Ni sangayon o di sangayon
4 Disagree / Di Sumasangayon
5 Strongly disagree / Malakas na hindi sumasang-ayon

Ang aming sambahayan ay palaging pinapaalamanan ng lokal na pamahalaan

1 2 3 4 5
ukol sa mga sitwasyong maaring makaapekto sa aming pag-access ng tubig. (Our
household is always informed by the local government on situations that may
affect our water access service.)
Ang pag-access sa tubig para sa aming sambahayan ay maginhawa at madaling
mapuntahan. (Our household water access is convenient and easily accessible.)
Ang aming sambahayan ay maaring makakuha ng inuming tubig mula sa iba pa
na maaring mapagkunan ng tubig. (Our household can get drinking water from
other available sources.)
Ang aming sambahayan ay agad na inuulat o inaayos ang anumang mga pag
tagas ng tubig na aming makita. (Our household immediately reports or fixes any water
leaks we detect.)
Ang aming sambahayan ay nakikilahok sa komunidad sa proseso ng paggawa ng
desisyon na nakakaapekto sa pag-access ng tubig sa sambahayan. (Our
household participates with the community in the decision-making process that
affects household water access.)

Ang aming sambahayan ay kumikilos kapag ang aming pag-access sa tubig ay

nagambala. (Our household takes action when our water access is interrupted.)

Tumutulong ang aming sambahayan sa ibang mga sambahayan sa kanilang mga

pangangailangan sa tubig kung kinakailangan. (Our household helps other
households with their water needs when needed.)
Anumang karagdagang gastos mula sa aming pag-access sa tubig ay pantay na
ipinamamahagi sa iba pang mga sambahayan sa komunidad. (Any additional
costs from our access to water are evenly distributed to other households in the
community.)
Ang aming serbisyo s tubig ay katulad ng kung ano ang mayroon ng ibang mga
sambahayan sa aming komunidad. (Our household water access service is just
like what other households have in our community.)

192
 Basahin ang mga sumusunod na pahayag at suriin ito batay sa mga sumusunod, at
markahan ang naaangkop na kahon. (Read the following statements and evaluate it based
on the following, and mark the appropriate box):
1 Malakas na sumasangayon (Strongly agree)
2 Sumasangayon (Agree)
3 Ni sangayon o di sangayon (Neither Agree or Disagree)
4 Di Sumasangayon (Disagree)
5 Malakas na hindi sumasang-ayon (Strongly disagree)

1 2 3 4 5
Pinapatay namin ang ang tubig habang nagsisipilyo, nag-aahit at naghuhugas ng
kamay o paghuhugas ng mukha. (We turn off running water while brushing teeth,
shaving and hand or face washing.)
Ang aming sambahayan ay gumagamit ng mga katutubong halaman para sa
aming hardin. (Our household uses native plants for our garden.)
Nag-iskedyul kami kapag ginagawa namin ang aming labahan (We schedule
when we do our laundry.)
Nililinis namin at pinapanatili ang mga kanal ng tubig malapit sa aming bahay.
(We clean and maintain water canals and sewer drains near our house.)

Ang aming sambahayan ay itinatapon ang aming basura sa mga itinalagang

tapunan ng basura. (Our household disposes our garbage in designated garbage
collection points.)
Ang aming sambahayan ay gumagamit ng mga produktong di nakakapinsala sa
kapaligiran hanggat maari. (Our household uses environmentally friendly
products whenever possible.)

193
Appendix 2. Location Maps

MAP A

SOURCE: Mapcarta, 2019 & Municipality of Victoria, 2019 Site Level I/II Level III

194
MAP B

Cabuluan

Batang Batang

SOURCE: Mapcarta, 2019 & Municipality of Victoria, 2019 Site Level I/II Level III

195
 Appendix 3. Frequency Tables - Respondent Profile by Barangay

Respondent Profile by Barangay

BARANGAY Total
San San Sta.
Jacinto Fernando Barbara Balayang
Length of residency in the Less than 1 year 3 1 1 0 5
community 1 - 3 years 2 2 21 6 31
3 - 5 years 13 9 17 3 42
More than 5 years 66 74 44 75 259
Main livelihood source Agriculture 57 19 50 41 167
Business 4 7 20 6 37
Self-employed 7 45 5 21 78
Government employee 7 8 6 4 25
Others 5 8 7 14 34
Household Size 1–5 49 41 49 42 181
6-9 11 21 27 41 100
10 or more 16 24 6 4 50
Primary household water access Deep well 5 8 2 0 15
Barangay pump/faucet 31 28 63 57 179
Our own pump 33 29 7 30 89
Water service provider 6 15 15 0 36
Buy retail 4 4 1 0 9
Others 0 3 0 0 3
Length of use of the primary 1 year or less 1 1 3 1 6
household water access 1 - 3 years 6 5 30 6 47
4 - 6 years 12 8 22 9 51
7+ years 62 71 31 71 235
Primary water access suitable for Yes 83 58 77 62 280
cooking and drinking No 0 24 0 20 60
Availability of alternative household Deep well 3 14 4 1 22
water access Barangay pump/faucet 43 34 56 44 177
Our own pump 34 15 11 25 85
Water service provider 0 8 15 23 26
Buy retail 4 7 2 12 25
Others 0 9 0 1 10
Alternative water access suitable Yes 74 41 70 61 246
for cooking and drinking No 0 12 0 21 33
Household water consumption for 3 -5 x per day 39 36 23 21 119
hygiene and sanitation 6-9 x per day 15 20 41 26 102
10 -15 x per day 32 7 16 11 66
16 x + per day 1 24 7 29 61
Household water consumption for 6-10 liters 37 37 42 30 147
daily use 11-15 liters 15 18 26 23 82
16-20 liters 32 9 14 14 69
20+ liters 2 22 5 18 47
Source: 3-FSAQ

196
Appendix 4. Frequency Table - Response by Barangay

Financial, Technical, Institutional (FTI)

Barangay
Indicator Perception Response Tot
SJ SF SB B
Our household water service is easy to Strongly agree 68 14 39 28 149
use and maintain. Agree 18 22 48 51 139
(Ease of Use) Neither Agree or Disagree 0 13 1 6 20
Disagree 0 16 0 0 16
Strongly Disagree 0 4 0 1 5
Total 86 69 88 86 329
Our household stores water for Strongly agree 53 19 42 28 142
emergency use. (Water Security) Agree 28 19 43 44 134
Neither Agree or Disagree 0 11 2 9 22
Disagree 0 15 0 3 18
Strongly Disagree 0 4 0 2 6
Total 81 68 87 86 322
The water we get for our household is Strongly agree 73 18 39 36 166
good for cooking and drinking. Agree 8 16 47 35 106
(Water Quality) Neither Agree or Disagree 2 17 1 9 29
Disagree 4 16 0 4 24
Strongly Disagree 0 2 0 2 4
Total 87 69 87 86 329
Our household stores water in properly Strongly agree 74 17 42 37 170
sealed containers. Agree 4 26 41 43 114
(Water Safety) Neither Agree or Disagree 2 11 1 1 15
Disagree 3 30 0 2 35
Strongly Disagree 0 3 0 2 5
Total 83 87 84 85 339
We can always expect the same quality Strongly agree 74 11 37 31 153
of water service at any time. Agree 9 16 48 43 116
(Reliability) Neither Agree or Disagree 3 22 1 9 35
Disagree 1 14 0 1 16
Strongly Disagree 0 6 0 0 6
Total 87 69 86 84 326
The cost for our household water Strongly agree 73 14 36 32 155
access service is affordable. Agree 11 18 51 39 119
(Affordability) Neither Agree or Disagree 0 12 1 6 19
Disagree 1 19 0 4 24
Strongly Disagree 0 6 0 1 7
Total 85 69 88 82 324
We can expect our local government to Strongly agree 67 11 33 34 145
take immediate action when our Agree 16 20 51 40 127
household water access is interrupted. Neither Agree or Disagree 2 11 2 2 17
(LGU Responsiveness) Disagree 1 24 1 0 26
Strongly Disagree 0 3 0 1 4
Total 86 69 87 77 319
Our water service provider listens to Strongly agree 61 13 31 25 130
what our household needs in order to Agree 12 20 54 40 126
give better water service. Neither Agree or Disagree 4 10 2 8 24
(WSP Responsiveness) Disagree 1 23 0 1 25
Strongly Disagree 0 3 0 2 5
Total 78 69 87 76 310
Our water access service meets our Strongly agree 72 14 35 51 172
daily household water needs. Agree 8 19 49 34 110
(Sufficiency) Neither Agree or Disagree 1 9 2 1 13
Disagree 0 22 0 0 22
Strongly Disagree 0 5 0 0 5
Total 81 69 86 86 322
Source: 3-FSAQ
197
 Social – Political (SP)
Barangay
Indicator Perception Response Tot
SJ SF SB B
Our household is always informed by the Strongly agree 65 13 32 21 131
local government on situations that may Agree 11 19 53 50 133
affect our water access service. Neither Agree or Disagree 9 12 1 9 31
(Transparency) Disagree 0 22 0 2 24
Strongly Disagree 0 3 0 0 3
Total 85 69 86 82 322
Our household water access is convenient Strongly agree 77 12 36 38 163
and easily accessible. Agree 6 21 49 43 119
(Accessibility) Neither Agree or Disagree 4 9 1 4 18
Disagree 0 22 0 2 24
Strongly Disagree 0 5 0 0 5
Total 87 69 86 87 329
Our household can get drinking water from Strongly agree 67 16 35 43 161
other available water sources. Agree 16 28 49 39 132
(Equitability) Neither Agree or Disagree 2 10 2 1 15
Disagree 2 29 0 2 33
Strongly Disagree 0 4 0 2 6
Total 87 87 86 87 347
Our household immediately reports or fixes Strongly agree 67 16 33 29 145
any water leaks we detect. Agree 12 21 49 39 121
(Proper Technology) Neither Agree or Disagree 4 15 1 3 23
Disagree 0 13 0 2 15
Strongly Disagree 0 4 0 3 7
Total 83 69 83 76 311
Our household participates with the Strongly agree 66 16 32 29 143
community in the decision-making process Agree 12 20 47 49 128
that affects household water access. Neither Agree or Disagree 4 12 1 1 18
(Maintenance) Disagree 0 17 0 2 19
Strongly Disagree 0 3 0 2 5
Total 82 68 80 83 313
Our household takes action when our water Strongly agree 74 17 36 31 158
access is interrupted. (Monitoring) Agree 9 17 47 48 121
Neither Agree or Disagree 0 11 0 4 15
Disagree 0 17 0 0 17
Strongly Disagree 0 7 0 1 8
Total 83 69 83 84 319
Our household helps other households with Strongly agree 71 13 34 32 150
their water needs when needed. Agree 14 16 51 43 124
(Community Cohesiveness) Neither Agree or Disagree 1 17 1 6 25
Disagree 1 22 0 2 25
Strongly Disagree 0 1 0 0 1
Total 87 69 86 83 325
Any additional costs from our water access Strongly agree 70 14 31 26 141
service are evenly distributed among other Agree 9 22 54 39 124
households in the community. (Cost Neither Agree or Disagree 4 8 1 11 24
Equality) Disagree 4 22 0 3 29
Strongly Disagree 0 3 0 0 3
Total 87 69 86 79 321
Our household water service is just like Strongly agree 67 14 34 21 136
what other households have in our Agree 19 16 51 51 137
community. (Service Equality) Neither Agree or Disagree 1 15 1 6 23
Disagree 0 22 0 4 26
Strongly Disagree 0 2 0 1 3
Total 87 69 86 83 325
Source: 3-FSAQ

198
 Environmental (E)
Barangay
Indicator Perception Response Tot
SJ SF SB B
We turn off running water while Strongly agree 65 18 37 31 151
brushing teeth, shaving and hand or Agree 17 20 46 43 126
Neither Agree or Disagree 1 12 0 3 16
face washing. Disagree 0 15 0 2 17
(Water Conservation – Personal) Strongly Disagree 0 4 0 0 4
Total 83 69 83 79 314
Our household uses native plants Strongly agree 68 12 28 32 140
for our garden. Agree 13 19 52 42 126
Neither Agree or Disagree 2 18 2 6 28
(Water Conservation – Garden) Disagree 0 17 0 5 22
Strongly Disagree 0 3 0 0 3
Total 83 69 82 85 319
Our household schedules when we Strongly agree 68 16 28 34 146
do our laundry. Agree 6 16 52 45 119
Neither Agree or Disagree 6 12 3 0 21
(Water Conservation – Laundry) Disagree 0 21 0 4 25
Strongly Disagree 0 3 0 1 4
Total 80 68 83 84 315
We clean and maintain water Strongly agree 53 21 35 38 147
canals and sewer drains near our Agree 30 19 48 44 141
Neither Agree or Disagree 0 7 0 1 8
house. Disagree 0 18 0 0 18
(Environmental Protection) Strongly Disagree 0 4 0 1 5
Total 83 69 83 84 319
Our household disposes our Strongly agree 73 22 36 39 170
garbage in designated garbage Agree 7 19 43 45 114
Neither Agree or Disagree 2 9 4 0 15
collection points. Disagree 0 13 0 0 13
(Risk Reduction – Solid Waste) Strongly Disagree 0 6 0 1 7
Total 82 69 83 85 319
Our household uses Strongly agree 62 16 42 39 159
environmentally friendly products Agree 20 20 42 47 129
Neither Agree or Disagree 2 14 3 1 20
whenever possible. Disagree 1 17 0 0 18
(Risk Reduction-Biodegradables) Strongly Disagree 1 2 0 0 3
Total 86 69 87 87 329
Source: 3-FSAQ

199
 Appendix 5. Codebook

Code Description
Socio-Demographic
D1 How long have you lived in this community?
D2 Main source of livelihood
D3 No. of people in your household
Water Use Practices
D4 Main source of water for your household
D5 How long have you been using this water source?
D6 Is this where you get your water for cooking and drinking?
D7 What other sources of water do you have for your household?
D8 Is this where you get your water for cooking and drinking?
D9 On the average, how many times do members of your household use the bathroom toilet?
D10 How much drinking water does your household consume in a day?

Code Description
FTI Financial, Technical, Institutional
Q1 Ease of Use Our household water service is easy to use and maintain
Q2 Water Security Our household stores water for emergency use .
Q3 Water Quality The water we get is good for both cooking and drinking.
Q4 Water Safety Our household stores water in properly sealed containers.
We can always expect the same quality water access service at any
Q5 Reliability
time.
Q6 Affordability The cost for our household water access service is affordable.
We can expect our local government to take immediate action when our
Q7 LGU Responsiveness
household water access service is interrupted.
Our water provider listens to what our household needs to give better
Q8 WSP Responsiveness
water service.
Our rural water access service meets our households daily water
Q9 Sufficiency
needs.

Code Description
SP Social, Political
Our household is always informed by the local government on
Q10 Transparency
situations that may affect our water access service.
Q11 Accessibility Our household rural water is convenient and easily accessible.
Our household can get drinking water from other available water
Q12 Equitability
sources.
Q13 Proper Technology Our household immediately reports or fixes any water leaks we detect.
Our household participates with the community in the decision-making
Q14 Maintenance
process that affects household water access.
Q15 Monitoring Our household takes action when our water access is interrupted.
Our household is always ready to help other households with their
Q16 Community Cohesiveness
water needs when needed.
Any additional costs from our rural water access service are evenly
Q17 Cost Equality
distributed among the households in a community.
Our household rural water access service is just like what other
Q18 Service Equality
households have in our community.
200
Code Description
E Environmental
Water Conservation We turn off running water while brushing teeth, shaving and hand or
Q19 (Personal) face washing.
Water Conservation
Q20 Our household uses native plants for our garden.
(Garden)
Water Conservation
Q21 Our household schedules when we do our laundry.
(Laundry)
Q22 Environmental Protection We clean and maintain water canals and sewer drains near our house.
Risk Reduction (Solid Our household disposes our garbage in designated garbage collection
Q23 Waste) points.
Risk Reduction Our household uses environmentally friendly products.
Q24
(Biodegradables) whenever possible.

Likert Scale Description

1 Strongly Agree
2 Agree
3 Neither Agree nor Disagree
4 Disagree
5 Strongly Disagree

Scale Range Description

224 to 373 Very High Sustainability
76 to 225 High Sustainability
(-74) to (-75) Moderate
(-222) to (-73) Low Sustainability
(-372) to (-223) Very Low Sustainability

201
Appendix 6. Respondent Profiles Percentages - All Barangays

Residence N %
less than a year 5 1.4%
1 to 3 years 31 8.9%
3 to 5 years 42 12.0%
more than 5 years 259 74.0%
Missing System 13 3.7%
Total 350 100.0%
Livelihood N %
Agriculture 167 47.7%
Business (Wholesale and Retail) 37 10.6%
Self-Employed (services) 78 22.3%
Government Employee 25 7.1%
Employee (Private) 34 9.7%
Missing System 9 2.6%
Total 350 100.0%
HH Size N % %
1 to 5 people 181 51,7%
6 to 9 people 100 28.6%
10 or more people 50 14.3%
Missing System 19 5.4%
Total 350 100%
Main Source N %
Deep well 15 4.3%
Communal Pump 179 51.1%
Private Pump 99 28.3%
Water Provider 36 10.3%
Retail 9 2.6%
Other 3 0.9%
Missing System 9 2.6%
Total 350 100.0%
Length of Use N %
less than a year 6 1.7%
1 to 3 years 47 13.4%
4 to 6 years 51 14.6%
7 or more years 235 67.1%
Missing System 11 3.1%
Total 350 100.0%
Cooking/Drinking N %
Yes 280 80.0%
No 60 17.1%
Missing System 10 2.9%
Total 350 100.0%

202
Alternative Source N %
Deep well 22 6.3%
Communal Pump 177 50.6%
Private Pump 85 24.3%
Water Provider 26 7.4%
Retail 25 7.1%
Other 10 2.9%
Missing System 5 1.4%
Total 350 100.0%
Alternate Water source Quality N %
Yes 280 80%
No 60 17.1%
Missing System 10 2.9%
Total 350 100%
Bathroom Usage N %
3 to 5 times a day 119 34.0%
6 to 9 times a day 102 29.1%
10 to 15 times a day 66 18.9%
16 or more times a day 61 17.4%
Missing System 2 0.6%
Total 350 100.0%
HH Consumption N %
6 to 10 liters 146 41.7%
11 to 15 liters 82 23.4%
16 to 20 liters 69 19.7%
20 or more liters 47 13.4%
Missing System 6 1.7%
Total 350 100.0%

203
Appendix 7. Respondent Profile Chart – Summary

204
205
206
207
Appendix 8. Respondent Profiles Summary by Service Level

Length of residence in the community

Level I/II: 82.9% >5 years, 9.5% 3 to 5 years

Level III: 70.8% >5 years, 13.7% 1 to 3 years, 15.5%3 to five years

Livelihood sources

Level I/II: 59.2% for Agriculture, 16.4% for self-employed, and 11.2% private
employee

Level III: 39.9% for Agriculture, 28.5% for self-employed, and 15.6% for
Business

Household size

Level I/II: 56.7% with 1 to 5 people, 31.1% with 6 to 9 people, and 12.9% with
10 or more people

Level III: 53.2% with 1 to 5 people, 28.3% with 6 to 9 people, and 18.1% with
more than 10 people

Primary household water access

Level I/II: 52.4% from communal pumps, 38.1% 17.1% from private pumps,
3.8% from WSP

Level III: 52.1% from communal pumps, 20.5% from private pumps, 17.1% from
WSP

Length of use of the primary household water access

Level I/II: 80% used the service for >7 years, 12.7% for 4 to 6 years, 7.4% for 1
to 3 years

Level III: 59.1% used the service for >7 years, 17.3% from 4 to 6 years, 20.1%
for 1 to 3 years

208
Primary water access suitable for cooking and drinking

Level I/II: 83.3% trust the water from their main rural water access service, 14.4%
don’t.

Level III: 79.9% trust the water from their main rural water access service, 20.7%
don’t.

Availability of alternative household water access

Level I/II: 50.9% have alternative rural water access service from communal pump,
34.6% from private pumps

Level III: 51.9% have alternative rural water access service (communal pump), 14.9%
(Private Pump), 13.5% (WSP)

alternative water access suitable for cooking and drinking

Level I/II: 77.6% trusts the water from their alternative water access service, 12,1%
don’t

Level III: 63.8% trusts the water from their alternative water access service, 6.9%
don’t

Household water consumption for hygiene and sanitation

Level I/II: 34.5% use the bathroom 3 to 5 times a day, 23.6% use it 6 to 9 times a day,
24.7%% use the bathroom 10 to 15 times a day, 17.2% use it 6 to 9 times

Level III: 33.9% use the bathroom 3 to 5 times a day, 35.1% use it 6 to 9 times a day,
13.2% use it 10 to 15 times day, 17.8% use it 16 or more times a day

Household water consumption for daily use

Level I/II: 39% consume 6 to 10 liters of water a day, 22.1% consume 11 to 15 liters a
day, 26.7% consume 16 to 20 liters a day, 11 6% consume 20 or more liters a day

Level III: 46% consume 6 to 10 liters of water a day, 25.6% consume 11 to 15 liters a
day, 13.4% consume 16 to 20 liters a day, 15.6% consume more than 20 liters a day

209
Appendix 9. Perception Data – FTI by Barangay

Barangay San Jacinto Statistic Std. Error

Ease of Use Mean 4.77 .051
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.67
Upper Bound 4.87
Std. Deviation .423
Mean 4.64 .058
Security
Water

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.53

Upper Bound 4.76
Std. Deviation .483
Mean 4.69 .078
Quality
Water

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.53

Upper Bound 4.84
Std. Deviation .649
Mean 4.73 .064
Safety
Water

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.60

Upper Bound 4.86
Std. Deviation .536
Mean 4.80 .060
Reliability

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.68

Upper Bound 4.92
Std. Deviation .499
Affordability

Mean 4.77 .077

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.62
Upper Bound 4.92
Std. Deviation .641
Mean 4.77 .071
Responsiveness
LGU

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.63

Upper Bound 4.91
Std. Deviation .594
Responsiveness

Mean 4.89 .043

WSP

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.80

Upper Bound 4.97
Std. Deviation .363
Mean 4.84 .063
Sufficiency

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.72

Upper Bound 4.97
Std. Deviation .528

210
 Barangay San Fernando Statistic Std. Error

Ease of Use
Mean 3.62 .136
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.35
Upper Bound 3.89
Std. Deviation 1.120
Mean 3.44 .157
Security
Water

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.13

Upper Bound 3.76
Std. Deviation 1.297
Mean 3.31 .149
Quality
Water

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.01

Upper Bound 3.61
Std. Deviation 1.225
Mean 3.18 .147
Safety
Water

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 2.88

Upper Bound 3.47
Std. Deviation 1.209
Mean 3.10 .160
Reliability

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 2.78

Upper Bound 3.42
Std. Deviation 1.317
Affordability

Mean 3.49 .144

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.20
Upper Bound 3.77
Std. Deviation 1.191
Responsiveness

Mean 3.18 .145

LGU

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 2.89

Upper Bound 3.47
Std. Deviation 1.196
Responsiveness

Mean 3.24 .157

WSP

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 2.92

Upper Bound 3.55
Std. Deviation 1.294
Mean 3.62 .142
Sufficiency

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.33

Upper Bound 3.90
Std. Deviation 1.172

211
 Barangay Santa Barbara Statistic Std. Error

Ease of Use
Mean 4.41 .058
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.30
Upper Bound 4.53
Std. Deviation .520
Mean 4.46 .061
Security
Water

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.34

Upper Bound 4.58
Std. Deviation .550
Mean 4.33 .058
Quality
Water

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.21

Upper Bound 4.44
Std. Deviation .522
Mean 4.36 .060
Safety
Water

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.24

Upper Bound 4.48
Std. Deviation .534
Mean 4.44 .056
Reliability

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.33

Upper Bound 4.55
Std. Deviation .499
Affordability

Mean 4.43 .058

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.31
Upper Bound 4.54
Std. Deviation .522
Responsiveness

Mean 4.43 .058

LGU

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.31

Upper Bound 4.54
Std. Deviation .522
Responsiveness

Mean 4.40 .061

WSP

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.28

Upper Bound 4.52
Std. Deviation .542
Mean 4.49 .059
Sufficiency

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.37

Upper Bound 4.60
Std. Deviation .528

212
 Barangay Balayang Statistic Std. Error

Ease of Use
Mean 4.25 .071
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.11
Upper Bound 4.39
Std. Deviation .599
Mean 4.21 .086
Security
Water

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.04

Upper Bound 4.38
Std. Deviation .730
Mean 4.22 .084
Quality
Water

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.05

Upper Bound 4.39
Std. Deviation .716
Mean 4.00 .138
Safety
Water

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.72

Upper Bound 4.28
Std. Deviation 1.175
Mean 4.31 .073
Reliability

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.16

Upper Bound 4.45
Std. Deviation .620
Affordability

Mean 4.19 .116

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.96
Upper Bound 4.43
Std. Deviation .988
Responsiveness

Mean 4.26 .079

LGU

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.11

Upper Bound 4.42
Std. Deviation .671
Responsiveness

Mean 4.60 .061

WSP

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.47

Upper Bound 4.72
Std. Deviation .522
Mean 4.36 .091
Sufficiency

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.18

Upper Bound 4.54
Std. Deviation .775

213
Appendix 10. Perception Data – SP by Barangay

Equitability Accessibility Transparency Barangay San Jacinto Statistic Std. Error

Mean 4.68 .073
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.53
Upper Bound 4.82
Std. Deviation .652
Mean 4.66 .075
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.51
Upper Bound 4.81
Std. Deviation .674
Mean 4.64 .089
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.46
Upper Bound 4.82
Std. Deviation .799
Technology

Mean 4.76 .051

Proper

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.66

Upper Bound 4.86
Std. Deviation .457
Maintenance

Mean 4.88 .045

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.79
Upper Bound 4.96
Std. Deviation .402
Mean 4.81 .057
Monitoring

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.70

Upper Bound 4.92
Std. Deviation .506
Cohesiveness
Community

Mean 4.79 .058

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.67
Upper Bound 4.90
Std. Deviation .520
Mean 4.75 .060
Equality

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.63

Cost

Upper Bound 4.87

Std. Deviation .540
Mean 4.93 .030
Equality
Service

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.87

Upper Bound 4.98
Std. Deviation .265

214
 Barangay San Fernando Statistic Std. Error

Equitability Accessibility Transparency

Mean 3.59 .144
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.30
Upper Bound 3.88
Std. Deviation 1.187
Mean 3.24 .148
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 2.94
Upper Bound 3.53
Std. Deviation 1.223
Mean 3.34 .151
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.04
Upper Bound 3.64
Std. Deviation 1.241
Technology

Mean 3.25 .146

Proper

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 2.96

Upper Bound 3.54
Std. Deviation 1.202
Maintenance

Mean 3.21 .153

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 2.90
Upper Bound 3.51
Std. Deviation 1.264
Mean 3.25 .140
Monitoring

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 2.97

Upper Bound 3.53
Std. Deviation 1.151
Cohesiveness
Community

Mean 3.41 .147

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.12
Upper Bound 3.71
Std. Deviation 1.212
Mean 3.43 .149
Equality

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.13

Cost

Upper Bound 3.72

Std. Deviation 1.226
Mean 3.28 .165
Equality
Service

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 2.95

Upper Bound 3.61
Std. Deviation 1.359

215
 Barangay Santa Barbara Statistic Std. Error

Equitability Accessibility Transparency

Mean 4.40 .061
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.28
Upper Bound 4.52
Std. Deviation .542
Mean 4.38 .057
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.26
Upper Bound 4.49
Std. Deviation .513
Mean 4.36 .057
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.25
Upper Bound 4.48
Std. Deviation .509
Technology

Mean 4.40 .058

Proper

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.28

Upper Bound 4.52
Std. Deviation .518
Maintenance

Mean 4.40 .058

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.28
Upper Bound 4.52
Std. Deviation .518
Mean 4.38 .057
Monitoring

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.26

Upper Bound 4.49
Std. Deviation .513
Cohesiveness
Community

Mean 4.36 .057

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.25
Upper Bound 4.48
Std. Deviation .509
Mean 4.39 .058
Equality

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.27

Cost

Upper Bound 4.50

Std. Deviation .515
Mean 4.40 .055
Equality
Service

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.29

Upper Bound 4.51
Std. Deviation .493

216
 Barangay Balayang Statistic Std. Error

Equitability Accessibility Transparency

Mean 4.39 .093
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.21
Upper Bound 4.58
Std. Deviation .783
Mean 4.07 .083
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.90
Upper Bound 4.24
Std. Deviation .704
Mean 4.11 .095
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.92
Upper Bound 4.30
Std. Deviation .803
Technology

Mean 4.04 .099

Proper

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.84

Upper Bound 4.24
Std. Deviation .836
Maintenance

Mean 4.38 .079

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.22
Upper Bound 4.54
Std. Deviation .663
Mean 4.30 .081
Monitoring

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.13

Upper Bound 4.46
Std. Deviation .684
Cohesiveness
Community

Mean 4.13 .112

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.90
Upper Bound 4.35
Std. Deviation .940
Mean 4.24 .095
Equality

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.05

Cost

Upper Bound 4.43

Std. Deviation .801
Mean 4.31 .082
Equality
Service

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.15

Upper Bound 4.47
Std. Deviation .689

217
Appendix 11 Perception Data – E by Barangay

Barangay San Jacinto Statistic Std. Error

Protection Conservation Conservation Conservation

Mean 4.83 .050

Personal
Water

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.73

Upper Bound 4.93
Std. Deviation .439
Mean 4.79 .050
Garden
Water

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.70

Upper Bound 4.89
Std. Deviation .437
Mean 4.86 .047
Laundry
Water

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.76

Upper Bound 4.95
Std. Deviation .418
Environmental

Mean 4.77 .066

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.64
Upper Bound 4.90
Std. Deviation .579
Biodegradable Solid Waste

Mean 4.65 .054

Reduction

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.55

Risk

Upper Bound 4.76

Std. Deviation .479
Mean 4.60 .082
Reduction

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.44

Risk

Upper Bound 4.77

Std. Deviation .727

218
 Barangay San Fernando Statistic Std. Error

Protection Conservation Conservation Conservation

Mean 3.29 .141

Personal
Water
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.01
Upper Bound 3.57
Std. Deviation 1.160
Mean 3.47 .153
Garden
Water

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.16

Upper Bound 3.78
Std. Deviation 1.263
Mean 3.54 .164
Laundry
Water

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.22

Upper Bound 3.87
Std. Deviation 1.354
Environmental

Mean 3.32 .153

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.02
Upper Bound 3.63
Std. Deviation 1.263
Biodegradable Solid Waste

Mean 3.53 .160

Reduction

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.21

Risk

Upper Bound 3.85

Std. Deviation 1.321
Mean 3.46 .144
Reduction

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.17

Risk

Upper Bound 3.74

Std. Deviation 1.190

219
 Barangay Santa Barbara Statistic Std. Error

Protection Conservation Conservation Conservation

Mean 4.32 .058

Personal
Water 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.21
Upper Bound 4.44
Std. Deviation .520
Mean 4.43 .055
Garden
Water

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.32

Upper Bound 4.54
Std. Deviation .498
Mean 4.38 .065
Laundry
Water

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.25

Upper Bound 4.51
Std. Deviation .582
Environmental

Mean 4.32 .058

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.21
Upper Bound 4.44
Std. Deviation .520
Biodegradable Solid Waste

Mean 4.42 .055

Reduction

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.31

Risk

Upper Bound 4.53

Std. Deviation .497
Mean 4.43 .061
Reduction

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.31

Risk

Upper Bound 4.55

Std. Deviation .546

220
 Barangay Balayang Statistic Std. Error

Protection Conservation Conservation Conservation

Mean 4.15 .097
Personal
Water
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.96
Upper Bound 4.35
Std. Deviation .864
Mean 4.25 .085
Garden
Water

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.08

Upper Bound 4.42
Std. Deviation .759
Mean 4.49 .057
Laundry
Water

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.38

Upper Bound 4.61
Std. Deviation .503
Environmental

Mean 4.33 .082

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.17
Upper Bound 4.49
Std. Deviation .729
Biodegradable Solid Waste

Mean 4.39 .073

Reduction

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.25

Risk

Upper Bound 4.54

Std. Deviation .649
Mean 4.44 .059
Reduction

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 4.33

Risk

Upper Bound 4.56

Std. Deviation .525

221
Appendix 12. Level I/II Statistics Information Summary

FTI

Ease of Use

Affordability
Reliability

Sufficiency
Responsiveness

Responsiveness
Security

Quality

Safety
Water

Water

Water

LGU

WSP
Mean 4.53 4.37 4.45 4.40 4.59 4.44 4.52 4.72 4.54
Std. Deviation .566 .748 .724 .951 .594 .891 .680 .474 .783
Variance .321 .560 .524 .905 .352 .794 .463 .225 .613
Range 2 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 4
Sum 779 730 686 709 762 768 773 789 754

SP

Cost Equality
Cohesiveness
Transparency

Accessibility

Maintenance
Technology

Community
Equitability

Monitoring

Equality
Service
Proper

Mean 4.55 4.38 4.40 4.41 4.59 4.53 4.48 4.48 4.59
Std. Deviation .702 .726 .824 .735 .636 .663 .802 .729 .604
Variance .493 .527 .679 .540 .405 .440 .643 .532 .364
Range 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4
Sum 788 732 731 750 799 770 712 740 766

E
Conservation

Conservation

Conservation

Conservation

Conservation

Conservation
Personal

Personal

Personal

Personal

Personal

Personal
Water

Water

Water

Water

Water

Water

Mean 4.48 4.52 4.64 4.52 4.52 4.54

Std. Deviation .750 .671 .573 .739 .579 .624
Variance .562 .450 .328 .546 .335 .390
Range 3 3 4 4 4 4
Sum 752 732 775 741 755 785

222
Appendix 13. Level III Statistics Information Summary

FTI

Affordability

Sufficiency
Responsiveness

Responsiveness
Reliability
Security

Quality
Ease of

Safety
Water

Water

Water

LGU

WSP
Use

Mean 4.07 4.01 3.88 3.82 3.83 4.01 3.86 3.86 3.87
Std. Deviation .928 1.075 1.031 1.078 1.145 1.006 1.076 1.111 1.125
Variance .860 1.156 1.062 1.162 1.310 1.013 1.157 1.235 1.266
Range 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Sum 639 622 605 592 601 625 599 599 662

SP

Cost Equality
Cohesiveness
Transparency

Accessibility

Maintenance
Technology

Community
Equitability

Monitoring

Equality
Service
Proper

Mean 3.82 3.86 3.89 3.88 3.86 3.88 3.95 3.95 3.91
Std. Deviation 1.103 1.051 1.042 1.044 1.105 1.019 1.019 1.029 1.130
Variance 1.218 1.105 1.085 1.090 1.222 1.038 1.038 1.058 1.276
Range 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Sum 661 599 603 602 599 602 601 584 594

E
Risk Reduction
Conservation

Conservation

Conservation

Environmental

Biodegradable
Solid Waste

Reduction
Protection
Personal

Laundry
Garden
Water

Water

Water

Risk

Mean 3.85 4.00 4.01 3.86 4.01 4.01

Std. Deviation 1.005 1.036 1.083 1.052 1.064 1.019
Variance 1.010 1.073 1.172 1.107 1.132 1.039
Range 4 4 4 4 4 4
Sum 581 608 609 583 609 625

223
Appendix 14. Tarlac Field Notes

Date Notes

7/5/2019 Initial visit (Ocular) to determine actual study site and confirm
conditions – Paniqui, Ramos, Pura, then Victoria

Paniqui Spoke to sari-sari store owners and customers regarding sources of

drinking water
(8:00 am)

Was informed that manual pumps have always been the traditional
way they have for household water

In Paniqui, we were able to speak with representatives from Prime

Water who is the consignee to provide water access. We were
advised that there was already a 95% level III water access service
availability.

Only a few very far-fetched barangays located along the

mountainside at the western side were not currently connected.
They expect to reach 100% level III water access coverage within
the next three (3) years.

Ramos Visited coop run water service. Employees were very proud of their
success in being able to provide affordable level III water
(10:15 am)

Pura Visited the water district but found the office vacant. Spoke to
workers who were around the office and was advised to visit the
(11 am to 2 municipal bldg.
pm)

The municipal planner and the engineer were not around.

Victoria Spoke with Mr. Fernando Galileo – Victoria Municipal Planner and
Ms. Lani magnon – Victoria Municipal Engineer discussed
(2:30-5 pm) proposed land use in Victoria

Stopped and spoke with residents living along the highway

(Victoria-Tarlac highway). Most were farmers who used deep
wells.

Communal pumps can be observed. More “affluent” households

subsidize less fortunate neighbors.

224
 Asked if they were concerned about possible conflicts over water,
and respondent (farmer with large land to till) replied: “tubig lang
ho yen, di naman problem”

8/12/2019 Pre-test of the questions

Victoria

8:00 am Interviewed and taped (audio) five (5) households

to 5 pm)

Multi water source: from barangay supplied manual pumps to piped

service. Depending on income level, they may have more than three
(3) water sources for their domestic use

Household members were at first wary of the survey/interview, but

upon further conversation where we explained what the research is
about, the respondent relaxed and not only answered our questions
but also provided anecdotes to further illustrate their experiences.

Income is a major factor in determining the number of alternative

water sources available to the household

Was able to see the interior of a couple of houses in barangay Santa

Barbara, who were level III subscribers of Balibago water, it was
observed to these households would rely more on the barangay
communal pump than their indoor water faucet. This is evidenced
by the existence of two to three (2-3) alternative water sources. In
both cases, the household had a private manual pump inside the
house, a jet Matic water pump connected to a communal pump and
an indoor faucet.

Locals who have been residents for four or more (4+) years prefer
the fresh and distinct flavor of the water coming from a manual
pump than that from the Balibago water faucet.

It can be observed that the locals are not much concerned about
their household water access for domestic use as compared to their
water access for industrial or agricultural use which directly
impacts household income.

A young housewife that was interviewed said that should there be

any disruption to their current water access, she can always count
on her neighbors to help and allow free access to their private water
source.

225
 There is a very notable prevalence of residents coming from the
Ilocos region. Common language is tagalog

Sep 9, 2019 Land use is mostly agricultural, and most lands are planted with
palay

Victoria Barangays and households are observed to be scattered and are

distanced apart.
(8:30 am to
5:00 pm)

Fire department has indicated that it is able to get water from their
water provider - Balibago Water and can deliver potable water to
barangays when the need arises

Mr. Fernando Galileo – Municipal Planner and Ms. Lani Mago –

Municipal Engineer discussed proposed land use in Victoria

Land titling – with the support and assistance of DENR, DPWH,

LGU, and PENRO, public lands of barangays were titled to the
municipality and handed to the barangay captain.

Wastewater from municipal market utilizes canals for disposal.

Gravity driven and drained into rivulets and onto flood ways and
rivers.

Administrative sundries saved for last

Surplus pipes from Balibago Water are stored at the MRF

(Materials Recovery Facility) and can be used as barriers or
temporary water drainage

Livelihood projects are needed to stave unemployment/loss of

income due to the effects of rice tariffication. The primary crop
planted is rice. There is a need to diversify.

Sep 12, 2019 Marriage officiating duties to some 3-4 couples by the mayor

Victoria Steel plant proposal – rolling mill

(8:30 am to
5:00 pm)

226
 Requesting full package – includes smelting with industrial
electrical service

Proposed site is close to residential area

Pollution, waste management, and other environmental concerns

were raised.

Should be further from residential areas. Proposed location in

Palacpac.

Need minimum of 6 hectares

Solid waste mgmt. meeting. Contest participation

A contest is proposed with prize money as an incentive

Waste segregation at source

Discussion of recycling projects such as plastic exchange for rice,

inter barangay or inter school contest

Accompanied the Mayor to 2 funeral wakes. Observed the interior

of

Houses and saw how the household gathers water during certain
events (in this case, a funeral wake)

Common among the houses was the existence of a separate area for
cooking and sanitation. Since the manual pumps were located
outside the house, an outside kitchen that is near these pumps is
used as the working kitchen. The house interior has an area that
serves as a formal kitchen for events.

Sep 16, 2019 Start of 4-day seminar on organic farming aimed at informing
farmers and other farm shareholders on new ways to farming using
organic and easy to make fertilizers, crops, and others

Victoria Homemade enzymes boost growth and production

(8:30 am to
5:00 pm)

Also hastens composting

Farmers were taught how certain crops can provide more income
than the traditional rice and corn crop.

227
 Marketing and sales support can be provided by the municipality by
providing these farmers with spaces in the public market where
they can sell their produce.

Japanese investors have signified interest to enter into a form of

contract growing of certain crops (i.e., beans) where the farmer is
guaranteed of a ready market.

Turn over rites of the Maluid barangay town hall (located along the
main road toward the Victoria ramp of the TPLEX toll entrance) by
the Governor and Mayor

9/20/2019 Survey distribution to Balayan, San Jacinto, San Fernando and

Santa Barbara.

Lechon fest at Tarlac City (Capitolyo) by Gov Yap to dispel ASF

fears from Tarlac pork

Spent ₱240 for macaroon’s, ₱480 for 4 large soft drinks, to be

given to the barangays. ₱500 for labor (to Bagyo for assisting)

228
Appendix 15. World Bank Information – 2017

Useful World Bank Information – 2017. Information used to draw examples of water
use

Population 107 million Rural Population 56 million

GNI per capita 8,900 Rural Pop (%) 55.6
PPP (current
USD)
Economic Lower to idle Rural Pop Growth 1.8
income (%)
Status 90 Total Renewable 4,757
Water Resources
M3 per year
Access to piped 30 Average size of 35,600
Water onto service Authority
premises in rural by population
are (8)
Tariff levels USD 0.24 to Rural water Formulated in the
USD 0.53 per Strategy National Program
M3 (Salintubig)
Functionality No Data Rural Water Policy Formulated in
medium term
Philippine
Development
Plan
Source: Adopted from WB. 2015; JMP. 2015; UNDP and AquaStat

229