assessing the impact of institutional rules on the sustainability of community boreholes, Cheat Sheet of Data Acquisition

Download assessing the impact of institutional rules on the sustainability of community boreholes and more Cheat Sheet Data Acquisition in PDF only on Docsity! DEMOGRAOGIC Table 1: Age Distribution of Respondents Table 1 provides an overview of the age distribution of respondents in the survey. Respondents were categorized into four age groups: 18-25 years: One respondent (1.7%) falls into this age group, representing 7.1% of the valid responses. 26-35 years: Five respondents (8.5%) are in the 26-35 age range, accounting for 35.7% of valid responses. 36-45 years: Seven respondents (11.9%) fall into the 36-45 age category, making up 50.0% of valid responses. 46 years above: One respondent (1.7%) is 46 years or older, also representing 7.1% of valid responses. The table indicates that the majority of respondents in this survey are in the 36-45 age range, comprising half of the valid responses. The 26-35 age group is the second-largest, while the 18-25 and 46 years and above groups have smaller representations. This information provides insights into the age demographics of the surveyed population. Table 1: Gender Distribution of Respondents Interpretation: Table 1 presents the gender distribution of respondents in the survey. Respondents were categorized into two groups: Female: Eight respondents (13.6%) identified as female, representing 57.1% of valid responses. Male: Six respondents (10.2%) identified as male, accounting for 42.9% of valid responses. The table shows that a higher proportion of the respondents identified as female, comprising 57.1% of valid responses, while male respondents make up 42.9% of valid responses. This information provides insights into the gender demographics of the surveyed population. Table 1: Participation in Borehole Management Interpretation: Table 1 presents data related to respondents' participation in borehole management. The question asked whether respondents had ever been participants in borehole management, and the results are as follows: Yes: Fourteen respondents (23.7%) answered affirmatively, indicating that they have been participants in borehole management. No: There were no respondents (0.0%) who reported not participating in borehole management among the valid responses The table indicates that all valid responses (100.0%) reported having experience in borehole management. There were no valid responses indicating non-participation. This suggests that all respondents who provided valid answers have been involved in borehole management at some point. Table 1: Enforcement of Borehole Management Rules Interpretation: Table 1 presents data related to the enforcement of borehole management rules. Respondents were asked how these rules are enforced, and the results are as follows: Inspecting the borehole regularly to check for signs of damage: Ten respondents (16.9%) indicated that borehole rules are enforced by inspecting the borehole regularly for signs of damage, representing 58.8% of valid responses. Educating community members about the importance of borehole management: Five respondents (8.5%) mentioned that borehole rules are enforced through educating community members about the importance of borehole management, making up 29.4% of valid responses. Developing a set of penalties for violating borehole rules: Two respondents (3.4%) reported that penalties for violating borehole rules are enforced through the development of a set of penalties, accounting for 11.8% of valid responses. The table shows that multiple methods are employed to enforce borehole management rules, with the most common method being regular inspections to check for signs of damage. These findings provide insights into the approaches used to ensure compliance with borehole management rules in the surveyed communities. Table 1: Methods of Operating and Maintaining Boreholes Interpretation: Table 1 presents data related to the methods employed for operating and maintaining boreholes. Respondents were asked how boreholes are operated and maintained, and the results are as follows: Performing routine checks: Ten respondents (16.9%) indicated that boreholes are operated and maintained by performing routine checks, representing 27.8% of valid responses. Maintenance of broken borehole parts: Thirteen respondents (22.0%) mentioned that maintenance of broken borehole parts is a method used for borehole operation and maintenance, making up 36.1% of valid responses. Replacement of the borehole parts: Thirteen respondents (22.0%) reported that the replacement of borehole parts is another method employed for borehole operation and maintenance, accounting for 36.1% of valid responses. the majority of respondents, 13 out of 14 (92.9%), reported that the boreholes are functioning properly. However, a small percentage, 1 out of 14 (7.1%), indicated that the boreholes are not operating correctly. This suggests that, based on the respondents' assessments, most of the boreholes are in good working condition, with only a minor issue reported by a single respondent. Please note that in APA format, tables should be numbered and titled (e.g., "Table: Are They Functioning Properly?") and should be referred to within the text of your report. Table 1: Resources for Borehole Operation and Maintenance Resources for Borehole Operation and Maintenance Frequen cy Perce nt Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Financial resource 1 1.7% 7.1% 7.1% Human resources 9 15.3% 64.3% 71.4% Both 4 6.8% 28.6% 100.0% Total 14 23.7% 100.0% 100.0% Interpretation: Table 1 displays the resources available for borehole operation and maintenance. Among the respondents, 1 respondent (7.1%) reported having financial resources, 9 respondents (64.3%) indicated having human resources, and 4 respondents (28.6%) mentioned having both financial and human resources for borehole maintenance. These findings suggest that the majority of respondents rely on human resources for borehole operation and maintenance. Some also have access to financial resources, while a smaller proportion mentioned having both types of resources available. Table 1: Adequacy of Resources for Borehole Operation and Maintenance Adequacy of Resources Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes 2 3.4% 14.3% 14.3% No 12 20.3% 85.7% 100.0% Total 14 23.7% 100.0% 100.0% Interpretation: Table 1 displays the adequacy of resources for borehole operation and maintenance. Out of the 14 respondents, 2 (14.3%) indicated that they have adequate resources for borehole operation and maintenance, while the majority, 12 respondents (85.7%), reported that they do not have sufficient resources. These findings suggest that a significant proportion of respondents perceive their available resources as inadequate for the operation and maintenance of boreholes. Table 1: Effectiveness of Rules in Ensuring Proper Borehole Functionality Effectiveness of Rules Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes 10 16.9% 71.4% 71.4% No 4 6.8% 28.6% 100.0% Total 14 23.7% 100.0% 100.0% Interpretation: Table 1 presents the effectiveness of rules in ensuring the proper functionality of boreholes. Among the 14 respondents, 10 (71.4%) indicated that these rules contribute to the proper functionality of boreholes, while 4 respondents (28.6%) disagreed, suggesting that the rules may not be effective in ensuring borehole functionality. These findings imply that a majority of respondents perceive the rules as beneficial in maintaining the proper functionality of boreholes, but there is a notable portion that believes the rules are not as effective. Table 1: Breakdowns in Boreholes Due to Improper Rule Follow-Up Breakdown Experienced Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes 6 10.2% 42.9% 42.9% No 8 13.6% 57.1% 100.0% Total 14 23.7% 100.0% 100.0% Interpretation: Table 1 displays the responses regarding whether respondents have experienced a breakdown in their boreholes due to improper rule follow-up. Out of the 14 respondents, 6 (42.9%) reported having No 3 5.1% 21.4% 100.0% Total 14 23.7% 100.0% Interpretation: Table 7 displays data regarding whether respondents have had to pay for repairs to their borehole. The results are summarized as follows:  Yes: Eleven respondents (78.6% of valid responses) reported that they have had to pay for repairs to their borehole.  No: Three respondents (21.4% of valid responses) indicated that they have not had to pay for borehole repairs. The data suggests that a significant proportion of respondents have incurred expenses for borehole repairs, reflecting the financial burden associated with maintaining boreholes. Table 8: Availability of Funding Resources for Borehole Operation and Maintenance Funding Resources Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes 2 3.4% 14.3% 14.3% No 12 20.3% 85.7% 100.0% Total 14 23.7% 100.0% Interpretation: Table 8 presents data on the availability of funding resources for borehole operation and maintenance. The findings are summarized as follows:  Yes: Only two respondents (14.3% of valid responses) reported the presence of adequate funding resources for borehole operation and maintenance.  No: The majority of respondents, twelve (85.7% of valid responses), indicated that there are not adequate funding resources available for borehole operation and maintenance. These results highlight a significant challenge regarding the availability of funding resources, with the majority of respondents experiencing inadequacy in this aspect of borehole management. able 9: Government Funding for Borehole Operation and Maintenance Government Funding Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes 1 1.7% 7.1% 7.1% No 13 22.0% 92.9% 100.0% Total 14 23.7% 100.0% Interpretation: Table 9 provides information on whether the government has ever provided funding for borehole operation and maintenance. The results are summarized as follows:  Yes: Only one respondent (7.1% of valid responses) reported that the government has provided funding for borehole operation and maintenance.  No: The majority of respondents, thirteen (92.9% of valid responses), indicated that the government has not provided funding for borehole operation and maintenance. These findings suggest that government funding for borehole operation and maintenance is relatively rare among the surveyed respondents, with the majority relying on other sources or facing challenges related to funding. Table 10: Formal vs. Informal System for Borehole Maintenance Maintenance System Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Formal 10 16.9% 71.4% 71.4% Informal 4 6.8% 28.6% 100.0% Total 14 23.7% 100.0% Interpretation: Table 10 presents information on whether there is a formal or informal system for maintaining boreholes. The results are summarized as follows:  Formal System: Ten respondents (71.4% of valid responses) indicated the presence of a formal system for maintaining boreholes, suggesting that there are established and structured processes for borehole maintenance in the majority of cases.  Informal System: Four respondents (28.6% of valid responses) reported the presence of an informal system for borehole maintenance, indicating that some boreholes may be maintained through less structured or ad-hoc approaches. These findings suggest that, among the surveyed respondents, formal systems for borehole maintenance are more prevalent than informal ones. This information provides insights into the organization and structure of borehole maintenance practices within the surveyed population. Table 11: Presence of a Budget for Borehole Maintenance Budget for Maintenance Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes 2 3.4% 14.3% 14.3% Budget for Maintenance Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No 12 20.3% 85.7% 100.0% Total 14 23.7% 100.0% Interpretation: Table 11 displays information regarding the presence of a budget for borehole maintenance. The results are summarized as follows:  Budget for Maintenance: Two respondents (14.3% of valid responses) indicated that there is a dedicated budget for borehole maintenance, suggesting that financial resources are allocated for this purpose in a limited number of cases.  No Budget for Maintenance: Twelve respondents (85.7% of valid responses) reported the absence of a budget for borehole maintenance, indicating that the majority of respondents do not have a specific financial allocation for maintaining boreholes. These findings imply that, among the surveyed respondents, the allocation of a dedicated budget for borehole maintenance is relatively uncommon. The absence of a budget may have implications for the availability of financial resources to support effective borehole maintenance practices. Table 12: Challenges in Operating and Maintaining Boreholes Challenges Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Lack of funds 14 23.7% 24.1% 24.1% Lack of spare parts and tools 11 18.6% 19.0% 43.1% Lack of skills and knowledge 9 15.3% 15.5% 58.6% Lack of coordination and communication 7 11.9% 12.1% 70.7% Lack of regulation and enforcement 11 18.6% 19.0% 89.7% Lack of monitoring and evaluation 6 10.2% 10.3% 100.0% Total 58 98.3% 100.0% Interpretation: Table 12 presents an overview of the challenges faced in operating and maintaining boreholes as reported by the respondents. The findings are summarized as follows:  Lack of Funds: The most commonly cited challenge is the lack of funds, with 14 respondents (24.1% of valid responses) indicating that financial constraints are a significant obstacle to borehole operation and maintenance.