Skip to main content
Log in

Does rural water resource outcry elevate communities’ conservation for livelihoods in a pooled resource? A case of Mvomero district, Morogoro region, Tanzania

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sustainable Water Resources Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Water represents an essential resource for survival. However, growing concern within communities is arising due to elevated demand and increasing apprehensions about the scarcity of rural water resources. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of water accessibility on water conservation practices, determinants of water conservation practices among rural households, and the effects of water conservation on rural households’ livelihood, focusing on food security and household income, with comparisons made across those who practice water conservation and those who do not. The study was undertaken in the Mvomero district, Morogoro region in Tanzania, using a cross-sectional research design from October 2022 to December 2022. Through a two-stage sampling technique, primary data were collected from 490 households in the Mvomero district. Structural equation modeling (SEM), multivariate probit, simple probit, and robust ordinary least square models were employed for analysis. The SEM results indicate that agricultural productivity significantly influences water conservation (p < 0.01), as does sustainable water supply (p < 0.01). Additionally, water accessibility significantly influences rural communities’ participation in water conservation practices (p < 0.01) and environmental sustainability (p < 0.01), while government regulations influence water accessibility (p < 0.01). Results on the determinants of water conservation practices have shown that water quality, education, occupation, water proximity, and location of residence across wards significantly determine their choice of water conservation practices. Furthermore, results from probit and robust ordinary least square models have shown that earth dams significantly increase food security (p < 0.05) and income (p < 0.1), while water banks and guttering influence food security (p < 0.01) and income (p < 0.01), respectively. Unlike rooftop catchment, which significantly influences income (p < 0.05) alone, guttering influences food security (p < 0.1) and income (p < 0.1). Therefore, this study signifies that water accessibility and water conservation practices used by rural households significantly influence rural household livelihood (food security and income). Moreover, the study emphasizes that water tanks were the most preferable water conservation practice in rural areas, followed by rooftop catchment systems. The study recommends that policymakers prioritize investing in water infrastructure while encouraging households to participate in rural water resource conservation, which will help make the water resource more sustainable and beneficial for societal development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data

Data and all materials will be available upon reasonable request.

References

Download references

Funding

The funds of the study were provided by Rural Water and Sanitation Authority (RUWASA).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

FAK took charge of manuscript preparation, conducted analyses, and interpreted the results. TFT played a crucial role by offering feedback and insightful suggestions to enhance the work. The final version of the manuscript underwent thorough review and approval by all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Felician Andrew Kitole.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from MVOMERO DISTRICT COUNCIL with Reference MVDCD.30/15/VII-VL/192.

Consent to participate

Verbal informed consent was obtained from all subjects before the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix 1: Monthly average temprature in Mvomero district

 

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Maximum

36 °C

35 °C

34 °C

32 °C

31 °C

30 °C

29 °C

31 °C

32 °C

34 °C

35 °C

34 °C

(98 °F)

(95 °F)

(93 °F)

(91 °F)

(87 °F)

(86 °F)

(84 °F)

(89 °F)

(90 °F)

(93 °F)

(96°F)

(94 °F)

Mean maximum

34 °C

33 °C

33 °C

31 °C

29 °C

28 °C

28 °C

29 °C

31 °C

33 °C

33 °C

33 °C

(93 °F)

(92 °F)

(92 °F)

(88 °F)

(85 °F)

(83 °F)

(83 °F)

(85 °F)

(88 °F)

(91 °F)

(91 °F)

(92 °F)

Average high

31 °C

31 °C

30 °C

28 °C

27 °C

27 °C

26 °C

27 °C

29 °C

30 °C

30 °C

31 °C

(88 °F)

(88 °F)

(87 °F)

(83 °F)

(80 °F)

(80 °F)

(80 °F)

(82 °F)

(84 °F)

(85 °F)

(87 °F)

(88 °F)

Daily mean

26 °C

26 °C

25 °C

24 °C

23 °C

22 °C

21 °C

22 °C

23 °C

24 °C

25 °C

26 °C

(78 °F)

(78 °F)

(78 °F)

(75 °F)

(73 °F)

(72 °F)

(71 °F)

(72 °F)

(74 °F)

(76 °F)

(77 °F)

(78 °F)

Average low

22 °C

22 °C

22 °C

21 °C

20 °C

17 °C

17 °C

17 °C

18 °C

20 °C

21 °C

22 °C

(72 °F)

(72 °F)

(71 °F)

(71 °F)

(68 °F)

(64 °F)

(62 °F)

(63 °F)

(65 °F)

(68 °F)

(70 °F)

(72 °F)

Mean minimum

21 °C

19 °C

20 °C

20 °C

17 °C

15 °C

14 °C

15 °C

16 °C

17 °C

19 °C

20 °C

(69 °F)

(67 °F)

(67 °F)

(68 °F)

(63 °F)

(59 °F)

(57 °F)

(58 °F)

(61 °F)

(62 °F)

(66 °F)

(68 °F)

Minimum

19 °C

18 °C

19 °C

20 °C

16 °C

13 °C

12 °C

14 °C

15 °C

16 °C

17 °C

19 °C

(67 °F)

(65 °F)

(66 °F)

(67 °F)

(60 °F)

(55 °F)

(54 °F)

(58 °F)

(59 °F)

(60 °F)

(64 °F)

(67 °F)

Appendix 2: Monthly average weather condition for Mvomero district

figure a

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Theodory, T.F., Kitole, F.A. Does rural water resource outcry elevate communities’ conservation for livelihoods in a pooled resource? A case of Mvomero district, Morogoro region, Tanzania. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 10, 81 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-024-01070-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-024-01070-x

Keywords

Navigation