← Back to Research Overview
RESEARCH QUESTION 2

Research Methods Synthesis

Study design, instruments, and analytical framework for investigating determinants of water security program effectiveness in northern Kenya

Community Water Systems — IRB Exempt Protocol | CU Boulder CEAE | PI: Styvers Kathuni

Study Overview

This page synthesizes the research methodology from the IRB submission documents for the "Community Water Systems" study, a descriptive cross-sectional quantitative study supported by qualitative methods. The study investigates how institutional, financial, and technological factors determine the effectiveness of water security programs across five arid and semi-arid (ASAL) counties in northern Kenya.

Households
300
Randomly selected
Counties
5
ASAL counties
Study Period
12 mo
May 2026 – May 2027
Outcome Domains
3
Uptime, HWISE, WQ

Study Design

The study employs a descriptive cross-sectional quantitative design supported by historical data analysis (2017–2026) to provide longitudinal context. Data collection spans two drought seasons in 2026 across Turkana, Isiolo, Wajir, Garissa, and Marsabit counties.

Three Outcome Domains

Domain 1

Borehole Uptime

Percentage of operational days in a given reference period, measured through Virridy sensor data (continuous monitoring since 2017) and direct observation checklists.

Domain 2

Household Water Insecurity (HWISE)

Standardized 12-item survey instrument capturing access, reliability, adequacy, and emotional stress dimensions of water insecurity. Scored 0–36.

Domain 3

Water Quality

E. coli and total coliform counts (CFU/100 mL) at point of collection and point of use, using Aquagenix compartment bag test kits.

Longitudinal

Historical Sensor Data

Virridy datasets from 2017–2026: run-time logs, repair details, spare parts purchased, costs, logistics, and preventive maintenance records.

Multi-Level Research Architecture

Level Instrument Method Sample Duration
Household Structured survey + HWISE + DCE Quantitative 300 households 25 min
Borehole Operator Semi-structured KII Qualitative Each selected borehole 15–20 min
Community Users Focus group discussion Qualitative 6–10 per group, gender-segregated 20–25 min
Water Committee Focus group discussion Qualitative 6–10 WMC members per site 20–25 min
Institutional Semi-structured KII Qualitative County WASH officers, NGO staff 15–20 min
Comparative Semi-structured KII Qualitative ANTHC representatives (Alaska)
Infrastructure Observation checklist Quantitative Each sampled borehole
Water Quality Aquagenix CBT lab testing Quantitative All sampled boreholes
Historical Secondary data review Quantitative 2017–2026 Virridy datasets N/A

Borehole Categorization

Sampled boreholes are categorized into three tiers of intervention intensity, enabling dose-response analysis:

  • Category A — Non-intervention: Sensors only (monitoring without repair enrollment)
  • Category B — Partial intervention: Sensor + enrolled for DRIP FUNDI repairs
  • Category C — Full intervention: Sensor + water treatment system + enrolled for repairs

Sampling Strategy

Village Selection

Villages are categorized into intervention and non-intervention groups based on DRIP FUNDI program participation, then randomly selected using a random number generator.

Household Sampling

Within each selected village, systematic random sampling is applied: the total number of households is divided by the target number of interviews to yield a sampling interval (n). A random starting household is selected, then every nth household is visited.

Sample Size Justification

Discrete Choice Experiment Requirements

  • Follows Johnson & Orme (2003) rule of thumb for DCE sample sizing
  • Parameters: 2 alternatives per choice task, 2 choice tasks per respondent, maximum 2 attribute levels
  • Minimum sample: 250 respondents
  • Non-response adjustment: 15% buffer applied
  • Final required sample: 300 respondents

Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria

Included

  • People living in the five counties served by intervention or non-intervention boreholes
  • Household heads aged 18 years or older
  • Able to provide verbal informed consent

Excluded

  • People served by boreholes that collapsed or dried up
  • People at boreholes inaccessible due to insecurity
  • No vulnerable populations included

Household Survey Instrument

The primary quantitative instrument is a structured household survey (~25 minutes) administered via the mWater mobile data collection platform on handheld devices. The survey comprises seven substantive sections plus the embedded HWISE scale and discrete choice experiments.

A
Consent
Informed consent in local language (2 min)
B
Household Info
GPS, demographics, livelihood (3 min)
C
Water Source
Seasonal sources, alternatives (2 min)
D
Access
Travel time, frequency (4 min)
E
Reliability & O&M
Breakdowns, repairs, climate (5 min)
F
Water Quality
Perceptions, treatment (4 min)
G
Management
Payment, satisfaction, WTP (3 min)
H/J
HWISE + DCE
Water insecurity + choice tasks (13 min)

Key Variables by Section

Section B: Household Profile

  • GPS coordinates of dwelling
  • County, sub-county, ward
  • Household composition (adults/children by sex)
  • Livelihood type (pastoralist, agro-pastoralist)
  • Duration of residence in village

Section C–D: Water Access

  • Seasonal water source (wet vs. dry)
  • Alternative water sources
  • Round-trip time to source (categorized)
  • Visit frequency (daily to weekly)
  • Access method (tap, kiosk, delivery)

Section E: Reliability & O&M

  • Daily household water consumption (liters)
  • Insufficiency in past month
  • Breakdown frequency (past 3 months)
  • Repair duration (time categories)
  • Climate-related availability changes

Section F–G: Quality & Management

  • Organoleptic assessment (color, smell, taste)
  • Household treatment practices
  • Monthly water expenditure (KES)
  • Payment method & preferences
  • Management satisfaction (5-point scale)

HWISE Scale (Section H)

The Household Water Insecurity Experiences (HWISE) scale is a validated, cross-cultural 12-item instrument measuring multiple dimensions of water insecurity. Each item is scored on a 4-point frequency scale (Never = 0, Rarely = 1, Sometimes = 2, Often/Always = 3) with a 1-month recall period. Total scores range from 0 to 36.

H1
Worry
Worrying about not having enough water
H2
Interrupt
Main source interrupted or limited
H3
Clothes
Unable to wash clothes
H4
Plans
Changed schedules due to water
H5
Food
Changed food preparation
H6
Hands
Went without handwashing
H7
Body
Went without bathing
H8
Drink
Not enough drinking water
H9
Angry
Felt angry about water situation
H10
Sleep
Went to sleep thirsty
H11
None
No usable or drinkable water at all
H12
Shame
Felt ashamed or stigmatized

Discrete Choice Experiments (Section J)

The DCE component tests two hypotheses about household preferences for water service management models and willingness to pay, using a simplified paired-choice design.

Hypotheses Under Test

  • H1: When service attributes are held constant, households will be less likely to choose a package managed by a public rural water company requiring doubled tariff versus the status quo managed by a local water management committee.
  • H2: Households exhibit low willingness to pay for management change from local committee to public rural water company when no observable service improvements are delivered.

Choice Task Design

Package A — Status Quo

Local WMC
  • 25/30 days reliability
  • >5 days repair time
  • Treated water
  • Managed by local WMC
  • Same tariff

Package B — Alternative

Public Water Company
  • 25/30 days reliability (same)
  • >5 days repair time (same)
  • Treated water (same)
  • Managed by public rural water company
  • Doubled tariff

Follow-Up Elicitation Questions

After the choice task, respondents answer a series of probing questions to understand the reasoning behind their preferences:

  • J2: Which package preferred (A or B)
  • J3: Main reason for choice (management model, trust, tariff, status quo preference)
  • J4: Which management approach trusted more under current conditions
  • J5: Whether would support doubled tariff with no improvement
  • J6: Maximum acceptable tariff increase without improvements (5 categories: no increase to >KES 200)
  • J7: What improvement would make higher tariff acceptable (reliability, faster repairs, better quality, management change, combination)
  • J8: If same tariff, preferred management system
  • J9: Whether prefer to keep service the same or change it

Qualitative Instruments

Qualitative data is collected through key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) at multiple institutional levels, providing contextual depth to triangulate with the quantitative findings.

Key Informant Interviews

KII — Kenya Institutional

County Water Officers & NGO Staff

15–20 minute semi-structured interviews covering:

  • Roles in supporting water systems
  • How repairs are organized; causes of delays
  • Preventive vs. reactive maintenance practices
  • O&M financing models (tariffs, subsidies, donors)
  • How system functionality is monitored
  • What interventions have most improved reliability
KII — Operator

Borehole Water Operators

15–20 minute semi-structured interviews covering:

  • Daily responsibilities and system checks
  • Most common breakdown causes; seasonal patterns
  • Repair chain: reporting, diagnosis, repair steps
  • Delay factors: spare parts, technicians, funding, security, climate, transport
  • Preventive maintenance practices
  • Operator-identified priorities for improvement
KII — Comparative (Alaska)

Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC)

Comprehensive interview guide for the comparative international study site, covering water governance in Indigenous Arctic communities:

  • Governance frameworks and community decision-making in rural/Indigenous Alaska
  • O&M responsibilities, training, and infrastructure monitoring
  • Water quality regulatory requirements and treatment approaches in remote areas
  • NGO and academic partnerships for capacity building
  • Cultural beliefs and traditions influencing water use and technology adoption
  • Historical water access practices vs. modern piped systems

Focus Group Discussions

FGD — Community Users

Herders, Farmers & Livestock Keepers

20–25 minute group discussions (6–10 participants, gender-segregated):

  • Water source breakdown frequency and downtime
  • What helps or hinders fast repairs
  • Trust in water quality and triggers for home treatment
  • Trust in water management and conditions for higher payments
  • Perceived changes over time; drought resilience

Note: Facilitators instructed not to mention DRIP FUNDI unless respondents raise it, to reduce social desirability bias.

FGD — Water Committee

Water Management Committee Members

20–25 minute group discussions (6–10 WMC members):

  • Committee roles and responsibilities
  • Step-by-step repair process mapping (breakdown to restoration)
  • Typical downtime and delay factors
  • Preventive vs. reactive maintenance rationale
  • Fund collection, sufficiency, and tariff sustainability
  • Management challenges and external support received

Qualitative Design Safeguards

Gender Sensitivity

FGDs organized separately for male, female, and youth groups. Facilitator and note-taker are same gender as participants to accommodate cultural and religious norms.

Linguistic Access

All instruments administered in local languages: Somali, Borana, Turkana, Rendile, and Samburu by locally recruited enumerators.

Bias Reduction

Community FGD guide explicitly prohibits mentioning DRIP FUNDI unless respondents raise it, preventing leading questions and social desirability bias.

Triangulation

Quantitative household data triangulated with qualitative FGD/KII data, observational data, water quality lab results, and historical sensor data.

Water Quality Testing

Biological water quality analysis is conducted at each sampled borehole using the Aquagenix most probable number compartment bag test (CBT) kit, measuring E. coli and total coliform concentrations at both point of collection and point of use.

Primary Data

  • E. coli counts (CFU/100 mL) at source
  • E. coli counts at household point of use
  • Total coliform counts at source and POU
  • Observation checklist for borehole functionality

Secondary Data

  • E. coli monitoring data from DRIP FUNDI program
  • Free residual chlorine (FRC) measurements
  • Borehole functionality logs from Virridy sensors
  • Historical water quality trends (2017–2026)

Data Analysis Plan

Analysis follows three sequential phases: data preparation and validation, quantitative/inferential analysis, and integration with qualitative interpretation.

Phase 1: Data Preparation

Data validation, cleaning, and preparation using the mWater platform export. GPS coordinates replaced with temporary household IDs for de-identification.

Phase 2: Quantitative Analysis

Descriptive Statistics

Mean, median, standard deviation, IQR for each outcome domain. Disaggregated by county, program participation status, and management model.

Spatial Analysis

Kernel density mapping and Moran's I spatial autocorrelation in ArcGIS/QGIS. Spatial overlays for water quality patterns.

Comparative Analysis

Independent samples t-tests, chi-square tests, one-way ANOVA with Tukey's HSD. Effect sizes reported: Cohen's d, Eta-squared, Cramer's V.

Multivariate Regression

OLS/Beta regression (uptime), OLS/Ordered Logit (HWISE), logistic regression (water quality). 95% CI, p<0.05 significance threshold.

Longitudinal Models

Difference-in-Differences (DiD) using 2017–2026 historical Virridy sensor data to establish counterfactual trends.

Composite Index (WSEI)

Water Security Effectiveness Index (0–1) from z-score normalized uptime, HWISE, and microbial safety with expert-validated weights. Internal consistency via Cronbach's alpha.

Phase 3: Integration & Interpretation

Thematic content analysis of FGD and KII data to contextualize quantitative findings. Qualitative insights used to explain statistical patterns and identify mechanisms.

Ethical Considerations & Data Management

Informed Consent

Consent is obtained in person at the beginning of each data collection encounter via the mWater survey form. Verbal consent is provided after an informed consent process conducted in the respondent's local language. No written signature is required. Participation is entirely voluntary with no incentives, penalties, or compensation.

Risk Assessment

Risk of Re-identification

Low probability · Low magnitude

GPS coordinates in raw data could theoretically enable re-identification. Mitigated by de-identification (replacing GPS with temporary household IDs) before analysis.

Risk of Data Breach

Very low probability · Low magnitude

Mitigated by mWater platform security: HTTPS/TLS encryption in transit, encryption at rest, role-based access control, AWS-compliant cloud hosting.

Data Management

  • All data stored on mWater cloud platform (encrypted in transit and at rest)
  • Password-protected accounts with role-based access control
  • No data stored on portable devices
  • De-identified data used for all analysis
  • Data not shared between collaborating institutions; only results compared

Collaborating Institutions

University of Colorado Boulder, University of British Columbia (Canada), Oslo School of Architecture and Design (Norway), Millennium Water Alliance (Kenya), Urban-A (Norway), RESEAU Centre for Mobilizing Innovation (Canada), Oxfam (South Sudan), Lytton First Nation (Canada). Collaboration involves comparison of results from parallel study sites, not sharing of raw data.

Dissemination

Results shared with DRIP FUNDI program management and disseminated through academic publication. DRIP FUNDI is responsible for sharing water quality results with affected beneficiaries and advising on contamination findings.