When the impact of the installed systems was evaluated, it showed that low initial investment costs (approximately US$200 per household) could be paid back within a year.
Other livelihood options can also be considered; for example, using water for fisheries, as well as rearing livestock, growing crops and domestic uses.
[2] Gutu and Prowse (2017) offer some estimates from Ethiopia on farmers’ willingness to pay for a multiple-use water supply system.
They find that willingness to pay is based on gender, the prevalence of waterborne disease, the time to collect water, contact with extension services, access to credit, level of income and location.
Consideration of how gendered norms influence women’s access to extension, credit and local markets could extend the benefits of such schemes.