Examining urban water management practices – Challenges and possibilities for transitions to sustainable urban water management in Sub-Saharan cities

Examining urban water management practices – Challenges and possibilities for transitions to sustainable urban water management in Sub-Saharan cities

Accepted Manuscript Title: Examining urban water management practices – Challenges and possibilities for transitions to sustainable urban water manage...

622KB Sizes 3 Downloads 113 Views

Accepted Manuscript Title: Examining urban water management practices – Challenges and possibilities for transitions to sustainable urban water management in Sub-Saharan cities Authors: Lise Herslund, Patience Mguni PII: DOI: Article Number:

S2210-6707(19)30072-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101573 101573

Reference:

SCS 101573

To appear in: Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:

8 January 2019 25 April 2019 25 April 2019

Please cite this article as: Herslund L, Mguni P, Examining urban water management practices – Challenges and possibilities for transitions to sustainable urban water management in Sub-Saharan cities, Sustainable Cities and Society (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101573 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Examining urban water management practices – Challenges and possibilities for transitions to sustainable urban water management in Sub-Saharan cities

IP T

Lise Herslund, Patience Mguni

*Corresponding author: Associate professor Lise Herslund, Institute of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, [email protected]

SC R

Co-author Assistant professor Patience Mguni, Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen University and Research, [email protected]

N

ED

M



Sustainable urban water management in urban Africa Malfunctioning conventional centralized systems co-existing with decentralized household practices Strengthen the ability of the urban water regime to co-produce and support decentralized water management activities

A

 

U

Highlights

Abstract:

PT

This paper uses a social practices lens to examine water management practices of households in Addis Ababa and Dar es Salaam, their drivers and opportunities for change and discusses how far these practices

CC E

fit into a sustainable urban water management agenda in an urban African context. The paper is based on interviews and workshops with inhabitants in two case sites as well as city stakeholders. In both cities the official discourse is the development and extension of universal conventional centralised water systems.

A

However these are malfunctioning systems co-existing with various decentralised household water management practices. One challenge is how to complement the resource-intensive modern infrastructure ideal with low-technology, green infrastructure-based approaches. Another is how to change the discursive framings of existing decentralised practices from disqualification as ‘rural’ practices unfit for the urban.

1

Finally, as developing cities purse sustainable development goals it is necessary to strengthen the ability of the urban water regime to support co-production and decentralised water management activities whilst reconfiguring those elements of practices that are inherently unsustainable.

IP T

Keywords: African cities, social practices, water management practices, sustainable urban water management, coexistence, coproduction.

SC R

1. Introduction:

Challenges with water management are high on the agenda in many cities today and will escalate with the

U

onset of climate changes, increased climate variability and growing populations. Drought and flooding are

N

already posing challenges to water provisioning especially for Sub-Saharan cities like Addis Ababa and Dar

A

es Salaam, whilst coping with the growing need for water and sanitation services within such cities remains

M

a pressing issue (WHO & UNICEF JMP, 2012). As such, ensuring access to and sustainable management of clean water for all, as well as transformations towards overall urban resilience are important aspects of the

ED

global development agenda as seen in the SDGs and New Urban Agenda (Kooy et al., 2018; Artioli et al., 2018; Barnett & Parnell, 2016).

PT

Sociotechnical systems such as urban water management systems are seen as key to adapting to climate

CC E

change and achieving resilient cities. Currently, the components of urban water management systems i.e. water supply, waste water and stormwater drainage are based on universal conventional infrastructures of underground pipe networks (Novotny et al., 2010); however, the resilience of such systems is being

A

questioned in light of the above-mentioned challenges (Chocat et al., 2007; Rauch & Morgenroth, 2013). There has been general agreement amongst urban water practitioners (especially in developed cities) on the need to change the trajectory of urban water management towards more sustainable configurations that build on decentralised, nature-based systems (Rauch & Morgenroth, 2013; Kabisch et al., 2017). However, cities are struggling to break out of their path dependence on centralised systems and implement

2

sustainable urban water management in which water is managed in a more diverse and decentralised manner; where the urban landscape and its ecosystem services are central, and where citizens are actively involved and practice water-sensitive behaviours (Wong & Brown, 2009). In Sub-Saharan cities, rapid urbanization and limited resources have resulted in overstretched water

IP T

systems that service only part of the population (Pastore, 2015); as well as large informal areas developing where water service infrastructures are incomplete or absent (Allen et al., 2017). Thus, a bottom-up approach to understand the actual water management is needed also because of a disconnection between

SC R

urban governance and the actual urban development on the ground being a common feature in SubSaharan urban development (Herslund et al., 2017).

U

The modern infrastructure ideal where water management is based on a universal, centralised system has

N

proved difficult to achieve in African cities (Pastore, 2015; Furlong, 2014; Lawhon et al., 2018; Moretto et

A

al., 2018). As a result, a diverse set of infrastructure-practice configurations have proliferated as

M

households engage in various practices to cope with the impacts of quotidian disruptions and/or nonaccess to water provisioning infrastructure (Allen et al., 2017; Kadibadiba et al., 2018). Thus the water

ED

management challenge for many African cities is how to address current water infrastructure deficits whilst turning towards sustainable urban water management by leapfrogging over the costly universal systems

PT

and moving directly towards decentralised, green infrastructure-based systems (Evans et al., 2018; Herslund et al., 2018; Mguni et al., submitted; Habtemariam et al., 2018).

CC E

This paper explores water management in Addis Ababa and Dar es Salaam from a ‘social practices’ bottomup perspective set within a frame of potential transitions towards water-sensitive futures through

A

sustainable urban water management. Both cities face water stress as well as floods but they are taking different roads in urban development. In both cities the urban development pattern has been driven by informal settlement patterns, however, in Addis Ababa a governmental program is rapidly converting some informal settlements to condominiums (Alemayehu & Stark, 2018).

3

The paper extends the empirical application of ‘social practice theory’ to cities in the global South that struggle with infrastructure deficits. We explore the conditions for leapfrogging towards water-sensitive futures by looking at the different household water management practices currently prevailing in both cities, their drivers, and how these can be reimagined in ways that could foster more sustainable modes of

IP T

water management. The paper is based on mixed methods; document studies, interviews as well as workshops with city stakeholders in planning, housing, water and green space management sectors in both

SC R

cities.

2. Theoretical background

U

There is increasing consensus in water management sectors around the world on the need for a change in

N

trajectory towards more sustainable configurations (Chocat et al., 2007; UN-Water, 2018). One of the most

A

pressing questions is how such a transition may be achieved (De Haan et al., 2015). In their urban water

M

management transitions framework, Brown et al. (2009) posit that urban water management sectors may typically go through six nested transition stages, each seeking to address different goals. The first three

ED

stages seek to ensure (1) water supply, (2) hygiene through sewerage systems and finally (3) flood protection through stormwater drainage. In these first three stages (which represent the modern

PT

infrastructure ideal), Wong and Brown (2009) see a problem in the physical and institutional

CC E

compartmentalisation of water supply, sewerage and stormwater management. Most Northern cities have come through these first three stages, having built universal and centralised systems of water supply, sewerage and stormwater drainage. As such, in the North, citizens have little interaction with the often

A

‘invisible’ infrastructures such as underground water systems beyond being end-users and this has made it difficult to see how infrastructures and the social practices intersect in mutually-constitutive ways (Shove et al., 2019). However in the global South, Furlong (2014) and Allen et al., (2017) characterise existing attempts at the modern infrastructure ideal as resulting in service ‘archipelagos’ plagued by disrepair meaning that

4

centralised conventional piped water infrastructure systems are only found in delimited geographical areas. As a result, most households in African cities depend on alternative, decentralised low-technologies for water supply, sanitation and drainage of stormwater (Pastore, 2015). As such, conventional centralised piped water infrastructures often “[…] exist in tandem with other systems; which sometimes serve the

IP T

same areas and reach the same users” (Pastore, 2015: 474). This co-existence of conventional water systems with heterogeneous decentralised, low-technology alternatives at household and community levels means that citizens, through their water management practices, are also co-producers of urban

SC R

water (Herslund et al., 2018; Mguni et al., 2015; Lawhon et al., 2018). Furlong (2014) describes these activities as practices of malfunction, characterising them as coping practices in response to system

U

malfunction.

N

According to Wong and Brown (2009), in the last three stages of the urban water management transitions

A

framework, water management moves from the centralised and universal water systems towards seeking

M

to attain environmental protection, sustainability and resilience through approaches such as nature-based solutions. The final stage, i.e. the ‘water-sensitive city’ ideal, envisions water management that is

ED

supported by a “flexible institutional regime” and underpinned by (1) access to diverse water sources and decentralised water supply, sanitation and drainage infrastructures; (2) a focus on provision of ecosystem

PT

services through increased green infrastructure and finally (3) water-sensitive behaviours and practices of urban citizens (Wong & Brown, 2009; De Haan et al., 2015). While what is entailed in the transformation

CC E

towards water-sensitive futures is still poorly understood (Bos et al., 2013), Brown et al (2009) suggest that a citizenry that progressively engages in water-sensitive practices is central to achieving water-sensitive

A

cities. Sletto et al (2019) also highlight that from a global South perspective, existing community practices in dealing with infrastructural deficits and non-access are an integral part of fostering sustainable urban water management. Sustainability transitions frameworks such as the one detailed above, do well in framing the overall sustainability challenges that cities face especially from a top-down, infrastructure and associated

5

institutional dynamics perspective. However, they offer little in the way of accounting for agency and the differentiated interfaces between people and infrastructures within sustainability transitions (Shove & Walker, 2007; Watson, 2012; Pesch, 2015). Theories of social practices provide one approach to bridging the gap between everyday practices of water

IP T

management by citizens and large infrastructures of water provisioning and their management. A social practices perspective enables a more inclusive understanding of infrastructures-in-use (Shove et al., 2019) and thereby the potential for engaging citizens in the management of water towards sustainability and

SC R

resilience as implied by the urban water management transitions framework by Brown et al. (2009). Such an approach begins to shine a light on some of the policy blind spots that emerge in the pursuit of the

U

modern infrastructure ideal in the water sector in developing cities. Over the past two decades, ‘social

N

practice theories’ have been used to understand sustainability potential and efforts in fields such as

A

consumption, energy use, food, transport and water demand (Kravets et al., 2018; Herington et al., 2017;

M

Shove et al., 2019; Browne, 2015; Kadibadiba et al., 2018).

According to Schatzki (2001:2) a practice is a ‘shared behavioural routine’, while Birchnell (2012: 497) sees

ED

practices as “[…] the nuanced performances of everyday life and through consensus become what is normal”. Taking a ‘social practices’ perspective on water management activities involves investigating the

PT

elements or dimensions that make up a ‘practice’ i.e. (i) the materiality and technology around a practice, (ii) the conventions, meanings and discourses - collectively-established normative ideas of the

CC E

meaning/value of the practice and (iii) the practice in the temporal ordering of the day and connections and conflicts with other daily practices i.e. the everyday perspective (Shove et al., 2012; Hand et al., 2005,

A

Watson, 2012). It is the practice itself and knowing how to do it competently that holds the analytically separable elements together (Shove and Walker, 2010). Generating more sustainable practices such as those necessary for transitions towards water-sensitive futures calls for the elements of existing unsustainable practices and links between them to be challenged and broken before being remade in more sustainable ways (Shove et al., 2012; Berthou 2014). As such

6

social practice theories emphasise the importance of connections between practices, stressing that changes in practices towards sustainability transitions depend upon patterns of recruitment and defection to and from new and prevailing practices respectively (Shove & Spurling, 2013; Watson, 2012). According to Walker (2013) many of the studies based on social practice theory are often power-neutral

IP T

but issues of power and justice that are tied up in the ‘conventions, meanings and discourses’ element, are important to consider, especially for socially and environmentally-just futures. Issues of power and justice are particularly relevant when applying the approach in the global South where inequality and poverty

SC R

shape consumption and basic existence (Watson, 2014; Das & Randeria, 2015). Furthermore it is important to understand how values and meanings of well-being and the ‘good life’ are embedded in the processes of

U

recruitment, defection and transformation towards sustainability from a practice perspective (Walker,

N

2013). Living sustainably is part of a larger web of activities in everyday life and making better choices can

A

conflict with other practices as well as established normative ideas of what the good life is.

M

Lastly, practice theory avoids focussing solely on individuals making choices as if they were in a vacuum or on systemic dynamics and larger socio-technical systems as structuring social life and the possibilities for

ED

change (Spaargaren, 2011; Shove & Spurling, 2013). Instead, Shove and Walker (2010) find that the practices of ordinary people are essential in reproducing and changing socio-technical systems since

PT

practices are enacted by ‘ordinary’ people. Practices thus constitute a key methodological unit for the analysis of environmental change and systemic innovation as shaped by both agency of individuals and the

CC E

structures that condition and constrain agency (Spaargaren, 2012). If the transformation towards sustainability and resilience as called for in the current global and urban

A

development agenda is to be achieved, it is essential that the strategies and policies pursuing it are embedded in the details of daily life as seen through social practices (Shove et al., 2012). This paper extends the empirical application of the social practices perspective in the global South by exploring water management practices in Addis Ababa and Dar es Salaam and the elements that constitute these practices in order to reflect on how changes towards water-sensitive futures can come about. As such, the paper

7

concentrates mainly on the quotidian, mundane everyday water management practices as found in households in Addis Ababa and Dar es Salaam as functions of heterogeneous and differentiated infrastructural configurations (Lawhon et al., 2018).

IP T

3. Methodology The paper works with Addis Ababa and Dar es Salaam because they are developing differently thus giving

SC R

insight into different African cities. Dar es Salaam continues to experience sprawling informal areas, while Addis Ababa besides continuing informal development is taking place in tandem with the transformation of some informal as well as farmed areas into condominium housing (Herslund et al., 2015). The paper works

U

at two levels; the city and the case site level in order to get an insight into the everyday water practices of

N

people as well as to be able to draw up the wider context of urban water management regime i.e. water

A

infrastructures and the conventions, discourses and framing of water management in the cities. Thus in

M

each city a case site has been selected. The main selection criteria was a location in the outskirts of the cities that is in a process of densification and that the locations represent the two different urban

ED

typologies characteristic of the two cities; the condominium housing in Addis Ababa and the densifying informal area in Dar es Salaam. The empirical material on practices is mainly generated from interviews and

PT

workshops with inhabitants in the case sites and city stakeholders.

CC E

3.1 Case site presentations

Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, is expected to grow from 3.2 million inhabitants in 2015 to 5.9 million in 2030 (UN, 2014). It is divided into three tiers: the city, 10 sub-cities and 116 sub-districts called Woredas.

A

The average temperature is 18oC with an annual precipitation of1200mm. It is located at 2100-3200m altitude and is characterised by steep slopes, undulating terrain, valleys and flat areas. Current climate change projections indicate an increase in annual precipitation by approximately 10% by 2100 and an increase in 5-day peak rain by up to 30% by 2100 (IPCC, 2013). The specific case site lies within the Jemo river catchment which is made up of an extending condominium housing area, decreasing farmland and

8

informal sites. The still extending mid-stream condominium site is presently made up of 36 4-storey blocks built from 2012. For Addis Ababa, we take the ‘Jemo condominium’ site of 1500 households as representative of the main urban typology to come in future as the city tries to shift its urban development trajectory towards more formal development patterns.

IP T

Dar es Salaam in Tanzania is expected to grow from 5.1 million inhabitants in 2015 to 10.8 million in 2030 (UN, 2014). It has a coordinating City Council and three autonomous municipalities made up of 73 Wards and sub-wards. It is estimated that 70-80% of the population lives in unplanned informal settlements (ibid).

SC R

The average temperature is around 25oC with an annual precipitation around 1200mm. It is located at 0200m altitude by the coast with a relatively flat topography. Current climate change projections indicate

U

close to no change in annual precipitation by 2100 but an increase in 5-day peak rain by up to 20% by 2100

N

(IPCC,2013). The specific case site lies in the Mbezi river catchment made up of informal areas. We

A

concentrate on the mid-stream Kibululu sub-ward of 2000 households (4,8 km2), which is a progressively

3.2 Methods and data collection

M

densifying and informal area representative of the dominant urban development patterns in the city.

ED

Official statistics on water use from a practices perspective in the two cities were difficult to find. Relevant figures on e.g. water access and sewerage coverage will be presented but as the study also shows

PT

theoretical water access differs from that in real life due to malfunctioning systems and water shortages

CC E

and therefore the empirical base of the paper is interviews with case site inhabitants and extracts from discussions between urban stakeholders at workshops. In each case site 15 households were interviewed on their daily water-related activities and everyday life in

A

order to identify practices and main features of the elements that make them up. In each area older people who had lived in the area for many years were interviewed to get the area and water management history. In the Addis case site this was farmers still living in the catchment as the condominium inhabitants are all new to the area and the land was used by these farmers just some years ago. The rest of interviewees were selected through snowballing; in Kibululu with the criterion in mind of getting both newcomers and locals

9

interviewed and in Jemo condominium taking a whole stairwell in two different places in the site in order to get people at different storeys and in different sizes of flats. In both sites it was mainly women that were interviewed as they are usually the responsible persons in managing household chores and most of the men were at work or out at the times of the interviews.

IP T

Furthermore, in each case site a 3 day ‘design charrette’ workshop was held; in Kibululu (January 2016) and Jemo (June, 2015) respectively which brought local households and selected city-level actors together on developing a local plan for the area with focus on both water resilience and making the area more liveable.

SC R

Extracts from the workshop discussions on main challenges with water, wishes for the future, local ideas for solutions and reactions from city stakeholders are brought into the analysis.

U

In each city, 8-10 city stakeholders in urban water management, planning and development were

N

interviewed in order to get a snapshot of the changes as well as discourses of water management in both

A

cities. Start-up workshops in each city (January 2014) and trainings (for Addis in January 2015 and for Dar es

M

Salaam in December 2015) with city stakeholders held in connection with a research project on urban water resilience in Addis Ababa and Dar es Salaam served as forum to map the urban water management

ED

regime and select the key stakeholders to interview (and take part in the design charrettes) as well as to explore the water management systems in the cities, the main discourses and power relations between

CC E

4. Results

PT

stakeholders and agendas in the two cities.

4.1 Materiality and technology – Islands of conventional infrastructures

A

In this section we present results on the urban water management infrastructures making up the different water management practices prevalent in the Addis Ababa and Dar es Salaam case sites. In Addis Ababa access to potable water supply is 96% according to the Ministry of Wateri. In Dar es Salaam the official figures state the piped coverage to be approximately 51% (EWURA, 2012). In both cities the water supply infrastructure is in need of maintenance and upgrading as at least 1/3 of the total water yield is non-

10

revenue water due to leakages and unmetered connections (Smiley, 2013; Desalegn, 2005). In both cities centralised sewerage systems were mainly established in the old city centres. In Dar es Salaam this means that 5% of the population is connected to centralised sewerage (Interview, 2014ii). In Addis Ababa approximately 7% of the urban dwellings were connected to the centralised sewer system in 2012 but as

condominiums must depend on septic tanks as the sewer system cannot keep up.

IP T

more condominiums are being built this figure is changing fast (Interview, 2014iii) such that some of the

In the Addis case site, the Jemo condominium, all apartments are fitted with potable water and flush toilets

SC R

but water is only available on average 3 days a week and in the dry season there can be interruptions of up to 10 days. The flats higher up rarely have water from the pipes due to the lack of pressure. To fill in the

U

water supply gap, households depend on buying water from water vendors and neighbours at lower floors.

N

According to the director of the water supply project office at AWSAA even with enough water in the

A

system they would not be able to put a higher pressure on the freshwater pipes to reach the upper floors,

M

as the pressure needed may destroy the pipes and result in large leakages. The lack of water also means that toilets cannot be flushed very often. As a resident living on the fourth floor noted, “the toilet smells

ED

terribly but where else can I go. I am afraid of it getting so bad that we start to get ill.” For stormwater management, in the condominium case site the blocks are equipped with gutters and

PT

downpipes that go into open drainage lines around each block. However, these are not connected to any conveyance system out of the site and each ends in the open areas, which adds to the local flooding as the

CC E

condominium is located on a swampy area. Rainwater harvesting in the condominium hardly exists as it is illegal to cut into downpipes. There are however some residents that have established a small underground

A

tank for collection of water in the rainy season to supply households with water. This is not allowed as the open areas between the blocks are reserved as open space for greenery. Furthermore, in an effort to reduce flooding, some of the condominium blocks have also illegally connected the rainwater downpipes to the sewer trunk line to avoid the local flooding often experienced after heavy rains.

11

In Dar es Salaam, in general it seems access to formal water supply infrastructure is most prevalent in communities close to major roads. In Kibululu, the current bundle of water supply practices identified by interviewees include (1) buying water from water vendor trucks at 20 Tsziv/L or, (2) buying saltwater from nearby boreholes for 7,5 Tsz/L; (3) rainwater harvesting into underground tanks or simple buckets; (4)

IP T

sinking boreholes to provide saltwater for lower-order uses and establishing pipe connections to neighbours who can afford it; and (5) harvesting seepage on the river bed during the dry months. The practice of rainwater harvesting has gained importance over the years as increasing numbers of households

SC R

depend on it as a reliable source for cheap and high-quality drinking water. For the households which can afford extensive roof gutter systems and large underground storage tanks they can rely on rainwater for a

U

year-long supply of drinking water. For residents who cannot afford such systems, even the rudimentary

N

technologies of gutters connecting roofs to buckets yield at least 2 months’ supply of drinking water or

A

nearly half the households’ water needs during the rainy season.

M

In Kibululu, it is the residents who pay for the installation of a water supply line by the Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage Corporation (DAWASCO), the water utility company. Interviewees highlight that while

ED

installing a DAWASCO connection is expensive, it is still desirable because DAWASCO water is overall cheaper than buying from vendors. An old man says “it is only the new people with money that can afford

PT

piped potable water. I am lucky my neighbour has it but how can I afford it. You need a large income to pay for all the installation”. One option for addressing the high cost of installing a DAWASCO supply line has

CC E

been for households in informal areas to seek to connect as collectives i.e. through the existing ‘ten-cell’v governance structures.

A

However, despite the desirability of a connection to the DAWSCO line, it should be noted that the widespread belief amongst interviewees is that while DAWASCO water is of a better quality than borehole salt water, it is of a lower quality than rainwater (which has less actors involved) and it is unreliable in terms of availability as the system frequently malfunctions. One woman noted “...rain water I trust. This we drink straight off. The vendors’ water you never know where it comes from. It is probably DAWASCO employees

12

earning on the side. The few people with potable water also complain”. The small number of households that have access to piped water have it on average 2-3 days a weekvi and in the dry season DAWASCO water can be gone for up to 2 weeks. One development trend currently taking place in Kibululu is progressive densification as more people buy

IP T

plots of minimum 400m2 in size. Thus more of the well-off newcomers are establishing their own boreholes for private use and sometimes for sale to the local community. As such there are also emerging borehole businesses as households consolidate their role as coproducers of water services not only at site level but

SC R

at neighbourhood level too (Hofmann, 2017). An example is of two brothers who took a loan to invest in a deeper borehole with electric pumps. Six households are now connected to the borehole for piped water

U

supply and the rest of the community buy water there. One brother notes “it is a very good business but we

N

are starting to get a problem with salty water”.

A

Concerning practices in sanitation, in Dar es Salaam, a large section of the population depend on on-site

M

sanitation infrastructures consisting of pit latrines in poorer households or toilets connected to septic tanks or overflow tanks in richer households. These septic tanks are in many cases emptied into the river during

ED

rainy season, or left with unlined bottoms to allow settling of solid matter and the seepage of liquid waste into the ground. Part of this is due to the unplanned nature of settlements such as Kibululu which makes

PT

retrofitting with DAWASCO sewer systems difficult and more importantly it limits road access to the area by sewage disposal trucks. As such while households engage in sanitation practices outside the conventional

CC E

piped system, these practices are not necessarily environmentally-friendly or legal. As one man says, “the vacuum truck does not come all the way out here so we have no other options. But they are also too

A

expensive for someone like me”. In both cities it is mainly in the old inner city that is served by piped stormwater drainage systems. In the rest of the city stormwater runs off to low-lying areas and into streams and rivers (Backhaus et al., 2015). For stormwater management in Dar, flooding and erosion are common in the rainy season all along the river especially downstream. The formal providers of stormwater drainage infrastructure are the municipal

13

and national road authorities as urban drainage is a requirement in the design and construction of roads. Hence roadside ditches or underground concrete pipes are implemented along main roads but seldom extend to settlements like Kibululu. Here, for local and on-site stormwater drainage, households and community collectives engage in stormwater management practices such as planting of elephant grass and

IP T

the use of sand-filled car tyres and sandbags to prevent erosion; the construction of gabions and retaining walls to stabilise the ground and terracing on slopes.

SC R

4.2 Everyday life – individual rhythms of disruptions

In this section we present results of the prevailing water management practices from an everyday perspective i.e. where they sit in the quotidian ordering of daily activities as well as their connections to

U

other daily household practices. Concerning water supply practices in everyday life, the buying of water

N

from water vendor trucks, neighbours and boreholes has been identified as a central activity in both case

A

sites despite the difference in urban typologies. In the condominium, buying water is a way to cope with

M

the malfunction of water supply infrastructure, and in Kibululu it represents production of water services in the absence of conventional water infrastructure. What exactly the buying of water implies and how long it

ED

takes depends on distance to a main road, the floor one lives on (in the condominium), the availability of household storage facilities, car ownership etc. Getting water in both sites makes up a central activity that

PT

other everyday life activities need to be fitted around; and women who are the main group involved have

CC E

to be flexible as getting water can be difficult to plan for. Most interviewees in both case sites highlight the disruptive nature not only of the practice of ‘buying’ water but the practices of ‘getting’ water in general. For instance buying water in Kibululu implies much

A

waiting around. Those who live by a road big enough to allow the passage of water trucks have to keep an eye on the road, waiting for the truck whilst doing other activities. As one interviewee puts it, “we never know when a truck comes. In times of much water shortage in the city, - the truck never comes”. Those who live away from access roads frequently have to buy and carry water at times most convenient e.g. on the way home from work.

14

In the condominium, the buying of water also takes place along the major road running beside the condominium up to 1 km away all depending on where you live within the site. As one woman highlights, “I go out to buy water but it takes time to walk and then carry the buckets up the stairs but I try my best to get home to feed the kids”. Furthermore the practice of waiting for piped water with taps open is part of the

IP T

rhythm of daily life, further cementing the time-consuming, disruptive and sometime unsustainable character of some of the practices involved in the getting of water. Those interviewed highlighted that water sometimes comes in the night and therefore households leave water taps open all the time.

SC R

According to one condominium resident, “You never know when you can get water […] You sleep very light to be ready if water should come during the night.” As a result, besides the obvious issue of water loss,

U

there have been incidents of water damage.

N

In both case sites, the everyday rhythms surrounding water-related practices are also dependent on the

A

seasons. Most interviewees note that during the rainy season the time and indeed money spent on getting

M

water is lower and most practices are performed with more ease. The rainy season implies an improvement of water supplies, be they piped water, water that is bought or rainwater that is harvested. For those with

ED

piped connections to central systems or opportunities for rain-water harvesting, the need to spend money on purchasing water decreases significantly, depending on storage facilities.

PT

Another important element of the everyday rhythms related to water practices in both cities is the significant expense which characterises water supply practices that are outside or parallel to the

CC E

conventional piped system. Getting water is not only time-consuming and disruptive, it is also expensive, especially in the drier months of the year. First of all, for the meaningful coproduction of water services in

A

Kibululu, households have to make significant investments in the materials that script water practices such as rainwater harvesting, borehole sinking and storage. For example, according to interviewees, the main challenge for rainwater harvesting in poorer households in Kibululu is the lack of storage facilities and therefore the collection is on a day to day basis. One woman highlights that, “it is too expensive for me to buy a large tank or even get a new roof with proper gutters and downpipes.” Furthermore, households

15

without the resources to invest in large storage infrastructure have to pay more per litre of purchased water for smaller amounts as most water vending trucks only sell bulk supplies which can be hosed directly into large tanks. As a result the poorer households may have to wait for the few trucks that sell for small containers or buy from their neighbours at higher prices.

IP T

Secondly, besides the cost of infrastructure investments, the cost of buying water is generally high; taking up a large share of household livelihoods and monthly incomes. In both case sites, people buy water every second or third day depending on storage facilities, the number of household members and what other

SC R

options they have. In the condominium households may spend from a tenth to half their incomes on buying water. The expense increases for the households living on the higher floors as they do not get piped

U

water due to low pressure and they may have to hire people to carry water up the stairs. Thus,

N

condominium living demands resources and leaves little room for coping for those with less resources. As a

A

woman living on the fourth floor highlights, “surviving in the condo can be difficult as it is farther from work

M

than where I lived before in the city and then I also need to spend so much money on water […] I might have to sell my condo or rent it out as it is becoming too much”.

ED

In Kibululu, due to the expense of buying potable water, poorer households often have to use borehole water (for lower order uses such as laundry and sanitation) more than they would like even though it is

PT

often salty and therefore of a lower quality. As one interviewee highlights, “borehole water is salty but it is also cheaper”. Other households also resort to using river water for all uses except cooking and drinking.

CC E

One female farmer says, “we always use the river for washing of both body and dishes […] When you have small incomes buying of water is not an option’. In the Jemo condominium on the other hand, there are

A

fewer alternatives; piped water and bought water are used for all purposes including for toilet-flushing. Stormwater management practices mainly affect daily rhythms during the rainy seasons or just before. In the case of Kibululu, it seems residents spend much time addressing erosion and flooding by planting elephant grass, building gabions etc. Preparation and construction of new measures as well as the maintenance of existing erosion and flood control measures takes place before the on-set of the rainy

16

season. The river, its changing course and progressive environmental decline over the years seems to be a central issue in both catchments especially during the rainy season. In both catchments, older residents tell how river water was used for everything from drinking and cooking, to bathing and irrigation up until the 1970’s or 80’s.

IP T

However in recent years the quality of the river water has declined as the fast growing population empties their septic tanks and solid waste into the river. Also erosion along the river banks has increased, especially so due to sand mining practices in Kibululu and communities along the catchments are becoming

SC R

increasingly flood-prone. In the Dar catchment a woman living by the river downstream says, “… during the rainy season the river smells so much because they all empty all their tanks and latrines but also all their

U

solid waste ends up in our area.” However, residents seem aware of the scale and results of the

N

environmental problems in their area since one of the most mentioned challenges that were identified

A

during the design charrette was the need to raise environmental awareness in a more systematic manner.

M

Whilst residents were aware of the environmental problems, most were unaware of the sustainability of some of the water management practices they were already engaged in. As one old man said after a

ED

presentation on landscape-based stormwater management during the charrette, “Some of these [sustainable] practices (collecting rainwater, conveying and infiltrating excess water into boreholes in low

practices.”

PT

lying areas and the planting of elephant grasses) I am already doing, but I was not aware they were good

CC E

4.3 Conventions and meanings – contradictory discourses Having identified the main infrastructures that make up water management practices in the two cities as

A

well as the temporal ordering of these practices in everyday life, we now present results from the perspective of the third element of practices i.e. the social and symbolic significance of these practices within a wider sphere of the urban water socio-technical system. In Addis Ababa at city level the general discourse centres around transforming and modernising informal areas into condominium housing with piped potable water and flush toilets in each flat i.e. an extension of the modern universal infrastructure

17

ideal. The City Government’s housing development program started in 2005 and by 2010 more than 260.000 condominium units/ 8123 blocks had been constructed (UN-Habitat, 2010). According to the director of the housing bureau the plan is to construct 50,000 units annually and in a few years’ time, condominium housing will be the main housing typology in the city. The housing development

IP T

is progressing so fast it is overriding green infrastructure ambitions in the city master plan. For example, some of the new recreational parks and land reserved for urban agriculture in the recent masterplan have already been converted to new housing projects. Jemo condominium was built on land that had been

SC R

earmarked as an open space for floodwater retention in the 2003-2013 master plan.

In terms of urban development patterns, Dar es Salaam remains a largely informal city with unplanned

U

settlements (of varying size, typology and age) making up 70-80% of the city. The city currently has a

N

derelict masterplan from 1978 in which most wetlands, steep slopes and river valleys which were then

A

zoned as hazardous with no development allowed are actually the sites of today’s informal areas. In the

M

recently-rejected iteration of a new master plan the whole Mbezi case catchment was designated as an ‘environmental zone’ where river buffers should be kept open despite the fact that in reality the catchment

ED

is currently rapidly densifying as mentioned above. In fact, green open spaces are almost non-existent in the catchment’s settlements such that public services and communal activities must be negotiated and take

PT

place on ‘private’ land. As a local leader noted, “everywhere is owned by somebody. There is not even space to make roads to houses as the densification is going so fast.”

CC E

Thus, in the absence of a functional masterplan Dar es Salaam has had several, albeit ad hoc, infrastructure upgrading programmes in different areas of the city; all of which seek to extend a version of the modern

A

infrastructure ideal to existing formal and informal areas (Dodman et al, 2009; DMDP, 2014). However due to the unplanned nature of the informal settlements it remains difficult to roll-out a comprehensive infrastructure upgrading programme. Just like the local leader quoted above, one municipal engineer emphasised this difficulty saying “… the informal areas will never be serviced. You have to do it yourself….We should move the whole city and start over.”

18

In terms of water management, both cities have plans to increase the extraction of water from outside the city to cover the water shortages now and in the future, however, lack of funding and reshuffling of staff are stalling the projects. According to the Ministry of Water Irrigation and Energy (MoWIE) and the One Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) National Programme (OWNP) in Addis Ababa, piped water

IP T

supply is the only option of supply they are promoting, alternative water supply options such as rainwater harvesting do not seem to be an option; as one MoWIE official noted, “It is only in rural areas where we see collection of rainwater as an important water source. It is a rural practice.”

SC R

However some city officials now acknowledge that there may be a need to establish alternative sanitation technologies in condominiums such as the dry pit latrines prevalent in informal and rural areas for the time

U

being, but this is not official policy yet. According to an official in the sewerage project office in the Addis

N

Ababa Water and Sewage Authority (AWSAA) the current rate of condominium development is outpacing

A

the capacity of the existing sewer system. “But they (the housing bureau) just keep on building

M

condominiums even though the plants and the pipes are insufficient. I would like to start experimenting with compost toilets in the condominium to relieve the overworked system for the time being. ”

ED

As in Addis, the Tanzanian Ministry of Water and DAWASCO in Dar do not yet see it as their role to promote alternative water supply methods such as rainwater harvesting. Both these official actors highlight that

PT

private borehole digging is actually illegal but since they are aware of limitations of the official water supply, sanitation and drainage system they do not enforce the regulations prohibiting such activities. They

CC E

are also aware of the existence of the ‘little DAWASCOs’ as they call the independent water suppliers like the water vending companies and the borehole systems people establish themselves. In attempts to

A

improve water service provision, Dar es Salaam experimented with privatisation in 2003 but this experiment was abandoned in 2005 after it became clear that privatisation had failed to deliver improvements in water and sanitation services (Pigeon, 2012). Furthermore it seems condominium residents in Addis, like the officials, also have aspirations of modernity that they attach to the idea of living in condominiums and having access to the associated comforts. People

19

have expectations of modern and hygienic urban living (formulations from the presentation of the condominium program) which are centered upon the idea of clean running water, flush toilets and electricity. However in reality these expectations have been difficult to meet. One resident underscores the dilemma that the frequently malfunctioning water system presents, “I would not like to go back to using

IP T

latrines but I also hate the smelly toilets and all the money I spend on buying water. It is so very difficult.” Another resident voices his frustration with the water shortages and malfunction that lead to erratic water supply saying “…we have expressed our dissatisfaction to the water utility and also to the housing director

SC R

with the limited water supply as well as the problems with living above 1st floor where we never have water, - but it is still not working”. In fact, due the malfunctioning infrastructure and the dislocation from

U

socio-economic activities, many Addis Ababa residents do not aspire to live in condominiums anymore.

N

In Dar es Salaam unlike in Addis Ababa, it seems expectations for a piped water system reaching

A

households are much lower; due in part to the entrenchment of the infrastructure deficit, the resultant

M

decentralised water management practices households engage in, and the lack of involvement of city departments in the informal areas. In fact, while households may have aspirations for a DAWASCO supply

ED

connection, the motive is economic as DAWASCO water is cheaper. In terms of water quality and the reliability of service i.e. the credibility of the urban water socio-technical system, some of the more well-off

PT

households that were interviewed put more trust in their on-site practices such as rainwater harvesting and boreholes than in piped water systems. Concerning sanitation and drainage in Dar es Salaam, expectations

CC E

for the reach of centralised infrastructure are even lower among households. In fact there seems to be more trust in what one local leader has called “…upgrading from below…which is also chaotic and difficult

A

to control…” than in the utility’s ability to provide sewerage and drainage services in their informal areas. In Dar, it seems both the local level households and indeed some officials in the regime such as the abovequoted municipal engineer, find aspirations towards the achievement of the universal modern infrastructure ideal as highly unrealistic. However despite the implausibility of centralised water infrastructures having a universal reach in Dar, a disconnect persists, between this reality on one hand and

20

the discourse and regulations governing the urban water socio-technical system on the other, as is exemplified by the illegality of boreholes and their entrenched existence in reality. The modern infrastructure ideal persists in both Addis Ababa and Dar es Salaam, despite realities of the entrenchment of decentralised, alternative low-technology water management practices in the face of deficit and

IP T

malfunction of conventional systems.

SC R

5. Discussion

In both cities the first three stages of the ‘urban water management transitions framework’ (Brown et al., 2009) i.e. the formal water supply, sanitation and stormwater drainage infrastructures seem to exist in

U

small haphazard islands of service provision as Hofmann (2017) and Pastore (2015) also found for Dar es

N

Salaam. Where these islands of piped water supply and sewerage infrastructures exist i.e. in the

A

condominium in Addis, they are frequently plagued by malfunction and water shortages. Furthermore,

M

conventional stormwater drainage infrastructures are confined to road sides with little in the way of on-site and settlement-level conventional stormwater management infrastructure. On the other hand, we have

ED

identified various water management practices in the two cities which are materially-manifested through corresponding islands of decentralised, on-site infrastructures that are making up for deficits in

PT

conventional centralised water infrastructure or have indeed replaced it. These water practices and their

CC E

infrastructures seem to be most prevalent in informal areas. However, these decentralised islands of onsite infrastructures vary in quality, efficacy and the degree to which they are parallel to or completely replace conventional water systems.

A

In informal Kibululu, water management is made up of various household on-site solutions whereas in the condominiums people rely on the piped systems. None of the ‘systems’ can currently fully provide the water and sanitation needs of people leading to practices of buying water among others. In the condominium people seem locked-in to being users of a modern but malfunctioning system. The infrastructures and regulations in the condominium areas limit the options people have for diversifying

21

their water practices. Like Hofmann (2017), Allen et al (2017) and Moretto et al (2018), we observe that in informal areas people are both consumers as well as producers of water. Here there is a kind of sociotechnical freedom. However, it demands resources and investments to build on-site solutions of an appropriate quality and efficacy which the poor and vulnerable often do not have.

IP T

The results show that sustainable water management practices like rain water harvesting are found in the same bundles with unsustainable practices such as emptying toilets into the river, thus taking away from the ‘sustainability’ of the more environmentally-sound practices. Furthermore, it seems decentralised

SC R

water management practices in informal areas often work in a vacuum with little support or coordination from the city. Without some oversight from the city, some decentralised water management practices may

U

lead to rivers and the environment suffering a tragedy of the commons. As such, despite the entrenchment

N

of decentralised, low-technology water management practices in cities like Dar and Addis the need for the

A

extension of centralised conventional systems of sewage remains along with the provision of support by

M

the regime to coordinate and regulate household water practices in areas where the extension is not yet feasible.

ED

It is evident that households have differential capabilities to perform practices (Walker, 2014). For both case sites in Addis and Dar, results also indicate that the socio-economic status of households is a defining

PT

feature determining how well households can function outside the conventional piped water systems or in times of its malfunction. For instance getting water in both cases is an expensive endeavour, taking up

CC E

valuable income and time, while it is only the well-off that can make large investments in material technologies such as tanks and gutters to collect rainwater on a larger scale. As such the failure of the

A

modern infrastructure ideal in African cities’ water management has far-reaching economic and environmental justice repercussions as households use scarce resources to fill the infrastructure gaps and malfunction. In a way, the absence of fully-functional piped water systems serves to reinforce the growing inequality many African cities face.

22

Also evident from the results is the inherent clash in both cities between the prevailing official discourses around water management and the existing realities on the ground concerning water supply and sanitation. On one hand the official discourse in both cities is the progressive extension of the formal piped water system. Yet, even the officials admit it is unlikely that their cities will achieve the modern infrastructure

IP T

ideal. Thus while ideas for decentralised and nature-based options for water management are beginning to be recognised by the urban water management regimes, these ideas are not yet part of the future plans of the main implementing institutions. From a social and environmental justice perspective, this has the effect

SC R

of disqualifying and rendering contingent the very practices upon which the daily lives of the majority of citizens proceeds.

U

Changes towards more sustainable urban water management through the collection of rainwater, dry pit

N

toilets etc. would demand a change in ideas and expectations about urban living both for residents and city

A

administrators. Such changes would also require investments and changes in the materials and

M

technologies used in water management e.g. housing structures that can carry tanks for water collection. Thus these changes may be in conflict with the materiality of existing piped water systems but also more

ED

importantly they may not adhere to the conventions and collectively established normative ideas of what makes up modern urban living.

PT

Despite the aspirations towards the modern infrastructure ideal by the urban water management regimes in African cities, the results of this paper show suggest that the islands of decentralised and varied low-tech

CC E

water management practices in cities of the global south are not temporary, emergent phases of infrastructure deficit and malfunction in a transition towards the modern infrastructure ideal. In fact,

A

Furlong (2014) found that the everyday water management practices of people made it difficult to transition to the universalized systems due to low expectations about system performance. This brings us to suggest that as developing cities pursue transformation towards resilience as prescribed in the New Urban Agenda and the SDGs, perhaps the goal of improving access to clean water through universal water infrastructures is best approached as a search for pathways for increasing the

23

complementarity of conventional and decentralised water management systems and to pursue decentralised, nature-based water management systems from the onset. Thus from the water management regime’s perspective, the challenge may not be how to achieve the modern infrastructure ideal, rather it is to make water management systems and corresponding policies relevant and amenable to

IP T

the very dynamic and differentiated sociotechnical realities that prevail at household and community levels.

Concerning the transition towards water-sensitive futures, the advantage cities in the Global South have is

SC R

that due to the entrenchment of the infrastructure deficit and the resultant co-produced nature of urban water in these cities, much of the groundwork for the ‘recruitment’ of households into decentralised,

U

nature-based water management practices has already been endogenously laid. What is more pressing is

N

for the regime/system to configure current co-produced water systems in a way that encourages defection

A

from other practices that are undesirable such as unregulated septic tank emptying, towards better solid

M

and sanitary waste management and water collection measures. The current coproduced and coexisting nature of water management systems in developing cities are a valid base for leapfrogging towards

ED

sustainable urban water management. Nevertheless, systemic support and coordination is needed for existing water management practices that support water-sensitive futures; likewise systemic control also

PT

has to be extended to undoing unsustainable practices at household level. From a Northern perspective, social practice theories have been used to understand the potential for

CC E

moving away from resource-intensive practices in fields such as energy, food, water and overall consumption. The social practice theory challenge in the case of water management in African cities is

A

slightly different; here many of the household water management practices are not necessarily resourceintensive yet (few people have washing machines or swimming pools for instance), but they are uncoordinated, sometimes unsustainable and frequently illegitimate. In many African cities, the current configurations of urban water systems already constitute less resource-intensive forms of what would be deemed normal quotidian practices in Northern cities, leading to so called water-sensitive behaviours,

24

albeit inadvertently. Yet these behaviours are a direct result of infrastructural deficits and historicallysituated discriminatory infrastructure provision policies. Perhaps the key to achieving water-sensitive futures for African cities may lie in discursively-reframing these less resource-intensive practices as desirable opportunities for sustainable urban living, allowing of course for the requisite correction of those

IP T

elements of the practices and dimensions of the systems of practices that are currently environmentallyundesirable.

Thus from a ‘social practice perspective’ the challenge of embedding sustainability and building resilience

SC R

through engendering more water-sensitive practices in African cities is not so much the recruitment of practitioners to engage in sustainable practices. It is more preventing defection from the prevailing

U

sustainable water management practices by disengaging from the resource-intensive infrastructure ideal

N

and changing the discursive and symbolic framings of existing practices in a positive light from both a

A

systemic and practice perspective. It is also to strengthen the ability of the sociotechnical system and

6. Conclusion

ED

M

regime to reconfigure some of the elements of prevailing practices that are inherently unsustainable.

A

CC E

PT

The paper examined household water management practices in an exploration of the conditions for leapfrogging towards water-sensitive futures in Addis Ababa and Dar es Salaam. Cities in the Global South could have an advantage to leapfrog over path dependence on conventional infrastructures because of the prevailing infrastructure deficits and the resultant co-produced nature of urban water management. Decentralised, nature-based water management practices are already prevailing, albeit disqualified within policy discourses as unfit for the urban. We have identified various water management practices in the two cities that are based on on-site infrastructures; making up for deficits in conventional centralised water infrastructure or have indeed replaced it. Householders are practicing buying, storing and collecting water among others both in informal settings but also in formal condominiums where people seem locked-in to being users of a modern but malfunctioning system. Granted, both cases are still in need of essential centralised conventional sewage systems, in conjunction with support from the urban water management regime to coordinate and regulate household water management practices in areas where the extension is not yet feasible. If developing cities pursue sustainable development it is necessary to strengthen the ability of the urban water regime and householders to co-produce and support decentralised water management activities.

25

Declarations of interest: none

Acknowledgements

IP T

The fieldwork and analysis was done in relation to a larger research project on Water resilient Green Cities funded by Danida which is conducted in collaboration between Copenhagen University, the Ethiopian Institute of Architecture, Building Construction and City development and Ardhi University in Tanzania.

SC R

References:

U

Allen, A., Hofmann, P., Mukherjee, J. & Walnycki, A (2017). Water trajectories through non-networked infrastructure: insights from peri-urban Dar es Salaam, Cochabamba and Kolkata. Urban Research & Practice, 10:1, 22-42, DOI:10.1080/17535069.2016.1197306

N

Alemayehu EY & Stark L (2018). The Transformation of Addis Ababa: A Multiform African City. Cambridge Scholars Publishing

M

A

Berthou SKG (2014) Politics of Manageability: Ambiguities of Local Climate Change Mitigation. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Food Science, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen.

ED

Birtchnell T (2012) Elites, elements and events: Practice theory and scale. Journal of Transport Geography 24: 497 – 502.

PT

Bos J, Brown RR, Farrelly MA & De Haan FJ (2013) Enabling sustainable urban water management through governance experimentation. Water Science & Technology 67(8): 1707-1717.

CC E

Brown RR, Keath N & Wong THF (2009) Urban water management in cities: Historical, current and future regimes. Water Science & Technology 59(5): 847-855. Browne, AL (2015). Insights from the everyday: implications of reframing the governance of water supply and demand from ‘people’ to ‘practice’. WIREs Water 2015, 2:415–424. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1084

A

Chocat B, Ashley R, Marsalek J, Matos MR, Rauch W, Schilling W & Urbonas B (2007) Toward the sustainable management of urban storm-water. Indoor and Built Environment 16: 273-285. Das, V & Randeria, S (2015). Politics of the Urban Poor: Aesthetics, Ethics, Volatility, Precarity. An Introduction to Supplement 11. Current Anthropology Volume 56, Supplement 11, October 2015 De Haan FJ, Rogers BC, Frantzeskaki N & Brown RR (2015) Transitions through a lens of urban water. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 15: 1-10.

26

Desalegn, WB (2005) Water supply coverage and water loss in distribution systems – the case of Addis Ababa. PhD-thesis. ITC, The Netherlands. http://www.itc.nl/library/papers_2005/msc/upla/desalegn.pdf Evans DM, Browne AL & Gortemaker IA (2018). Environmental leapfrogging and everyday climate cultures: sustainable water consumption in the Global South. Climatic Change https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-0182331-y

IP T

EWURA (2012) Water Utilities Performance Report 2010/2011: Regional Water Utilities and DAWASCO. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Energy and Water Utilities Regulatory Authority (EWURA).

SC R

Ferguson BC, Brown RR, Frantzeskaki N, de Haan FJ & Deletic A (2013) The enabling institutional context for integrated water management: Lessons from Melbourne. Water Research 47: 7300 – 7314. Furlong K (2014) STS beyond the “modern infrastructure ideal”: Extending theory by engaging with infrastructure challenges in the South. Technology in Society 38: 139–147.

N

U

Habtemariam LW, Herslund L & Mguni, P. (2019) What makes a champion for landscape-based storm water management in Addis Ababa? Sustainable Cities and Society 46

M

A

Hand M, Shove E & Southerton D (2005) Explaining Showering: A discussion of the Material, Conventional and Temporal dimensions of Practice. Sociological Research Online (10) 2.

ED

Herington MJ, Lant PA, Smart S, Greig C, van de Fliert E (2017). Defection, recruitment and social change in cooking practices: Energy poverty through a social practice lens. Energy Research & Social Science Volume 34, 272-280

PT

Herslund L, Backhaus A, Fryd O, Jørgensen G, Jensen MB & Limbumba TM. et al (2018) Conditions and opportunities for green infrastructure – Aiming for green, water-resilient cities in Addis Ababa and Dar es Salaam. Landscape and Urban Planning, 180, 319-327

CC E

Hofmann, P (2017). Multi-layered trajectories of water and sanitation poverty in Dar es Salaam. In Bell S, Allen A, Hofmann P & Teh T (eds.) Urban Water Trajectories. Springer

A

IPCC (2014) Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf Kadibadiba T, Roberts L & Duncan, R (2018). Living in a city without water: A social practice theory analysis of resource disruption in Gaborone, Botswana. Global Environmental Change, 53, 273–285 Kyessi G (2005) Community-based urban water management in fringe neighbourhoods: the case of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Habitat International 29: 1-25.

27

Kravets O, Maclaran P, Miles S & Venkatesh A (2018). The SAGE Handbook of Consumer Culture. SAGE Publications Lawhon M, Nilsson D, Silver J, Ernstson H & Lwasa, S (2018). Thinking through heterogeneous infrastructure configurations. Urban Studies, Vol. 55(4) 720–732

IP T

Mguni P, Jensen MB & Herslund L (2015) Green infrastructure for flood-risk management in Dar es Salaam and Copenhagen: exploring the potential for transitions towards sustainable urban water management. Water Policy 17: 126–142

SC R

Mguni P, Jensen MB & Herslund L (submitted) Engaging theories of sustainability transitions with SubSaharan cities: The case of water management in Addis Ababa and Dar es Salaam

Mitchell C & Howe C (2012) Introduction. In Howe C & Mitchell C (eds.) 2012: Water-sensitivecities. London: IWA Publishing.

N

U

Moretto L, Faldi G, Ranzato M, Rosati FN, Boozi JL & J Teller (2018) Challenges of water and sanitation service co-production in the global South. Environment & Urbanization 30(2): 425–443.

M

A

Novotny V, Ahern J & Brown P (2010) Water centric sustainable communities: planning, retrofitting, and building the next urban environment. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

ED

Pesch U. (2015). Tracing discursive space: Agency and change in sustainability transitions. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 90, 379–388.

PT

Rauch W & Morgenroth E (2013) Urban water management to increase sustainability of cities. Editorial. Water Research 47: 7149.

CC E

Pastore MC (2015) Reworking the relation between sanitation and the city in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Environment & Urbanization 27(2): 473–488. Pigeon (2012) From Fiasco to DAWASCO: Remunicipalising water systems in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Pigeon M, McDonald DA, Hoedeman O & Kishimoto S (eds) Remunicipalisation: Putting Water Back into Public Hands: 40-57. Transnational Institute, Amsterdam.

A

Schatzki TR (2001) Introduction: practice theory. In: TR Schatzki, K Knorr Cetina & E von Savigny (eds) The practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge: 1-14. Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The Dynamics of Social Practice Everyday Life and how it Changes. SAGE Publications Ltd. London. Shove E & Walker G (2007). Caution! Transitions Ahead: Politics, Practice, and Sustainable Transition Management. Environment and Planning A 39, 763-770 28

Shove E & Walker G (2010) Governing transition in the sustainability of everyday life. Research Policy 39: 471 – 476. Shove E & Spurling N (eds) (2013) Sustainable Practices: Social Theory and Climate Change. Routledge Advances in Sociology, London.

IP T

Shove E, Trentmann, F & Watson, M (2019). Introduction. Infrastructures in practice. The evolution of demand in networked societies. In Shove E & Trentmann, F (eds) Infrastructures in practice: The Dynamics of Demand in Networked Societies. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. London and New York.

SC R

Sletto A, Tabory S & Strickler K (2019). Sustainable urban water management and integrated development in informal settlements: The contested politics of co-production in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. Global Environmental Change 54, 195-202 Smiley S (2013) Complexities of water access in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Applied Geography 41: 132–138.

A

N

U

Spaargaren G (2011) Theories of practices: Agency, technology, and culture. Exploring the relevance of practice theories for the governance of sustainable consumption practices in the new world-order. Global Environmental Change 21: 813–822.

M

UN-Habitat (2014) State of African Cities Report 2014: Reimagining Sustainable Urban Transitions. Nairobi.

ED

UN-Habitat (2010) The Ethiopia Case of Condominium Housing: The Integrated Housing Development Programme. United Nations Human Settlements Programme: Nairobi, Kenya.

PT

Walker G (2013) Inequality, Sustainability and capability: locating justice in social practice. In Shove E & Spurling N (eds) Sustainable Practices: Social Theory and Climate Change. Routledge Advances in Sociology, London: 181-197.

CC E

Watson M (2012) How theories of practice can inform transition to a decarbonised transport system. Journal of Transport Geography 24: 488 – 496.

A

Watson S (2014) Spaces of difference: Challenging urban divisions from the North to the South. In: The Routledge Handbook of Cities in the Global South. Eds. Parnell S & S Oldfield. Routledge: New York. Pp. 385-396. WHO & UNICEF (2012) Progress on drinking water and sanitation - Joint Monitoring Programme update 2012. New York. Wong THF & Brown RR (2009) The water-sensitivecity: principles for practice. Water Science & Technology 60(3): 679-682.

29

i

Meaning the percentage of households having in-house connections or no more than 100 m to a potable water station. Interview with senior official in the Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy, June 2014 ii

IP T

Interview with senior eengineer, DAWASA, June 2014 Interview with sewerage engineer, AAWSA (Addis Ababa Water and Sewage Authority), June 2014 iv The indicative exchange rate for 1 Tanzanian shilling (Tzs) to US dollars ($) is 0,00046 on 24 th August 2016 (http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=1&From=TZS&To=USD) v 10 households make up 1 cell. For each cell the households select a leader vi The potable water is on average available two days a week – more often in the rainy season and less often in the dry season.

A

CC E

PT

ED

M

A

N

U

SC R

iii

30