The purpose of this study was to guide prospective investments in the water sector by
- assessing the relative costs, benefits and poverty impacts of multiple-use approaches over single-use approaches
- evaluating the potential market for multiple-use approaches focusing on South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa
The study findings suggest that while multiple-use services cost more than single-use services, they do offer significant advantages in that they have greater potential to:
- generate more income and benefits
- decrease vulnerability
- more effectively reduce poverty
- Increase sustainability of services
The estimated potential beneficiaries from multiple use investments according this studies is over 1 billion people in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia
Below the executive summary, the full report and the annexes can be downloaded
A presentation given by Chris Seremet (Catholic Relief Services) on Catholic Relief Services and MUS at the 2012 MUS-group meeting in Washington, DC.
A presentation given by Ralph Hall (Virginia Tech), Jenna Davis, Sara Marks (Stanford University) and Robert Hope (University of Oxford) on productive use of domestic rural water systems : the Kenya case, at the 2012 MUS-group meeting in Washington, DC.
A presentation given by Ralph Hall, Emily Van Houweling, Eric Vance, Mark Seiss (Virginia Tech) and Jenna Davis (Stanford University) on productive use of domestic rural water systems : the Senegal case, at the 2012 MUS-group meeting in Washington, DC.
A presentation by Mary Renwick of Winrock International on multiple use water services for the poor: an overview of Winrock activities and key learnings; the presentation was given at the 2012 MUS-group meeting in Washington, DC.
This case study captures de facto MUS practices in 14 communities in Honduras. Specifically, it looks into the question of how such practices contribute to people's livelihoods and how they contribute to sustainability of the rural water supply services. It concludes that MUS is a common practice in nearly all households and in nearly all communities. The relative importance of MUS, however, depends on the livelihood strategy of a household. The study also shows how MUS can be regulated in such a way that it doesn't negatively affect system sustainability.
This MSc internship report provides an evaluation of a MUS system, developed by IDE, in Phulbari village in the Nepali middle hills. Specifically it evaluates the performance of the technology and assesses the benefits for the farmers, using IDE‘s definition of impact. It shows that cost-recovery of the system is one year; in such a short time enough benefit can be generated through vegetable production to recover the investment costs. In addition, it reports on improved intra-household equity. One of the points of improvement is the strengthening of water user committees for MUS.
Bharat Sharma (IWMI) presented experiences with MUS in the Northeastern Hills of India, drawing on earlier experiences in Nepal.
This fact sheet, produced by Isabel Dominguez (WEDC/Cinara) provides a briefing on the role of multiple uses of water for the poor in rural areas of Latin America and the Carribean.
This thesis by Pragya Shrestha aims to analyse MUS in terms of its cost effectiveness in domestic water supply services and conduct poverty impact analysis, taking a case study of Nepal. The study provides evidence of the very positive cost-effectiveness, as well as of other livelihood benefits, such as increase in saving and credit groups, getting access to luxury items, initiating other income generating activities and having better access to high-value food such as fresh vegetables. It concludes that MUS is not only a financially profitable investment, but is also beneficial in terms of social development. There is a high potential for the MUS in countries like Nepal, if its challenges are addressed.