gender roles in household water resource...
TRANSCRIPT
GENDER ROLES IN HOUSEHOLD WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN WATER-SCARCE COUNTRIES: DOES GREYWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
EMPOWER RURAL WOMEN IN JORDAN?
By
NARGIZA LUDGATE
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2018
© 2018 Nargiza Ludgate
To all women who inspired me to undertake the journey of inquiry!
4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my special thanks to my doctoral
committee co-chairs, Drs. Sandra L. Russo and Tatiana Borisova, and members, Drs.
Samia Akroush, Diane Rowlands, and Renata Serra. Without your support,
encouragement and guidance this research would not have happened. Particularly, I am
most grateful to Dr. Sandra L. Russo for her mentorship, guidance and support
throughout this endeavor. She has not only encouraged me but also exhibited a great
deal of patience when dealing with my work schedule. I could not have asked for a
better mentor without whose words of encouragement and intellectual assistance this
dissertation may never be completed. I am also very grateful to Dr. Tatiana Borisova for
guiding me through complex statistical tools and providing constructive feedback and
assistance during the writing process.
Additional special thanks go to my Jordanian colleague, mentor, and friend, Dr.
Samia Akroush. She helped power me through the research process and provided
tremendous support in the field with data collection, interpretation and simply exposing
me to the rich Jordanian culture and its hospitality.
The research presented here is the result of collaborative efforts and I gratefully
acknowledge the contributions made by Dr. Sireen Na’oum, Soil and Water Researcher
at Jordan’s National Center for Agricultural Research and Extension (NCARE), Ms.
Bezaiet Dessalegn, Project Manager at the International Center for Agricultural
Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), numerous field enumerators and staff of NCARE
in Amman and Karak, including Eng. Omamah Al Hadidi, Eng. Sheerin Fayz Kokash,
Eng. Maisaa Haddadin, Leila Murajin, Eng. Hiba Al Shawabkeh, Eng. Mai Diab, Eng.
Lana Mousa Abu-Nowar, Eng. Ala’a Qasem Al-Awaydah, Eng. Malik And Almo’ty Abu
5
Romman, Eng. Omar Kinana Abdul Hadi, and finally the two Arabic translators Anas
and Sinan Dbaeen. They enabled and supported my data collection when and where it
might not otherwise have been possible.
I also thank several research organizations for funding this research, including
the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research Programme on Water,
Land and Ecosystems led by the International Water Management Institute; the CGIAR
Research Programme on Dryland Systems led by ICARDA; the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations under a grant to ICARDA within the FAO Regional
Water Scarcity Initiative in the Near East and North Africa region; and the Middle East
Water and Livelihoods Initiative funded by the United States Agency for International
Development under a grant agreement with ICARDA.
I thank the participants of my study from Madaba and Karak Governorates in
Jordan, who participated in the fieldwork and provided me the rewarding opportunity to
interview them for this research.
I would like to thank my dear family in Uzbekistan and the USA, friends and
colleagues who supported and believed in my capability to complete this work. In
particular, I thank my dear friend and American ‘sister/mom,’ Marsha Wright, for helping
me edit this dissertation and supporting me through my journey with her family, Craig
Runyan, Carson Runyan and Mason Runyan.
Finally, most ardently, I am thankful to my husband Patrick J. Ludgate. Without
your unconditional love and support, especially at the end of my doctoral program, I
would not be where I am now.
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 9
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ 11
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... 12
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 16
Water Resources Scarcity ...................................................................................... 18
Greywater Treatment Technologies in Jordan ........................................................ 23 ‘Triple Bottom Line’ Aspects of Greywater Reuse ................................................... 26
Water for Domestic Use and the Role of Women ................................................... 28 Gender Implications of Household Garden Production ........................................... 30 Theoretical Framework: Women’s Empowerment .................................................. 32
Research Objectives ............................................................................................... 37 Hypotheses ............................................................................................................. 39
Study Setting .......................................................................................................... 40
Data Collection Methods ......................................................................................... 44
Outline of the Dissertation ....................................................................................... 48
2 MAKING THE MOST OF SCARCITY: DO GENDER ROLES IN INTRA-HOUSEHOLD WATER USE AND ALLOCATION CHANGE? ................................ 50
Context: Domestic Water Sector ............................................................................. 53 Literature Review .................................................................................................... 58
Gender Roles Shaped by Women’s Ability to Navigate the Public and Private Spaces .............................................................................................. 58
Household Water Management as a Part of Women’s Domain of Influence .... 62 Household Garden Production as a Part of Women’s Domain of Influence ..... 63
Data and Methods .................................................................................................. 64
Survey Results ........................................................................................................ 66 Insights from FGDs and Discussion ........................................................................ 78
Gender Roles and Differences in the Water and Home Garden Domains, and Their Interactions with Women’s Navigation of the Public and Private Spaces .......................................................................................................... 78
Investigating How a GWT Technology Influences Gender Roles and Relations ....................................................................................................... 82
7
Examining How Women’s Roles in the Household Economy Impact Their Ability to Participate in Household Decision-making ..................................... 84
Nuances from Mixed-method Approach ........................................................... 85 Concluding Remarks............................................................................................... 86
3 WOMEN’S COMMAND OVER WATER: DOES IT CONTRIBUTE TO WOMEN’S EMPOWERMENT? .............................................................................. 89
Context: Women’s Status in Jordan ........................................................................ 92
Operationalization of the Empowerment Process ................................................... 96 Water as a Measurement Indicator in the Empowerment Process ......................... 98 Data ........................................................................................................................ 99 Conceptual Framework: Bargaining Power Framework ........................................ 110 Results .................................................................................................................. 116
Women’s Decision-making in Water and Wastewater Management as Reported by Women Themselves ............................................................... 118
Women’s Decision-making in Water and Wastewater Management as Reported by Men ......................................................................................... 120
Women’s Decision-making in Home Garden Management as Reported by Women Themselves ................................................................................... 121
Women’s Decision-making in Home Garden Management as Reported by Men ............................................................................................................. 122
Discussion ............................................................................................................ 131
Concluding Remarks............................................................................................. 132
4 THE MAKING OF A DECISION: WHAT MATTERS FOR WOMEN’S EMPOWERMENT IN RURAL JORDAN? ............................................................. 136
Literature Review .................................................................................................. 137
Data and Methods ................................................................................................ 139 Results .................................................................................................................. 142
Women’s Decision-making in Minor Household Purchases as Reported by Women Themselves ................................................................................... 144
Women’s Decision-making in Major Household Purchases as Reported by Women Themselves ................................................................................... 146
Joint Decision-making in Minor and Major Household Purchases as Reported by Men ......................................................................................... 147
Insights from FGDs about Women’s Decision-making .......................................... 152 Women’s Decision-making in Households from Women’s Perspective .......... 152
Women’s Decision-making in Households from Men’s Perspective ............... 153 Domains Where Men Do Not Involve Women in Decision-making from
Women’s Perspective ................................................................................. 154
Domains Where Men Do Not Involve Women in Decision-making from Men’s Perspective ....................................................................................... 155
Domains of Decision-making Important for Women from Spousal Perspective ................................................................................................. 156
Discussion ............................................................................................................ 157
8
Concluding Remarks............................................................................................. 161
5 CONCLUSION: IMPLICATIONS AND MOVING FORWARD ............................... 163
Summary of Implications of Research Findings .................................................... 163 Methodological Implications ........................................................................... 164 Implications of Treating Water as a Resource on Women’s Empowerment ... 165 Implications on Women’s Empowerment........................................................ 168
Moving forward ..................................................................................................... 170 APPENDIX
A RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS ............................................................................... 173
Household Survey Instrument ............................................................................... 174 Instrument for Focus Group Discussions .............................................................. 200
B ADDITIONAL TABLES AND FIGURES ................................................................ 202
LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 206
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................... 217
9
LIST OF TABLES
Table page 2-1 Descriptive statistics for continuous variables of household sample (includes
both GWT user and control households) ............................................................ 67
2-2 Education and primary occupation of men and women, compared by user and control households ...................................................................................... 70
2-3 Women’s responses to the questions about who in the household performs water and wastewater related tasks, by GWT user and control households ...... 72
2-4 Men’s responses to who in the household performs water and wastewater related tasks, by GWT user and control households .......................................... 72
2-5 Women’s responses to who in the household performs home garden production-related tasks, by GWT user and control households ........................ 76
2-6 Men’s responses to who in the household performs home garden production-related tasks, by GWT user and control households .......................................... 76
3-1 Women’s responses to how decisions about household water and wastewater management are made ................................................................. 101
3-2 Women’s responses to how decisions about home garden management are made within a household .................................................................................. 101
3-3 Men’s responses to how decisions about household water and wastewater management are made .................................................................................... 102
3-4 Men’s responses to how decisions about home garden management are made within a household .................................................................................. 102
3-5 How each spouse reports the extent of their involvement in household decision-making ................................................................................................ 109
3-6 List of variables and their definitions ................................................................. 115
3-7 Descriptive statistics for binary logistic regressions .......................................... 116
3-8 Binary logistic regression results for models measuring the effect on household decision-making around water and wastewater management made by wives alone - her reporting ................................................................. 123
3-9 Binary logistic regression results for models measuring the effect on household decision-making around water and wastewater management made by wives alone – his reporting ................................................................ 124
10
3-10 Binary logistic regression results for models measuring the effect on household decision-making around water and wastewater management made jointly – her reporting .............................................................................. 125
3-11 Binary logistic regression results for models measuring the effect on household decision-making around water and wastewater management made jointly – his reporting ............................................................................... 126
3-12 Binary logistic regression results for models measuring the effect on household decision-making around home garden management made by wives alone – her reporting .............................................................................. 127
3-13 Binary logistic regression results for models measuring the effect on household decision-making around home garden management made by wives alone – his reporting ............................................................................... 128
3-14 Binary logistic regression results for models measuring the effect on household decision-making around home garden management made jointly – her reporting .................................................................................................. 129
3-15 Binary logistic regression results for models measuring the effect on household decision-making around home garden management made jointly – his reporting ................................................................................................... 130
4-1 List of variables and their definitions ................................................................. 141
4-2 Descriptive statistics of the binary dependent variables ................................... 142
4-3 Descriptive statistics of the predictor variables ................................................. 144
4-4 Binary logistic regression results comparing models measuring the effect on household decision-making around minor household purchases made by wives alone and jointly - her reporting .............................................................. 149
4-5 Binary logistic regression results comparing models measuring the effect on household decision-making around major household purchases made by wives alone and jointly - her reporting .............................................................. 150
4-6 Binary logistic regression results comparing models measuring the effect on household decision-making around minor and major household purchases made by wives jointly - his reporting ................................................................. 151
B-1 Independent sample t-tests for descriptive statisitcs ........................................ 202
B-2 Independent sample t-tests of primary occupation and education of men and women, compared by GWT user and control households ................................ 202
11
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page 1-1 Schematic design of a constructed wetland system ........................................... 25
1-2 Kabeer’s empowerment framework .................................................................... 33
1-3 Location of GWT units in Jordan installed by ICARDA. ...................................... 41
1-4 Constructed wetland system and drip irrigation pump ........................................ 42
1-5 Olive trees in the household garden irrigated with treated greywater through drip irrigation. ...................................................................................................... 43
2-1 Graphical depiction of women’s presence in the private and public spaces in rural Jordan ........................................................................................................ 61
4-1 Continuum of women’s empowerment in the context of rural Jordan ............... 161
B-1 Women’s reponses to ‘Who’ performs water and wastewater management-related tasks in the GWT user households ....................................................... 203
B-2 Women’s reponses to ‘Who’ performs water and wastewater management-related tasks in the control households ............................................................ 203
B-3 Men’s reponses to ‘Who’ performs water and wastewater management-related tasks in the GWT user households ....................................................... 204
B-4 Men’s reponses to ‘Who’ performs water and wastewater management-related tasks in the control households ............................................................ 204
B-5 Women’s reponses to ‘Who’ performs home garden-related tasks. Data presented for the GWT user and control households. ...................................... 205
B-6 Men’s reponses to ‘Who’ performs home garden-related tasks. Data presented for the GWT user and control households. ...................................... 205
12
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CWS Constructed wetland system
DHS Demographic and health survey
DoS Department of Statistics, Jordan
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FGD Focus group discussion
GII Gender Inequality Index
GOJ Government of Jordan
GWT Greywater treatment
HDI Human Development Index
HH Household
ICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
JOD Jordanian Dinar; exchange rate is based on June 2018 average rate of JOD1=US$1.41
JVA Jordan Valley Authority
Kg Kilogram
MCM Million cubic meters
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MENA Middle East and North Africa
MWI Ministry of Water and Irrigation
L Liters
NCARE National Center for Agricultural Research and Extension
N/a Non applicable
13
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
TBL Triple bottom line
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WAJ Water Authority of Jordan
WHO World Health Organization
WWAP World Water Assessment Programme
14
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
GENDER ROLES IN HOUSEHOLD WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN WATER-
SCARCE COUNTRIES: DOES GREYWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY EMPOWER RURAL WOMEN IN JORDAN?
By
Nargiza Ludgate
August 2018
Chair: Sandra L Russo Cochair: Tatiana Borisova Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is one of the driest countries in the world
struggling to cope with limited freshwater resources to meet the growing demand from
the economy and the domestic sector, while striving to balance the environmental
considerations of sustainability. To cope with continuous water shortages, the
Government of Jordan examines various cost-effective strategies for water supply and
demand management, including the improvement of water-use efficiency through
greywater reuse in the rural households. A number of international organizations,
including the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas and
International Fund for Agricultural Development, in collaboration with Jordan’s National
Center for Agricultural Research and Extension, have implemented community-based
water interventions that tested 27 and installed more than 400 constructed wetland
systems to treat greywater within household compounds in eight governorates in
Jordan. While most greywater treatment studies focused on the technical aspects of
treatment technology, this research explores the social aspects of technology
implication and contributes to the literature by 1) evaluating the impact of GWT
15
technology use on gender roles and relations in intra-household water resource
allocation and 2) using supplemental water provided by the GWT technology
determining what contributes to women’s decision-making agency within rural Jordanian
households. The fieldwork compared data between technology users and non-users,
males and females. The key findings of this research are: 1) There is a positive shift in
the gendered division of labor in households. More household tasks are being shared
with couples or all household members in managing water resources and home garden
production. 2) Women’s command over the GWT technology is likely to lead to joint-
decision making in the water and home garden management. Finally, 3) Broader socio-
economic and household relations including household composition, age, education,
and women’s social capital are important determinants of rural women’s agency in
Jordan. By combining a mixed-method approach and collecting sex-disaggregated data,
the research directly examined the relationship between how men and women make
decisions and intra-household resources are distributed between them in rural Jordan.
16
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is one of the driest countries in the world
struggling to cope with limited freshwater resources to meet the growing demand from
the economic and domestic sectors, while striving to balance the environmental
considerations of sustainability. To cope with continuous water shortages, the
Government of Jordan (GOJ) examines various cost-effective strategies for water
supply and demand management, including the improvement of water use efficiency
through greywater reuse in the households. The roles, experiences and the contribution
of women in improving the efficiency of water use are particularly unique, especially in
rural areas, which are the foci of this dissertation research.
The importance of targeting women with water management technologies in the
contexts of domestic (potable) and irrigation water use has been recognized in the
development discourse, where significant attention is placed on improving women’s
position within the household and in the community through access to water and
irrigation technologies (Zwarteveen 1997; Ray 2007; Ivens 2008; Coles 2009; van
Koppen, Hope, and Colenbrander 2012; Domenech 2015). Water management
technologies are aimed to reduce women’s time burdens related to water, especially
fetching, to help redirect their freed time toward income generating enterprises, provide
access to irrigation, and to serve as an avenue to involve women in community affairs.
Some technologies are introduced to achieve quality-of-life improvements, while others
facilitate pathways toward women’s empowerment through changes in women’s agency
(Devoto et al. 2011; Koolwal and van de Walle 2013; Njuki et al. 2014; Van Houweling
2014; Domenech 2015).
17
The greywater treatment (GWT) technology, promoted for household use in
Jordan, serves as a medium to women’s improved access to a resource, that is, the
treated greywater, which is used as supplemental water needed to maintain more
productive home gardens and to perform household chores. Water, which is particularly
scarce in Jordan, can provide households with the opportunity to grow olives or other
crops in home gardens that can supply the family with food or income from selling
garden produce. Targeting women in the domains under their control (i.e., household
water management and home garden production) can facilitate their agency
development to make or participate in household decision-making. Using water as a
medium, this study aimed to collect contextual information on factors that determine
women’s decision-making power within rural Jordanian households. Specifically, the
research questions were designed to investigate:
• Research Question 1: How does the GWT technology impact gender roles and relations around household water management and home garden production domains?
• Research Question 2: Does the GWT technology use offer economic or non-economic benefits to women?
• Research Question 3a: How does the GWT technology use impact women’s participation in household decision-making?
• Research Questions 3b: What are the types of decisions (alone or joint) women make in the household?
• Research Questions 4: Does women’s agency from making decisions in the water and home garden domains spillover to other domains of the household economy?
To provide background for chapters 2 through 4, Chapter 1 starts with the
discussion about the scarcity of water resources globally, in the Arab Region, and in
Jordan. It then continues with the discussion about GOJ’s response to address water
18
scarcity by introducing water-saving technologies like a GWT technology, and the
review of existing literature about GWT. The remaining sections of this chapter review
gender implications of domestic water use and home garden production. Then the
overview of the theoretical framework is presented and followed by research objectives,
hypotheses, study setting and the outline of the dissertation.
Water Resources Scarcity
Water, as a vital natural resource, sustains life and many socio-economic
activities contributing to agricultural development, industrialization, urbanization, energy
production, and tourism expansion. Water resources also support public and ecosystem
health services (World Water Assessment Programme [WWAP] 2012). Yet, water is
unevenly distributed across regions and among socio-economic activities (United
Nations Development Report [UNDP] 2014). On average, agriculture accounts for 70%
of the total world freshwater withdrawals, followed by industry (23%), and the domestic
sector (18%), which vary by region and country (Food and Agriculture Organization
[FAO] 2016).
One-fifth of the world’s population resides in arid and semi-arid regions where
water is scarce, and one-quarter of the world’s population suffers from absolute water
shortages (UNDP 2014).1 The new Agenda for Water Action, issued in 2018 by the
United Nations (UN) and World Bank Group’s High Level Panel on Water, states that
currently water scarcity affects 36% of world’s population and represents the risk of
displacement to as many as 700 million people by 2030. Improving access to basic
1 The absolute water shortage is defined as having less than 500 cubic meters (m3; or 132.1 gallons) of renewable water resources available per capita per year. Water shortage impedes country’s economic development and food production, as well as endangers food availability and ecosystem health.
19
water services for drinking, sanitation and food production remains at the forefront of the
new Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) building on the progress of the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).2 In addition to working towards MDGs’ safe
water and sanitation targets, SDGs places more emphasis on poverty eradication,
sustained and inclusive economic growth, social development and ecosystem health
through wastewater management, increased water use efficiency, integrated water
resources management, and protection of aquatic ecosystems (UNDP 2014; UN 2014;
UN and World Bank High-Level Panel on Water 2018).
Worldwide more than two billion people continue to lack access to safe drinking
water that meets the SDG standards and 4.5 billion people do not use improved
sanitation and hygiene services that safely dispose of excreta, including 892 million
people who still practice open defecation (UN and World Bank High-level Panel on
Water 2018). Water problems are particularly intense in rural areas where more than
90% of those lacking access to improved water and sanitation reside (UNDP 2014;
World Health Organization [WHO] 2014). Water problems disproportionately affect
women and girls by keeping them away from realizing their education and employment
opportunities. The lack of access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene facilities
constrains girls from attending schools and women from engaging in economic
activities. They also carry the burden of being the primary water carriers for their
families (UNDP 2012). For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, women and girls spend
some 40 billion hours a year fetching water (UN Women 2015).
2 Eight anti-poverty development targets that UN’s countries agreed to achieve by 2015. Water was embedded in Goal 7 that called for Ensuring Environmental Sustainability.
20
The increasing water scarcity problem is particularly notable in the Arab Region
where the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is located (WWAP 2012; Arab Forum for
Environment and Development 2014).3 The region suffers both physical and economic
water scarcity hampering economic, social and human development.4 The region’s
rapid population growth combined with migration pressures, regional wars, climate
change, unsustainable water consumption, and weak water institutions and regulations
have increased the region’s vulnerability to water scarcity, endangering economic
development and food security (Odhiambo 2017). Agricultural production, which
accounts for more than 70% of the total freshwater demand in the region, has failed to
grow enough food for the increasing population leading to a high dependence on food
imports (WWAP 2012). Climate change models for the region predict that agriculture
could lose as much as 25% of its productivity by 2080, causing increased food
insecurity (Cline 2007).
Jordan is among the driest and water scarce countries in the world, surrounded
by 90% desert and with an annual precipitation of less than 200 mm (or 7.87 inches;
FAO AQUASTAT 2008; GOJ 2009; WHO 2014).5 The total renewable water resources
available per capita are estimated at 130 cubic meters (m3) per year (or 34.3 thousand
gallons/year), which is far below the internationally acknowledged water poverty line,
defined as 1000 m3/capita/year (or 264.2 thousand gallons/capita/year) or the absolute
3 The Arab Region consists of 22 countries spread across the Middle East and North Africa.
4 Physical water scarcity is a situation when water is not naturally sufficient to meet all demands, including those for ecosystem health. Economic water scarcity is a situation when water supply is constrained by the lack of human, institutional and financial infrastructure.
5 The remaining 10% of the total area (about 886,400 hectares) is suitable for agriculture but only a quarter of this land is under cultivation (annual and permanent crops) due to unevenly distributed annual rainfall or availability of water for irrigation (FAO AQUASTAT 2008).
21
water scarcity line of 500 m3/capita/year (or 132.1 thousand gallons/capita/year; UNDP
2006; United States Agency for International Development [USAID] 2012; WHO 2014).
Jordan’s total water use far exceeds its renewable water supply with agriculture
accounting for 65% of annual freshwater withdrawals, followed by the domestic sector
(31%) and industry (4). The difference is met by pumping water from nonrenewable and
fossil aquifers, and the reuse of treated wastewater (Iskandarani 2002; USAID 2012).
This situation becomes particularly daunting as the nation’s population continues to
increase, at 4.9% average annual population growth rate. In 2017, Jordan’s population
was estimated at 9.70 million people of whom 83.7% reside in urban areas.6 The inflow
of Syrian and other refugees, estimated at about 2.78 million people in 2014, has put
additional pressure on its limited water resources.7 8 Water supply models show that
the present water deficit of 160 million cubic meters (MCM; or about 42.3 billion gallons)
would increase to 490 MCM (or 129.4 billion gallons) by 2025 worsening the already
limited and rationed supply of potable water for domestic use and agriculture (USAID
2012).
Jordan’s annual domestic water supply, approximately 270 MCM (71.3 billion
gallons per year), is met mainly by groundwater pumping (Water Resources Group
2011). Nearly all urban (97%) and rural (91%) households are connected to the public
water supply network, which provides rationed water once a week throughout the year
6 United Nations Statistics Division, World Statistics Pocketbook. 2017
7 This estimate includes refugees from a long-term conflict (mostly Palestinians) and recent wars (mostly Syrian and Iraqi) refugees in the region. The World Bank Database. Refugee Population by Country or Territory of Asylum.
8 Jody Warrick and Um Esserb, “Influx of Syrian Refugees Stretches Jordan’s Water Resources Even More Thinly,” Washington Post (Washington DC), June 16, 2013.
22
(Iskandarani 2002; Potter and Darmame 2010; USAID 2012).9 Achieving water security
amidst continuous water scarcity is a high priority for Jordanian households. They install
storage tanks on the roofs of their houses, build storage wells in the ground, buy
additional water from private vendors at ever higher prices, and adjust their water use
practices to lessen water stress conditions and ensure water is available for household
uses until the next municipal water supply day.
The role and contribution of women in mitigating water scarcity in Jordanian
households is unique. The domestic water provision, management and conservation are
largely considered to be a woman’s domain (Iskandarani 2002; Potter, Darmame, and
Nortcliff 2010). Women are responsible for day-to-day water management to meet
household needs (including collecting and storing water, cooking, drinking, washing,
cleaning, sanitation, garden irrigation and tending animals) and to regulate the water
use by all household members.10 Analyzing women’s roles and activities in this domain
can help explain the perceived gendered roles and relations, norms and expectations,
and how they shape women’s command over household resources, including water,
labor, income, and assets. Moreover, interventions into women’s domains also help
collect contextual information on women’s decision-making power, and determine what
strategies are needed to ensure more equitable power relations between women and
men within households.
9 The World Bank Database. 3.5 World Development Indicators: Freshwater.
10 Since water is rationed in Jordan and water is supplied once a week, women are responsible to regulate how much water each household member uses to ensure water stored in the water storage tanks or underground cicterns can meet household’s weekly needs before the next water supply day.
23
Greywater Treatment Technologies in Jordan
In 2008, the GOJ developed a multiyear water strategy, Water for Life 2008-
2022, wherein one of the goals is to maximize the use of alternative water sources,
including the use of greywater and rainwater harvesting (GOJ 2009). Greywater or
sullage is household-generated wastewater from the kitchen sink, laundry, hand-wash
basins, showers or baths, which after treatment, can be used for toilet flushing or
irrigation (Bino and Al-Beiruti 2007; Al-Mashaqbeh, Ghrair, and Megdal 2012; Gross et
al. 2015). The reuse of greywater for household needs reduces demand on
conventional water supplies and pressure on sewage collection and treatment systems.
In a water-scarce, arid environment like Jordan, on-site treated greywater use can help
promote fresh water conservation, improve garden water-use efficiency (more crop per
drop of water), provide a critical input to additional food production for rural households
from home gardening, and serve as a water poverty alleviation strategy. On a
household level, greywater reuse has the potential to help address daily water scarcity
issues (Gross et al. 2015).
Studies on greywater use in Jordan show that, on average, a household can
recover about 55-60% of its greywater for reuse, which can provide daily supplemental
irrigation for approximately 12 olive trees grown in the home garden (Bino, Al-Beiruti,
and Ayesh 2010). The rate of greywater generation depends on the consumption
behavior of the household, the number of discharge points in the household and the
efficiency of the greywater collection and treatment system. For example, Suleiman et
al. (2010) found that rural households in northeastern Jordan generated 12-19 liters (L;
3.2–5.02 US gallons) of greywater per capita per day on average, of which 50% came
from the kitchen and the remaining quantity from ablution and hand-washing points.
24
Several studies estimated the effect of greywater use on rural income in Jordan, which
showed an increase in income between 10 and 40% from selling home garden produce
irrigated with treated greywater, and savings as a result of both reduced water bills and
periodic cesspit cleanings (Al-Beiruti 2004). Studies from Australia, Israel, and Syria
show that greywater reuse can also translate into environmental benefits of reduced
freshwater withdrawal as well as less pollution to surface and groundwater resources
(Jeppesen 1996; Friedler 2008; Mourad, Bernstsson, and Berndtsson 2011).
Furthermore, Friedler (2008) argues that on-site treated greywater reuse practices on a
large scale offer significant economic returns to a region suffering from water scarcity
(by increasing the economic output produced per unit of water). It should be noted that
the value of increased provision of environmental services (e.g., improved aquatic
habitat and related increases in tourism due to reduction of freshwater withdrawals and
reduced sewage flow) is not currently considered in Jordan, but could become important
measures for the benefits of water reuse and conservation in the future.
Worldwide, different types of GWT systems are available. They range in
complexity and different application systems of treatment: physical systems (such as
filtration and screening with membrane filtration), chemical systems (such as
coagulation-flocculation and ion exchange resins), and biological systems (such as
constructed wetlands, rotating biological reactors and membrane bioreactors) (Zavala,
Vega, and Miranda 2016). The constructed wetland system (CWS) is the most
commonly used technology in Jordan and the focus of this research (Figure 1-1). This
system has been tested and promoted by the International Center for Agricultural
Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) working jointly with Jordan’s National Center for
25
Agricultural Extension and Research (NCARE). The system is comprised of a three-
stage treatment scheme. The first stage removes heavy solids, the second stage
removes fats and grease, and the third stage provides aerobic treatment process using
volcanic tuff and hard limestone coarse gravel media to clean the greywater. The unit
can recycle large quantities of greywater per day (about 300 L or 79.25 gallons). After
treatment the water is directed to the home garden using a drip irrigation system (Bino,
Al-Beiruti, and Ayesh 2010; ICARDA 2014).
Figure 1-1. Schematic design of a constructed wetland system (Source: ICARDA 2014,
p.10)
In Jordan, treated greywater is used in small-scale agriculture to supplement the
irrigation of olive trees, ornamental trees, wheat, and barley grown in home gardens
(Mcilwaine and Redwood 2010). The 2006 WHO guidelines adopted by GOJ and the
Jordanian Standard No. 893/2006 allow the use of treated wastewater, including
greywater, on all plants except vegetables eaten uncooked, meaning that treated
26
wastewater can be used to irrigate cereal crops, industrial and fodder crops, pasture
and trees (Bino, Al-Beiruti, and Ayesh 2010; Suleiman et al. 2010).
‘Triple Bottom Line’ Aspects of Greywater Reuse
The concept of a ‘triple bottom line’ (TBL) is used in water reuse studies to
evaluate the effects of various water supply alternatives, including greywater reuse, on
the environment, economy, and society. Some of the TBL outcomes of greywater reuse
include: reduced freshwater withdrawals, reduced wastewater discharge that can pollute
the groundwater, and greater water availability for households to cultivate home
gardens in arid environments.
On-site GWT systems have the potential to provide direct water savings. For
example, Coghlan and Higgins calculated that in Australia, home garden irrigation uses
up to 55% of the potable water supplied for domestic purposes (as cited in Ho and
Mathew 2002, p.161). Replacing this water with treated greywater helps reduce
freshwater withdrawals from the environment both from surface and groundwater
resources for irrigation. At the same time, reduced pressure on the supply and sewage
systems indirectly saves energy resources required to collect, transport and treat water,
and reduce the need to build costly infrastructure (e.g., dams and sewage treatment
plants) as the population grows. Jeppesen (1996b) calculated that Australian
households reduced annual wastewater discharge by about 250 m3 (or 66,043 gallons)
when they reused greywater.
The fieldwork in Jordan by Al-Mashaqbeh, Ghrair, and Megdal (2012) showed
that rural households with GWT systems achieved monetary savings from reducing their
27
wastewater discharge into cesspits that required frequent cleaning.11 They reduced
monthly cesspit cleaning to one cleaning a year, on average, which is a considerable
saving taking into account that each cleaning costs about 20 Jordanian Dinars (JOD; or
US$28.21 based on the exchange rate of June 2018, JOD1=US$1.41). In addition,
reduced wastewater discharge into a cesspit potentially decreases the risk of polluting
groundwater.
Another benefit of greywater reuse is that it provides greater water availability for
households to cultivate home gardens in arid environments.12 Studies from Jordan show
that greywater reuse allowed households to increase garden production that can
potentially generate demand for labor in the community if surplus garden production is
processed or sold (Bino, Al-Beiruti, and Ayesh 2010).13 Greywater reuse has an indirect
benefit on property appreciation. Houses with greener (i.e., interpreted as being more
productive) gardens often have higher property values (Bino, Al-Beiruti, and Ayesh
2010).14
Finally, greywater reuse has the potential to contribute to improving household’s
wellbeing, and particularly, women, as discussed in the following sections.
11 A cesspit (also called a cesspool) is a underground pit that temporary collects and stores liquid waste and sewage.
12 Growing plants in the house is important in the context of Jordan. Every household with a strip of land or space wants to grow plants or maintain a green area, which is a sign of having an ownership to the land and for women - a sign of good home caretaking.
13 It is difficult to estimate the number of gardens in people’s home in Jordan but a survey by the GOJ’s Department of Statistics (DoS) and International Development Research Center estimated that one in six households in the city of Amman have gardens to grow olives, fruit, flowers and other plants, whereas almost every rural household has a garden or green strip of land of varying sizes.
14 The TBL concept, specifically the environmental, economic and social impacts of greywater reuse, was investigated during the fieldwork of this research to evaluate men’s and women’s perceptions and attitudes toward reusing treated greywater and adopting a GWT technology. However, the results were not included in the dissertation due to study focus, however I plan to develop and publish an article on the topic in the near future.
28
Water for Domestic Use and the Role of Women
Following the Dublin Principles, women’s roles in the management of domestic
water resources in developing countries has become more evident to water managers
and researchers (Ray 2007).15 This recognition of women’s roles has led to the growing
effort to broaden women’s involvement in water supply and water demand management
projects, increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of these projects, and women’s
empowerment (Elmendorf and Isely 1983; Cleaver 1997; Zwarteveen 1997; Ivens
2008). Similar efforts are also being undertaken in the Middle East and North Africa
(MENA) region where women are recognized as playing an important role in household
water demand management strategies (El-Fattal 2011).
Men and women have unique tasks when it comes to household water provision,
use and management (Elmendorf and Isely 1983; Singh 2006; Ray 2007; Coles 2009).
Worldwide, men’s tasks often include community-level water-related decision-making,
paying water bills, and maintaining water-related equipment. Women are responsible for
household-level water supply for drinking and water-related chores around the house,
such as cooking, cleaning, family hygiene, sanitation, tending animals, and home
garden irrigation, tasks that primarily fall within the domestic private space (Zwarteveen
1997; Singh 2006; Ray 2007). Although women’s tasks in water provision and
management vary by region, age, socio-economic status, and caste, women usually
play an important role in maintaining the households’ wellbeing and prosperity, which
depends on water availability and use. Due to different tasks being related to water
15 Dublin Principles are internationally recognized four key principles that guide policies for water and sustainable development set during the 1992 International Conference on Water and the Environment. One of the principles states that “Women play a central part in the provision, management and safeguarding of water” (Ray 2007, p. 423).
29
provision, use, management and safeguarding, women have different priorities, needs,
demands and knowledge of water management than men. They also have different
experiences than men. For example, due to various water-related tasks, women and
girls have less time to undertake economic activities (whether working on- or off-farm),
go to school or simply rest. They also become subject to increased risks of being
sexually harassed or assaulted when fetching water, and detrimental health impacts
related to carrying heavy loads of water (UNDP 2012).
Household water management in Jordan falls under the purview of women.
Women manage every aspect of day-to-day water provision, management, and
conservation in the household. Men usually pay water bills, purchase water (bottled or
tanker truck), maintain water-related equipment, such as pipes and water pumps, and
run farms outside of their household compound (Potter and Darmame 2010; Potter,
Darmame, and Nortcliff 2010). Because of this cultural-societal situation, projects
introducing GWT technologies among rural Jordanian households have primarily
targeted women.16 Understanding how these interventions affect gender roles and
relations is one of the purposes of this research to explain the choices people make
when it comes to water management and their different options in tackling water
scarcity. The study also sheds light on understanding how water interventions contribute
to women’s empowerment.
16 Targeting included offering GWT technology-specific trainings on GWT unit operation and maintenance, irrigation scheduling, water quality and mitigating health risks (ICARDA 2014). In addition, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) facilitated community meetings for men and women to explain pros and cons of GWT technology (based on personal communication with IFAD field staff in Karak).
30
Gender Implications of Household Garden Production
Home gardens in Jordan, like in other parts of the world, are integrated into a
land use system. They offer a range of agro-ecological and TBL benefits which include
improved food security for the household, increased availability of food and improved
nutrition through food diversity, and increased income opportunities for household
members, especially women who are primarily responsible for home garden production
(Keatinge et al. 2012; Schreinemachers et al. 2015). Among the environmental benefits,
home gardens can utilize wastewater nutrients, provide shade, prevent erosion,
especially when trees are grown, and help maintain local flora and fauna biodiversity,
including diversity of insects, birds, and small animals (Altieri 2002; Galhena, Freed,
and Maredia 2013).
Many Jordanian households grow olives, apples, apricots, figs, almonds,
peaches, grapes, and cactus (Opuntia, commonly known as prickly pear) in their home
gardens. Some households also grow vegetables, herbs and flowers. According to Al-
Shdiefat, El-Haddad, and Al-Sha’er (n.d.), olive trees offer a range of benefits to
households while requiring less water than other crops, tolerating drought, and saline
water and soils. Olive trees reduce soil erosion during rains or winds by providing cover
to parched and often nutrient depleted soils. Olive production also helps supplement
household income, particularly for rural populations, where agriculture is one of the
primary economic employment activities, which may continue after retirement from
public sector employment or the army.17 In the Highlands and the Badia (desert area)
where soils can be rocky and sandy, and unsuitable for the production of other crops,
17 Many Jordanian men from rural areas work for the army or public sector, and retire after 20 years of service.
31
olives can provide additional financial benefits to the family in terms of reducing the
need for purchased food for family consumption and increasing income by selling olive
oil in the local market. Finally, olive gardens are highly regarded by homeowners as
they increase the value of their land.
Home gardens are of particular interest in this research because they are often
controlled by women and have the potential to increase women’s agency to participate
in household decision-making (Bushamuka et al. 2005). Surplus garden produce can be
sold and generate income, which in turn may have a higher probability of reaching
women’s hands if women make a sale. At the same time, women are more autonomous
in their home gardens to adopt a particular production technology (resource saving or
otherwise) because they consider the garden as their domain of responsibility. A study
by van Koppen et al. (2012) in sub-Saharan Africa argued that when women secure
land rights (or control the home garden) the adoption of improved irrigation technologies
by women is high. Another field study in Kenya and Tanzania showed that land control
allows women to have more autonomy in selecting crops for home consumption, which
they can also sell in small quantities near their homes and control the income from the
sale of these crops (Njuki et al. 2014).
In Jordan, home gardening requires irrigation – without watering there is little
chance of sustainable production or even survival for most crop species because
precipitation is insufficient for plant growth. Most households use potable water to
irrigate their gardens.18 Focus group discussions (FGDs) and transect walks, conducted
18 A recent study by the Water Authority of Jordan (WAJ) found that about 45% of potable water supplied to households is used in bathrooms and for garden irrigation. Source: Hana Namrouqa, “Households Use Only 5% of Water for Drinking, 45% in Bathrooms, Gardens,” Jordan Times (Amman, Jordan), May 30, 2015.
32
during this study, showed that households with no GWT technology irrigate trees and
other plants in the garden manually with buckets carrying water to each tree or with a
hose connected to the water storage well; this work is mainly done by women. They
also limit irrigation to once a week when water is supplied by the municipal network or
on some occasions to once or twice a month during the hot summer when the demand
for the water for other needs is at the highest. On the other hand, greywater reuse has
allowed households with a GWT unit equipped with a drip irrigation system to irrigate
their gardens more frequently, providing water daily or 2-3 times a week especially
during the hot summer period.
Furthermore, studies in Jordan show that the reliable water supply provided by
GWT technology leads to crop yield increases or at least increases the likelihood to
harvest crops (Bino, Al-Beiruti, and Ayesh 2010). Understanding how gains in
agricultural productivity in home gardens influence women’s ability to participate in
household decisions and increase women’s access to and control over income and
assets is one of the purposes of this research.
Theoretical Framework: Women’s Empowerment
The main theoretical framework of this research is based on Naila Kabeer’s
empowerment concept. Kabeer (1999) defines empowerment as “the processes by
which those who have been denied the ability to make choices acquire such an ability.
In other words, empowerment entails a process of change.” (p. 437). An underlying pre-
condition for the empowerment process in this sense is that the woman must be
disempowered to become empowered after obtaining the ability to act and choose from
a range of possibilities that became available to her.
33
Kabeer (1999) emphasizes three interconnected elements that are necessary for
the empowerment process: resources, agency, and achievements (see Figure 1-2).
Resources can be tangible (assets or income) and intangible (human or social)
resources that are necessary to act. Agency is the ability to define and pursue one’s
own goals and interests, express voice and influence. This is a similar concept to Sen’s
(1990) description of empowerment as a process toward an individual’s self-realization,
where one sets a goal driven by his/her personal interests and fulfills the goal. Yet, the
agency can take a different form depending on the motive or interest of a person, and a
wider range of abilities to bargain, negotiate, act upon, manipulate, control, or reflect on
the choices that become available through access to resources. Thus, Kabeer (2005)
argues that agency goes beyond exercising choice by challenging existing power
relations. It enhances a woman’s self-worth, and how she is seen by those around her.
Achievements are the results from leveraging resources and agency (Kabeer 1999).
Figure 1-2. Kabeer’s empowerment framework (Kabeer 1999, p. 437)
The empowerment concept is based on several assumptions. First, resources
are not equally distributed in society and those who lack power have the least access to
the resources needed to exercise one’s choice. This unequal distribution of resources
leads to women lacking control over their own lives and having low self-esteem, which
are further exacerbated by unequal power relations based on patriarchal hierarchies of
34
male dominance, and consequent normative roles and societal expectations. Equally
critical are the terms under which the resources become available to women because if
they access resources as dependent members of the household, women’s agency to
define priorities or enforce claims is likely to be limited (Kabeer 2005).
Secondly, empowerment is a dynamic and transformative process of change.
The transformation happens and continues as women exercise their agency and take
action, through the redistribution of resources toward women’s goals, through
transforming the normative roles and expectations that shape women’s choice and
voice, and ultimately challenging the underlying power structure. Moreover,
empowerment in one domain may not necessarily translate into empowerment in other
domains (Swain and Wallentin 2016). For example, women’s participation in the
allocation of the family’s budget does not necessarily imply that they can contribute to
the household’s economic decision-making or can decide on family planning (Kabeer
1999; Swain and Wallentin 2016).
Empowerment deals with the concept of power, that is the acquisition of power
by those who have little or no power to choose or make decisions. Power is especially
important because it helps determine who has control, how it is acquired, what type it is,
and how it is used.19 Power can be constrained by social and cultural beliefs or norms.
Kabeer (2010) relates women’s powerlessness to “the norms, customs and values
through which societies differentiate between men and women” (p. 22). Smith et al.
19 Kabeer (1999) emphasizes four types of power: power within (having an ability to imagine a goal and believing that reaching the goal is possible), power to (having an ability or potential to make a difference), power with (finding a common ground among different goals and building collective strength) and power over (has a negative meaning of overriding the agency of others). The new Pro-Women Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) builds upon three dimensions of power: power within (intrinsic agency), power to (instrumental agency), and power with (collective agency; Gender, Agriculture & Assets Project 2 phase).
35
(2003) describe women’s status as women’s power relative to men because of three
aspects that make it worth noting. Firstly, it is considered to be relative to men rather
than absolute or relative to other women in the household. Secondly, it is related to the
concept of power, defined as the ability to make choices (as defined by Kabeer 1999).
Lastly, power can be influenced by traditions, culture, and norms that may dictate
differential roles, acceptable behaviors, rights, or privileges (Smith et al. 2003).
Other feminists emphasize empowerment as a process that helps men break
away from false value systems and ideologies of oppression with the goal of building “a
more humane society for all” (Batliwala 1994, p.131). They also look at empowerment
as a mechanism to equip both men and women with equitable access to resources and
opportunities (economic or non-economic) to improve their wellbeing. Development
agencies, such as the World Bank, United Nations, and USAID, define empowerment
through the prism of a participatory approach, where it is important for all individuals to
participate fully in decision-making processes. These agencies also promote
investments to enhance women’s capabilities (education, social capital, and access to
or control over productive inputs) so that women can take advantage of market forces to
have a share in economic gains and enhance their own or their family’s welfare. Others
define empowerment as the process where women question existing social norms and
patriarchal cultures that constraint their claims to improve their wellbeing (Swain and
Wallentin 2016). Kabeer (1999) described this as “a critical consciousness, the process
by which people move from a position of unquestioning acceptance of the social order
to a critical perspective on it” (p. 441).
36
A review of the literature shows several aspects of empowerment where there is
general consensus (Mosedale 2005). First, for a person to be empowered, one must
have been previously disempowered (women are considered significantly
disempowered compared to men). Second, outside actors (for example, government
quotas) can only facilitate the enabling environment for women to self-empower, which
means empowerment has to come from within. Third, it is all about women’s ability to
make decisions on issues important to their lives. Fourth, empowerment is an ongoing
process rather than an end result. Women can be empowered relative to men as well as
continue enhancing their existing bargaining ability (Kabeer 1999; Mosedale 2005).
Finally, the empowerment process is not only multi-dimensional and multi-locational but
also occurs in multiple domains (Kabeer 1999; Johnson 2005; Malhotra and Mather
1997; Swain and Wallentin 2016).20
The process of empowerment is affected by socioeconomic and sociocultural
factors such as age, class, race, ethnicity, traditions, customs, norms, economic status,
marital status, and family composition (e.g., having sons is highly valued in the Arab
culture).21 Some of these factors are particularly important in the context of Jordan, such
as age, traditions, customs, kinship, norms, marital status and having sons. For
example, women in their late 40s, who are married with sons, are likely to have higher
bargaining power compared to younger women restricted by social norms and customs
that limit their empowerment potential at that time of their lives.
20 Domain is defined in this study as a sphere of activity or influence of an individual in the household.
21 Having one or more sons is highly valued in the Arab culture because they provide economic and physical security to aging parents, political strength, social prestige, and status to women (Faour 1989; Gadalla, McCarthy, and Campbell 1985; Libbus 1997).
37
The goal of this research is to examine how the GWT technology or treated
greywater reuse influences women’s decision-making agency. In particular, it looks at
how increased water availability from GWT technology use in a water scarce
environment influences women’s participation in household decision-making, and its
potential to increase women’s agency to bargain for their own interests (Deere and
Leon 2003; Deere and Twyman 2012; Doss 2013).
Research Objectives
This research contributes to the understanding of if and how interventions aimed
at increasing water availability for domestic use in water scarce environments affect
intra-household gender relations and bargaining dynamics in Jordan. The existing
literature on household greywater reuse is focused on the technical aspects of various
technologies, especially identifying low-cost greywater filtration systems for adoption
and the impacts of the treated greywater on the soil’s chemical properties and
household crop production. Few studies have been conducted to examine if these
technologies that increase water availability lead to gender-disaggregated benefits or
burdens, and how they impact intra-household gender relations, and women’s
bargaining power within the household or the community. This research aims to fill this
gap by 1) understanding women’s experience with water resources under scarce
conditions, 2) evaluating the impact of GWT technology use on gender roles and
relations in intra-household water resource allocation, and 3) determine what
contributes to women’s decision-making agency within a household by collecting
contextual information on empowerment factors, including the command over water.
Overall, this research is aimed at exploring whether benefits received from the
GWT technology use lead to greater women’s participation in household decision-
38
making. To answer this overarching question, three chapters of this dissertation pursue
connected sub-objectives. Chapter 2 aims to explain gender roles and differences in the
intra-household water resource allocation and management. Improved understanding of
the gender roles in Arab societies is an important precondition for designing and
implementing interventions aimed at women’s empowerment. The chapter relies on
qualitative analysis of data collected through in-depth FGDs.
In turn, Chapter 3 evaluates the effects of a GWT intervention on men’s and
women’s decision-making. Specifically, the chapter examines if the command over the
GWT technology increases the opportunities for women to make decisions alone or
jointly with their spouses (as opposed to not participating in decision-making). In other
words, this chapter examines if water as a resource can contribute to women’s
empowerment. Two domains that are important for women are examined: (i) water and
wastewater management, and (ii) home garden production. The analysis is based on
the household survey data and employs statistical analysis tools.
Finally, Chapter 4 builds on the analysis completed in Chapter 3 and assesses
the spillover of women’s increased agency in water and home garden domains into
other spheres of household decision-making. The chapter relies on the statistical
analysis of household survey responses related to minor and major household purchase
decisions, and the qualitative analysis of in-depth FGDs.
Chapter 5 summarizes the implications of findings from chapters 2 through 4 by
linking the analysis to the overarching question (women’s empowerment and water
resources).
39
Hypotheses
The main hypothesis is that a water technology intervention empowers women
by increasing women’s participation in intra-household decision-making. Based on the
review of existing literature, it is hypothesized that the intervention can increase
women’s access to supplemental water to irrigate home gardens, translating into
greater agency for women to make water- and garden-related household decisions. The
intervention can also lead to women’s quality-of-life improvements.
To test this overarching hypothesis, the predictor variable is defined as the GWT
technology intervention, that is, increased water availability from the use of GWT
technology. The outcome variables are the types of household decisions women make
(alone or jointly) in the following domains: water and wastewater management, home
garden production, and making minor and major purchases. The specific hypotheses
tested in this research are:
• Hypothesis 1a: There is a positive association between the use of a GWT technology and women’s participation in decision-making in water and wastewater management domain.
• Hypothesis 1b: There is a positive association between the use of a GWT technology and women’s participation in decision-making in home garden production domain.
• Hypothesis 1c: Women’s access to the GWT technology is likely to lead to decisions made alone in the water domain, and jointly in the home garden domain. The hypotheses 1a through 1c are addressed in Chapter 3.
• Hypothesis 2a: There is a positive association between the use of a GWT technology and women’s participation in decision-making on minor household purchases.
• Hypothesis 2b: There is a positive association between the use of a GWT technology and women’s participation in decision-making on major household purchases.
40
• Hypothesis 2c: Women’s access to the GWT technology is likely to lead to decisions made jointly in minor and major household purchases. The hypotheses 2a through 2c are addressed in Chapter 4.
Study Setting
The study communities for this research were located in two governorates
(provinces): Madaba and Karak, which are situated southwest of the capital Amman
(see map in Figure 1-2). These governorates were selected because they contained a
large number of GWT user households per community, and they shared many study
characteristics (household composition, water supply pattern, water use, presence of
home gardens). In addition, both governorates are located in the highlands and receive
a low mean annual rainfall of less than 200 mm, which constrains the agricultural crop
production period, particularly during summer.
The population of Madaba is 159.7 thousand people (or 2.5% of the total
population in Jordan) and it is the eighth in the Kingdom in the production of olives and
fruit. Karak is located to the south of Madaba and its population is 249.1 thousand
people or 3.9% of the total population in the Kingdom. The population of Karak is largely
rural (approximately 65%) and poor (55% fall in the lowest two wealth quintiles). Olive
production is also common in the area (Bino, Al-Beiruti, and Ayesh 2010; DoS 2012;
DoS and ICF International 2013; ICARDA 2014).
41
Figure 1-3. Location of GWT units in Jordan installed by ICARDA. Madaba and Karak are circled in red as research sites for this study (Source: ICARDA 2014, p. 6).
The households for GWT unit installations were selected according to specific
criteria developed by ICARDA and IFAD independently, and included: (a) presence of a
home garden, (b) large household size, (c) water consumption rate in the household
suitable for greywater collection, (d) separate or easily convertible sewage system
(meaning a household had a separate line for blackwater and a separate line for
greywater), (e) willingness of the household to cooperate in implementing greywater
collection, treatment, and use for irrigation of the home garden, and (f) household’s
ability to contribute to the construction of the greywater collection and treatment system
42
(in IFAD’s case, each household had to make an in-kind contribution equivalent of 200
JOD or US$282). Each greywater unit was equipped with a drip irrigation system
provided by ICARDA and IFAD (see Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4).
Figure 1-4. Constructed wetland system and drip irrigation pump (far left corner). August
25, 2015. Shegera Community, Karak Governorate. Photo courtesy of Nargiza Ludgate.
43
Figure 1-5. Olive trees in the household garden irrigated with treated greywater through drip irrigation. August 25, 2015. Shegera Community, Karak Governorate. Photo courtesy of Nargiza Ludgate.
The fieldwork was based on a cross-sectional research design involving two
comparison groups: (1) a GWT technology user group (25 households), and (2) non-
user or control group (25 households). Fieldwork took place during the summer of 2015
in two stages. First, a household survey was carried out with 50 households
interviewing a total of 102 household members, both men and women within the same
household. Second, FGDs were held with 40 survey participants.
NCARE staff selected households using purposive sampling. The user
households were selected from the list of GWT users compiled by ICARDA (for 27 units
44
installed) and IFAD, (this list consisted of 400 households with GWT units).22 The user
households were selected from those communities that had higher concentrations of
GWT units necessary for statistical comparison. ICARDA conducted work in eight
governorates and six out of eight governorates had one or two households where GWT
units were installed, whereas Madaba and Karak contained more GWT user households
per community. IFAD dispersed the installation of GWT units across Karak, Tafilah and
Ma’an governorates, but only Karak matched the pre-requisites for this research.
The non-users were identified with the help of local community-based
organizations. The non-user (or control) households were selected based on the criteria
that they had similar characteristics of the user group, including that the households
were from the same location, had a home garden, had more than five household
members, experienced similar water supply and management issues resulting from
rationed water supply, and had a cesspit for home-generated wastewater that included
both greywater and wastewater.
Data Collection Methods
A mixed-methods approach was used to collect study data comprised of a
structured questionnaire, focus groups, key informant interviews and transect walks.
Narayan (2005) states that “a mix of data collection tools provides a more reliable and
complete picture of the phenomenon under study, as the tools balance out each other’s
weaknesses” (p. 25).
22 This dissertation research was funded by ICARDA, which implemented “The Community-based Interventions for the Productive Use of Greywater in Home Farming” project jointly with NCARE until 2014. The IFAD project “The Agricultural Resources Management Project, Phase II” constructed CWSs in Jordan and at the time of data collection was awaiting additional funding to continue the construction of CWSs in Jordan.
45
A structured questionnaire was developed to obtain household- and individual-
level data. The questionnaire (see Appendix A for Household Survey Instrument) was
divided into two sections. The first section included a household roster and
demographics module designed to be answered by two principal adults (usually
husband and wife). The second section included seven modules with individual
questions, which were asked separately from the two principal adults (a man and a
woman). These modules included questions related to household water procurement
and wastewater management, crop production in the home garden, household
greywater treatment, household decision-making around garden production and
income, household assets and access to them, and individual agency in economic
decision-making. There was also a short module on GWT technology for control groups.
Some questions in the questionnaire were adapted from the Women’s
Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) developed collaboratively by the
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), USAID, and the Oxford Poverty
and Human Development Initiative (Alkire et al 2012; USAID 2012b). These included
questions from two domains of the WEAI: production and resources, although questions
were adjusted for the purposes of this research in order to expand questions to
encompass information on water use, and on asset ownership and decision-making
around home garden production and income. The survey instrument was validated in
the field prior to launching data collection for content, cultural appropriateness, and
clarity of questions. The instrument was also reviewed by a panel of experts to identify
and amend problematic questions and validate the content. The questionnaire was
translated into Arabic. However, the native Arabic-speaking enumerators decided to use
46
the English version of the questionnaire to complete the respondents’ answers in
English while reading from the Arabic version during the survey administration. Before
survey launch, in collaboration with the committee member Dr. Samia Akroush, who
supervised data collection in the field, the survey instrument was reviewed together with
field enumerators via Skype to ensure enumerators understood questions as well as
were provided with the survey protocol that described in detail how to read the survey,
record answers or apply answer codes, and other instructions.
For the second phase of the field work, a total of eight FGDs (for a total of 40
people participating) were conducted, four in each governorate: (1) two with men and
two with women from the GWT user groups – one set for each governorate, and (2) two
with men and two with women from non-user (control) groups, respectively. The focus
group questions were open-ended and were translated into Arabic to ensure facilitators
understood the topics of discussion and inquired about certain areas in depth (see
Appendix A for Focus group questions). The focus group questions were grouped into
two parts. The first part asked questions associated with: 1) participants’ hypothetical
experience with water being in abundant supply (without interruption), and related intra-
household allocation decisions; 2) participants’ experience with water being in scarce
supply, and related intra-household allocation decisions; 3) the roles and responsibilities
of household members affected by water scarcity; 4) GWT technology use and its effect
on the roles and responsibilities of household members; and 5) barriers to GWT
technology adoption. The second part probed about the patterns of household decision-
making between spouses and included topics such as: 1) examples of major household
decisions; 2) types of decisions made; 3) who participated in decision-making; 4)
47
decisions made alone by spouses; and 4) household decisions important for women.
Both qualitative (focus groups) and quantitative (survey) data collection was sex
disaggregated.
In addition, six transect walks were conducted to obtain the agro-ecological
profile of the technology use by households and home gardening activities. Transect
walks are commonly used in agro-ecological and environmental studies to identify and
describe “the location and distribution of resources, features, landscape, main land uses
along a given transect (World Bank 2013, p.1). I adapted the transect walk method to
include a short walk around the household compound to view household water use
system, GWT unit set-up and operation, vegetation and production system in the
garden, irrigation, and other attributes of the household. In Karak, where four of six
transect walks conducted (two in the GWT user and two in control households), both
husband and wife participated in the walks, whereas in Mabada (two out of six walks), a
walk through a GWT user household was led by the husband and a walk through a
control household was led by the wife. The observations during the walks helped clarify
household water use patterns, GWT technology operation, and home garden vegetation
and production system.
Among the interviewed households, 48 were headed by men, two by widowed
women, and in two households there was more than one wife. In eight households, the
second member of the couple was not interviewed due to one of the two reasons: they
were temporarily absent or they refused to be interviewed. In these cases, another adult
48
man or woman (usually an adult son or daughter, at least 18 years old) was
interviewed.23
Outline of the Dissertation
This dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapters 2 through 4 are written as
stand-alone essays for publication in peer reviewed journals.
Chapter 2 examined gender roles and differences in the intra-household water
resource allocation and home garden production as shaped by women’s ability to
navigate the public and private spaces in Jordan. These spaces are of particular focus
because they prescribe which roles are traditionally appropriate for men and which are
for women, and how technological interventions affect these traditional roles and thus
the genders’ respective spaces. The chapter examines how a GWT technology affects
men’s and women’s roles and how women’s roles within the domains under their control
in the household economy impact their ability to participate in decision-making.
Chapter 3 examines how the use of a GWT technology use affects women’s
bargaining power. In particular, it discusses the effects of a GWT intervention on
women’s decision-making regarding water and wastewater management and home
garden production in relation to men’s. The chapter also presents the determinants of
women’s bargaining power in the context of rural Jordan and how they impact women’s
participation in household decision-making.
Chapter 4 builds upon Chapter 3’s conceptual framework and examines the
scope of men’s and women’s decision-making and the spillover of women’s greater
23 The sample of both GWT user and control groups included households where adult children (at least 18 years old) were interviewed when the primary respondent was not present or the spouse was not allowed to participate in the survey. Therefore, the GWT user groups included six male adult children and the control group two female adult children.
49
agency from water and home garden domains into other spheres of household decision-
making such as decisions around minor and major household purchases. The chapter
concludes with the discussion about women’s empowerment continuum in the context
of rural Jordan.
Chapter 5 discusses the implications of the research findings and directions for
future research on women’s empowerment in Jordan and beyond.
50
CHAPTER 2 MAKING THE MOST OF SCARCITY: DO GENDER ROLES IN INTRA-HOUSEHOLD
WATER USE AND ALLOCATION CHANGE?
Men and women play unique roles in household water provision, use and
management (Elmendorf and Isely 1983; Zwarteveen 1997; Singh 2006; Ray 2007;
Coles 2009). Worldwide, men are often responsible for community-level water-related
decision-making, paying water bills, and maintaining water-related equipment in the
farm or household. Women, on the other hand, are often responsible for household-
level water supply for drinking and water-related chores around the house, such as
cooking, cleaning, family hygiene, sanitation, and irrigating home gardens,
responsibilities, which are largely defined by the private space (Singh 2006; Ray 2007;
Coles 2009). Although women’s tasks in water provision and management vary by
region, age, socio-economic status, and caste, women usually play an important role in
maintaining the households’ wellbeing and prosperity, which depends on the availability
of water. Due to different roles in water provision, use, management and conservation,
women also have different priorities, demands and knowledge of water management
than men.
Furthermore, existing empirical research shows that intra-household bargaining
between men and women influences the resource allocation decisions because they
reflect the priorities of the person with a higher level of bargaining power (Doss 2013).
As a result and because of existing power relations between men and women,
household water shortages affect men and women differently (World Bank 2008). As
the main water providers and users, women’s time burdens and responsibilities can
disproportionally increase as a result of household water shortages as women attempt
to maintain their household’s wellbeing (e.g., longer distances to fetch water or the lack
51
of water). A UNDP study (2012) reports the undue burden of caring for water on women
and girls results in them having less time to explore economic opportunities, go to
school or rest, as well as becoming subject to increased risks of being sexually
harassed or assaulted when fetching water. In addition, dealing with consistent water
shortages may negatively affect women’s health (from carrying heavy loads of water)
and increase their emotional distress (Bennett, Davila-Poblete, and Rico 2008; Wutich
and Ragsdale 2008; UNDP 2012).
Similar patterns (socio-economic and gendered division of labor) are observed
with women’s role in agriculture in developing countries where women are farmers, paid
or unpaid workers, and/or entrepreneurs across all farming systems, representing on
average 43% of the agricultural labor force (FAO 2011). They manage complex
household livelihood strategies that are essential for family well-being, such as growing
plants, raising animals, processing harvest, engaging in markets, collecting fuel and
water, caring for family members and maintaining the homes (Ibid.). Despite this,
women experience different access to and control over productive inputs, assets and
services that affect their earning potential, as well as position and bargaining within
households (Molden 2007; World Bank 2008; FAO 2011).
In Jordan and the MENA Region, women also play an important role in
agriculture (Shukri 1996; Augustin, Assad, and Jaziri 2012). Women are involved in all
stages of crop production and livestock rearing, including planting, weeding, irrigation,
harvesting, and post-harvest processing, taking care of animals, milking and other
activities, whereas men are primarily responsible for land preparation, securing
agricultural inputs (fertilizer, seed, livestock, chemicals and labor), and marketing.
52
However, women’s roles are largely invisible, that is, unacknowledged by their
husbands or the community (Augustin, Assad, and Jaziri 2012; Galie, Jiggins, and
Struik 2012). This status subjects women to have less access to productive resources
and opportunities than men and their contribution is not seen as equal to that of men’s
in agriculture (World Bank 2008; FAO 2011; Augustin, Assad, and Jaziri 2012). Studies
from Africa, Asia and Middle East also show that as agricultural activity becomes
economically profitable, women are excluded from the management of economic
resources and receive less economic benefits due to their limited control of intra-
household resource allocation (World Bank 2008; FAO 2011).
Overall, existing studies show that women play an important role in household
water management, health, sanitation, and subsistence agriculture, as well as in the
education of their children about health, sanitation, and water conservation. All these
activities have implications for household water use. Understanding the gender roles
and relations in the household and home garden water management becomes critically
important for designing effective interventions aimed at increasing water use efficiency,
water conservation, increased agricultural productivity, and women’s empowerment.
In this chapter, qualitative data derived from FGDs as well as household surveys
are used to: (1) to examine gender roles and differences in the water and home garden
production domains; (2) to explore if these roles and differences are shaped by
women’s navigation between the public and private spaces; and (3) to investigate how a
GWT technology influences gender roles and relations within the household. The results
of this chapter show that GWT technology reinforces women’s traditional roles within
the household, although there is a weak sign of a shift in gendered division of labor.
53
Women’s household tasks shifted towards sharing of tasks among all household
members including husbands.
Next, I provide the overview of Jordan’s domestic water sector followed by the
discussion of gender roles and how these are shaped by women’s ability to navigate the
public and private spaces in Jordan.
Context: Domestic Water Sector
Jordan is an upper middle-income country with a relatively high human
development index value of 0.741 as reported in 2015 (UNDP 2016).1 Since the 1980s,
the kingdom has invested in improving the social and public services that have
increased life expectancy at birth for an average Jordanian (74.2 years), expected years
of schooling (13.1 years), and the gross national income of $10,111 per capita based on
2011 purchasing power parity (UNDP 2016). Improvements were also achieved in the
public water supply sector despite continuous challenges of physical water shortages,
water infrastructure deficits and increasing demand for water (Iskandarani 2002). About
98% of the urban and 92% of the rural population in Jordan have access to piped water
systems and almost 99% of the population in urban and rural areas has access to
improved sanitation (DoS 2012; Klassert et al. 2015). Households are connected to
public sewage systems or use on-site cesspits or cesspools.
The water supply for domestic use, adequate in quantity and quality in the Jordan
context2, varies greatly by season, topography and climatic conditions (Iskandarani,
1 Human Development Index (HDI) measures an average achievement in three basic dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, education, and a decent standard of living. The range of 1 to 0 means 1 the highest HDI and 0 the lowest HDI.
2 Jordan consumes less water compared to United States. On average, a Jordanian uses 60-90 L of water per day compared to an average use of 303-379 L of water per day an American (based on the U.S. Geological Survey portal available at: http://water.usgs.gov/edu/qa-home-percapita.html).
54
2002). In the winter months, water is supplied almost on a continuous basis, partly
propelled by rain and snowfall, but there is also a reduced demand for water. Whereas
during the hot summer months, when the demand for water is at its peak and rainfall is
rare, the public supply is rationed and lasts about 12-24 hours per week (Iskandarani
2002; Potter, Darmame, and Nortcliff 2010). In some rural areas in Karak Governorate,
which is one of the study sites, located just southwest of the country’s capital, Amman,
households receive water every other week from 12 to 24 hours starting at midnight. In
addition, due to Jordan’s topography, water pressure is weak to reach higher
mountainous areas, and as a result households located on the top of the hills tend to
experience weaker water pressure .3
Water is supplied by the public company, ‘Miyahuna,’ which is regulated by the
Water Authority of Jordan (WAJ), the government agency responsible for domestic and
municipal water and wastewater disposal services (USAID 2012; Klassert et al. 2015).4
GOJ subsidizes water costs making water ‘cheap’ compared to its true economic value
under the conditions of water scarcity (Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development [OECD] 2014). Households pay for water once every quarter. The
rationed supply of water delivered once a week forces households to install water
3 The main population centers of Jordan, including Amman (capital), Zarqa, Irbid, Madaba and Karak, are located on the Mountain Heights Plateau or so-called highlands, an area of hilly areas that vary from 600 meters to 1500 meters above sea level (Source: www.kinghussein.gov.jo portal).
4 Both WAJ and the Jordan Valley Authority (JVA), which is responsible for surface water and irrigation management in the Jordan Valley, are part of the Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI) created in 1988 as a water sector regulator and planner (USAID 2012). However, MWI could not take the full control of the water sector leaving both JVA and WAJ largely in charge as regulators and bulk suppliers of municipal, industrial and agriculture water. The other two players in the water sector are the Royal Water Committee, created in 2008 to develop the National Water Strategy Water for Life 2008-2022, and the National Water Advisory Council, created in 2011 to formulate water policies (Ibid.) Furthermore, because WAJ and JVA are responsible to supply water to separate sectors of economy, the potable water supplied by WAJ and used by households to irrigate home gardens is not accounted in JWA’s water budget, which is primarily responsible for agriculture in the Jordan Valley. Other ministries involved in the water sector are the Ministries of Environment, Health, and Agriculture.
55
storage tanks on rooftops and cisterns in the ground to meet domestic and irrigation
needs between water supply days.
Most rural households rely on a piped water network as their primary source of
water for drinking, household chores such as cooking, cleaning and washing, and
garden irrigation (Iskandarani 2002; DoS and ICF International 2013). Some rural
residents supplement drinking water with purchased bottled water that is better quality.
Due to the chronic water shortages and rationing, households have adapted their
lifestyles and consumption behaviors to lessen the effects of the water crisis (Potter and
Darmame 2010; Potter, Darmame, and Nortcliff 2010). They do their ‘big’ laundry,
cleaning, and garden watering during the water supply day, which happens once a
week or every other week depending on the location of the community in relation to the
municipal pipeline. During the water supply day they also fill all water storage tanks and
wells to use water for personal hygiene, toilet flushing, drinking, cooking, and washing
dishes.
Jordan provides a noteworthy case study to examine gender relations and the
interaction with the dynamics of intra-household bargaining processes. The GWT
programs funded by international donors that targeted women serve as a medium to
evaluate women’s access to ‘supplemental,’ water and to analyze how benefits provided
by this ‘supplemental water’ translate into changes in women’s position in household
decision-making. Several studies about household water use conducted in Jordan were
primarily focused on Amman and larger population centers (Iskandarani 2002; Potter,
Darmame, and Nortcliff 2010). There were limited studies conducted in rural areas (Al-
Mashaqbeh, Ghrair, and Megdal 2012). None of these studies explored the effects of
56
water shortages on gendered roles and experiences, and how they are shaped or
reinforced by traditional norms, and intra-household bargaining dynamics in allocating
household resources (e.g., water, assets, income, and labor).
The studies from other parts of the world, focused on urban and rural areas,
show that water shortages intensify women’s responsibilities in securing water for
household needs (Ray 2007; Coles 2009; Crow and Odaba 2010; Mason 2012).
Women and children routinely spend considerable portions of their time fetching water
from long distances as well as risking their lives or well-being from potential violent
attacks on the way to or from the water sources, compromise their personal hygiene to
save water, undertake increased pressures from household chores during the water
supply day, and experience loss of income and opportunity to go to school due to long
waits at the water source (Bennett, Davila-Poblete, and Rico 2008; Wutich and
Ragsdale 2008; Wutich 2009; Potter and Darmame 2010; Potter, Darmame, and
Nortcliff 2010; Van Houweling 2014). A recent report from the United Nations Children’s
Fund (2016) reveals that girls in the MENA region, between the ages of 5 and 14 years
old, spend 50% more time than boys on household chores related to water such as
cooking, cleaning, and fetching water and firewood collection. The same report shows
that worldwide water or firewood collection is the second most common activity among
girls accounting for 46% of the time spent followed by laundry activities (45%; Ibid.)
In this dissertation, water is treated as an economic resource. The overall
hypothesis examined in this dissertation is whether improved availability of this resource
(due to GWT technology use) enhances women’s agency and position within the
household. To test this hypothesis, in this chapter, women’s roles, domains of influence,
57
and control over a resource are examined. The analysis of the households with no GWT
units installed (i.e., the control group) helps establish the baseline of gendered roles,
control over resources and the domains of influences in rural households in Jordan.
Furthermore, the comparative analysis of the GWT users and non-users (i.e., the
treatment and control groups) can indicate whether the use of GWT technology is
associated with the expanded women’s control over a water resource and changes in
gendered roles within the household, that is, moving from women’s traditional roles of
caretakers to more equal distribution of housework where household responsibilities are
shared with husbands and other household members.
Note that the sample size (50 households; 25 in the control and 25 in the
treatment groups, determined by the constraints on funding available for this research)
is small, and hence, generalization of the results to the other rural households should be
done with caution. At the same time, the mixed methods approach adopted in this
research, encompassing both qualitative and quantitative research designs with sex-
disaggregated data collection strategies, allows for an in-depth exploration of the topic,
which is often not possible in the surveys-based studies with large sample sizes. In
addition, the mixed methods approach allows for triangulation and cross-verification of
results. Finally, interviewing both a principal man and a woman within each household
separately is a relatively new method of data collection, leading to diverse and self-
reported information about differences in men’s and women’s perceptions about each
other’s roles and contributions within a household (Fisher, Reimer, and Carr 2010;
Coates et al. 2010; Deere and Catanzarite 2016).
58
Literature Review
Gender Roles Shaped by Women’s Ability to Navigate the Public and Private Spaces
Before proceeding with the analysis of women’s control over resources and
women’s domains of influences, it is important to define the basic aspects of gender
roles and how they affect women’s social position and bargaining power relative to
men’s in the household. The FAO (1997) defines gender roles as:
The socially ascribed roles of women and men, which vary among different societies and cultures, classes and ages, and during different periods in history. Gender-specific roles and responsibilities are often conditioned by household structure, access to resources, specific impacts of the global economy, and other locally relevant factors such as ecological conditions.
Gender roles are described as social and behavioral norms that define socially
acceptable behaviors for men and women. The repeated performance of gender roles
shape society’s beliefs and norms about men’s and women’s position within
households, and one’s sense of identify (for example, men are often identified as
farmers or breadwinners and women as housekeepers or caregivers), which eventually
affect economic outcomes (Akerlof and Kranton 2000). Gender roles reflect the division
of labor within households (Shukri 1996; Augustin, Assad, and Jaziri 2012). Men are
socially ascribed to support households as breadwinners and therefore work outside the
house, and women do housework or work in the field/household garden plots as family
labor or unpaid labor, which in turn contributes to their limited bargaining power in the
household (Agarwal 1997; Galie 2013). Women’s unpaid contribution to the household’s
economy is often undervalued when compared to men’s roles, which are monetized and
thus more visible (Galie 2013). Finally, gender roles, indirectly through norms, influence
one’s bargaining power: they can limit bargaining, they can determine the bargaining,
59
they can affect how bargaining is done, and finally they can be shaped by bargaining
(Agarwal 1997).
Women’s roles in the Jordanian society and the MENA Region are shaped by “a
space-based patriarchy,” which is described by Sadiqi and Ennaji (2011) as a social
system where space allocation is gendered, that is men spend most of their time in the
public space and women in the private space (Reininger 2004). Augustin, Assad, and
Jaziri (2012) view this through a prism of “a traditional patriarchal gender paradigm” or a
“patriarchal gender contract,” which as coined by the sociologist Valentine M.
Moghadam, regulates men’s and women’s presence in the private and public spaces (p.
23). They base this on the following assumptions:
1) Women and men differ biologically. 2) Biological differences determine the roles and responsibilities of women and men in society… The family, not the individual, is the central unit of society. Women and men have different, but complimentary responsibilities… 3) Gender roles and functions of women and men provide basis for the allocation of different but equitable rights. 4) The central institution on which society rests is marriage… Derived from her biological function, a woman’s role in marriage is that of a dutiful wife, mother and homemaker; the role of a man is that of a provider, protector (of women and children) and head of household. 5) As provider, the man (or a male relative) retains the highest authority in the family; he is the ultimate decision-maker and represents the family in the public sphere. 6) Women’s interaction with the public sphere is channeled through her husband or male family members… (pp. 23-24).
The public space represents the street, markets or job places outside the home
where men gain access to and control over resources, and participate in the decision-
making institutions, and thus assume the domains of power and control. In other words,
public space represents the state, the economy and the laws forming and discharging
power as well as affecting gender roles both outside and inside the home (Sadiqi and
Ennaji 2011). In turn, the private space is described by Reininger (2004) as being under
60
the purview of the household compound to deal with domestic and family-based issues
(e.g., cooking, childrearing or marriage), thus yielding to the power and control
emanating from the public space or as Sadiqi and Ennaji (2011) characterize it, the
private space becomes “the locus of power-implementation.” Nevertheless, women can
interact with public spaces (going to the store or market, or work outside home) but only
to a limited degree. Women also can have power in the private space (e.g., older
women managing the household’s economy or deciding marriage issues) but they lack
power sanctioned by the public space (Ibid).
In her study (2006), Pettygrove investigated what hinders women’s participation
in the public space in Jordan. While advances with legislation as well as electoral
quotas in Parliament and the presence of strong women’s civil society organizations
helped advance women’s presence in public spaces, their private spaces were
reinforced by the socialization process within the family, keeping women in the confines
of their immediate family, their extended family, and the tribe. Religion also influences
the private spaces and reinforces the patriarchal gender roles and women’s
subordination to men (Ibid). Furthermore, Al-Atiyat (2003) argued that the private space
in the Jordanian society assumed a large role, and heavily influenced the public space
with its dynamics of gender relations in the private space (Pettygrove 2006). Therefore,
understanding how women act and develop their agency in their private spaces may
help understand how they would act in the public spaces. The patriarchal gender roles
established in the private spaces continue to be reinforced when women move to the
public spaces restricting women’s ability to develop confidence and capability to make
economic and non-economic decisions for the benefit of themselves and the family.
61
Figure 2-1 graphically illustrates the areas and levels of Jordanian rural women’s
presence in private and public spaces. The ‘thicker’ arrow across three examples of
private space (a household compound, a garden inside the compound, or a garden
adjacent to the compound) and the dotted loop over the private space indicate that
women have higher presence in the private space. In turn, the ‘thinner’ arrow across the
public space indicates lower presence of women in the public space. Note that the
examples of women’s participation in public space are associated with the presence of
other women (e.g., women’s cooperative) for collective support, or provision of women-
sensitive services (e.g., health clinic or beauty salon).
Figure 2-1. Graphical depiction of women’s presence in the private and public spaces in rural Jordan. Produced by author.
It is within these concepts of women’s interaction with public and private spaces I
look at gender roles in the households in the treatment and control groups. Discussion
at the end of this chapter presents the implications of the gendered roles for intra-
household decision-making. The analysis focuses on examining women’s roles in
62
household water management and garden production, which are largely women’s
domains of influence, as shown by past research (see the next two sections).
Household Water Management as a Part of Women’s Domain of Influence
Like other developing countries, in Jordan household water provision,
management and conservation are largely considered to be a women’s domain
(Iskandarani 2002; Potter, Darmame, and Nortcliff 2010). Women’s roles in this domain
are shaped and intensified by private space, that is everything that women do or are
responsible for happens within their domestic purview (Iskandarani 2002; Augustin,
Assad, and Jaziri 2012). They are responsible for day-to-day water management and
use to meet the needs of the household. Women fill household water storage tanks and
wells when networked water is supplied once a week (or at some locations every other
week) for various durations (extending from several hours to 12 hours); use water to
cook and wash; maintain household hygiene, sanitation and health; water animals, and
irrigate home gardens (Iskandarani 2002; Potter, Darmame, and Nortcliff 2010). Unlike
other countries, women do not fetch water from a distance, the responsibility performed
by male family members, who are either getting the water by car or buying water from a
tanker truck, due to women’s segregation into private spaces (Iskandarani 2002).5
Nevertheless, it is worth noting that there is still the physical burden of filling water tanks
that involve climbing on the roof at night (when water is provided by the supply agency)
or carrying buckets of water to irrigate individual trees and plants in the garden at night
which are women’s tasks as noted by men and women during focus group interviews.
5 The households in research sites are connected to the municipal water supply line. However, some households in Shegera Community in the Karak Governorate, supplement piped water with water from a nearby spring located 1.5 miles away from the community. The water is fetched primarily by male members of the households (husbands or adult sons).
63
Men’s roles such as paying water bills, purchasing a tanker truck of water or
fixing and maintaining water equipment, one way or the other, falls within their public
space (Iskandarani 2002; Potter, Darmame, and Nortcliff 2010). To pay for water, men
go to the water supply agency, which is a public space, or men participate in water user
organizations with other men to address community water supply issues. It is very rare
that women enter these spaces, leaving the control and power over water resource
management within the hands of men (Singh 2006; Augustin, Assad, and Jaziri 2012).
Household Garden Production as a Part of Women’s Domain of Influence
A similar pattern is observed in the household garden production domain, which
also falls within the women’s private space. Women tend to gardens that are located
within the household walls or near the house and have little to no interactions with the
outside world; they also process garden produce, whether for household consumption
or sale in the market inside the family compound (Augustin, Assad, and Jaziri 2012).
Men, on the other hand, get involved when machinery needs to be leased to plow the
land, purchase fertilizer and seed, take the harvest to the wholesale market or purchase
water for irrigation. In all instances, men deal with the public space, which allows the
presence of men and discourages the entry of women (Shukri 1996; Augustin, Assad,
and Jaziri 2012).
Men and women also experience different access to extension information and
technology. Augustin, Assad and Jaziri (2012) provide several explanations: 1)
agricultural decision-making is in the men’s domain, and extension services primarily
focuses on commercial agricultural production rather than on small-scale home
production; therefore knowledge is (potentially) transferred to women through men; 2)
the limited number of female extension agents and the restricted mobility of women
64
exacerbate women’s limited access to production resources and information; and finally
3) women do not perceive themselves as having a role in agriculture, thus they consider
extension services as male’s space. The University of Florida’s joint research with
NCARE on women’s social capital in 2014/15 found that women could access extension
information through women’s groups formed within their communities or kinship groups
(Modernizing Extension and Advisory Services 2015).
Data and Methods
As discussed above, in this chapter I aim to explore women’s roles, domains of
influence, and control over a resource, and to analyze whether the use of GWT
technology is associated with the expanded women’s control over a water resource and
changes in gendered roles within the household. To achieve this goal, I applied a mixed
methods approach. The quantitative method (survey) was designed to capture empirical
data on who does what within the household in the water and wastewater management,
and home garden production domains. To cross-check the findings from the survey, the
qualitative method (FGD and transect walks) was designed to explore in depth the
men’s and women’s experiences with water being in scarce and abundant supply, and
their responsibilities associated with the two domains of interest.
The methodology used a gender analysis approach to investigate the differences
in gender roles in the use of water in the domestic sphere and home garden production.
The application of gender analysis aids with examining men’s and women’s roles and
their relations in the household and allows one to draw conclusions about power
imbalances and individual’s needs, constraints and opportunities. Gender analysis plays
a fundamental role toward understanding who is doing what, who owns what, who
makes decisions and who benefits from those decisions and activities. In studies about
65
the adoption of technologies and their associated benefits and costs to end users,
gender analysis leads to a better understanding of how technological interventions
affect, and is affected by, existing social structures, gender roles and relations, and an
individual’s agency.
The data includes responses to the survey of 50 households: 25 GWT user
households and 25 control households as well as eight FGDs conducted with primary
male and female respondents from surveyed households, and six transect walks.
Survey data was analyzed using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences by IBM SPSS Statistics) program. The main disaggregating factor was the set
of ‘who’ questions asked in the household survey: who in the household usually
performed tasks associated with household water and wastewater management, crop
production in the home garden, and taking garden produce to market. This also
included a set of ‘who’ questions for GWT user households about tasks associated with
GWT activities. The crop production question set included about nine independent
tasks, which were re-organized into five main areas for analysis. The water and
wastewater set included 13 independent tasks re-organized into five main areas, and
the GWT technology set included eight independent tasks grouped into five main areas.
The questions were based on an extension-based ‘post-then-pre-evaluation approach’,
which is designed to capture behavioral changes and inquire about experiences post
project implementation phase (Rockwell and Kohn 1989). The questions were designed
in a way to allow respondents to list a household member who was involved with the
specific task. Focus group data was analyzed to identify common themes relating to
66
gender roles affected by scarcity and abundance of water, experience with GWT
technology, and barriers and opportunities for GWT adoption.
Survey Results
Table 2-1 provides demographic characteristics of the survey respondents from
GWT user and control households. To determine if two groups (GWT user and control)
are comparable, the independent t-test was run. The results of the t-test showed that
only the difference in the age of men was statistically significant, implying that on
average, men in the GWT user group were 6.8 years younger than men in the control
group (see Table B-1 in Appendix B for t-test results). Further, Table 2-2 presents
educational and occupational characteristics of male and female respondents in GWT
user and control households. Overall, the comparison of the socio-demographic
characteristics of the GWT user and control groups shows that the groups were
generally similar, except male age and occupation of men and women (see Tables 2-1
and 2-2). It is a standard practice to use adjustment factors to correct for the differences
between the treatment and control groups (such as propensity scores, see Austin
2011). In this research, the corrections were not explicitly made; however, the
discussion of the results elaborates on the implications of the age and occupation
differences.
The average age of women in the GWT user households was 48.1 years old and
in control households – 46.6 years old (the difference was not statistically significant, at
5% significance level using t-test). Empirical studies from the MENA region consider
woman’s age as an important determinant of their bargaining power because as women
age their status within the household and community changes and they obtain more
bargaining power. However, Abu-Lughod (1985) argues that in Bedouin culture younger
67
wives of powerful men may also have higher status than older wives of less powerful
men in the community.
Table 2-1. Descriptive statistics for continuous variables of household sample (includes both GWT user and control households)
Household N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Age (combined age of men and women)
GWT user 52 47.73 13.32 1.847
Control 49 50.33 11.43 1.633
Age women GWT user 25 48.12 9.03 1.806
Control 25 46.64 10.83 2.166
Age men* GWT user 27 47.37 16.51 3.177
Control 24 54.17 10.95 2.236
HH size GWT user 52 6.87 2.16 0.300
Control 50 6.36 1.91 0.271
Number of children GWT user 52 4.87 2.16 0.300
Control 50 4.44 2.00 0.283
Number of sons GWT user 52 2.40 1.36 0.189
Control 50 2.44 1.43 0.202
Monthly HH income GWT user 52 456.4 393.5 54.57
Control 50 424.7 334.9 47.36
Size of home garden GWT user 52 1.49 1.07 0.148
Control 50 1.49 1.81 0.255
Total production - olives GWT user 52 192.4 391.3 54.26
Control 50 117.5 336.5 47.59
* The difference between the GWT user and control groups was statistically significant at 1% significance level.
The average household size in the GWT user group was 6.9, which meets the
requirement to adequately operate a GWT unit set by technology developers, but is
slightly higher than the national average for rural areas, 5.4 (Bino and Al-Beiruti 2007;
Bino, Al-Beiruti, and Ayesh 2010; DoS 2012; ICARDA 2014). The GWT user
households had 4.9 children and 2.4 sons, whereas the control households had 4.4
children and 2.4 sons, on average (the difference was not statistically significant at 5%
significance level using t-test). Having children and especially sons are also important
determinants of the bargaining power of women in the MENA region. The more sons a
68
woman has the higher her status is within the household in patriarchal societies (Faour
1989; Gadalla, McCarthy, and Campbell 1985; Libbus 1997).
The GWT user household’s average monthly income was 456.4 JOD (US$642)
and control’s was 424.7 JOD ($620; the difference was not statistically significant at 5%
significance level using t-test), primarily originating from retirement, commercial farming
(did not include home gardens), and formal employment. It should be noted that,
according to enumerators, the monthly income was an underestimate of real income
because household members were reluctant to share information about how much they
earn, and how much they have in assets.
Both GWT user and control households had the similar size home gardens - 1.5
Dunum (or 0.15 ha), on average. The GWT user households reported harvesting higher
olive output from their home gardens (192.4 kg) in comparison to control households
(117.5 kg), however, the difference was not statistically significant at 5% significance
level using t-test. The increase in the productivity of olives that can potentially be
attributed to the application of GWT technology. The GWT user households irrigated
their olive trees once a week (53%), 2-3 times a week (19%), 4-5 times a week (11%),
and daily (17%) using GWT technology equipped with drip irrigation, as opposed to the
control households which irrigated their olive trees once a week (81%) using potable
water.6 The surveyed households grew other tree crops in the home garden but for the
6 The estimated correlation between the reported olive yield and the frequency of irrigation was close to zero (Pearson correlation for 1-tailed: .001), and the lack of correlation requires further data collection and analysis.
69
purposes of this study, only olive trees were considered because GWT technology was
specifically set to irrigate olive trees in the gardens (ICARDA 2014).7
Table 2-2 compares the educational level and the primary occupation of adult
respondents in the household by sex and by the GWT user and control households to
explain differences between sexes and the two groups. Common to many MENA
countries, results confirm the existence of a distinctive aspect of the Jordanian society
where more than 60% of the women in both groups have a secondary education or
higher degree (B.S. or M.S.), but only a small percentage (24% among women from
GWT user households and 16% from control households) were or are still formally
employed. These figures confirm the underlying social norms in which it is deemed
acceptable for women to limit their employment below full capacity. Similar trends were
observed by Tuccio and Wahba (2015). The majority of men also reported having
secondary and higher degrees in both groups (79% in GWT user group vs. 64% in
control group). There are more men with university degrees (B.S. and M.S. combined)
in GWT user households and more females with university degrees in the control
households. Illiterate women were present in both groups, and the difference between
the groups was not statistically significant using the Mann-Whitney test at 5%
significance level. Moreover, t-tests were run for educational levels resulted in no
statistically significant results at 5% significance level.
7 Surveyed household attributed higher value to olive trees in comparison to other fruit trees and crops in the home garden. They considered olive trees having a religious and cultural value, economic and ecological value, that is olive trees were better to survive drought and didn’t require much irrigation.
70
Table 2-2. Education and primary occupation of men and women, compared by user and control households
GWT User Group Control Group
Male N=27
Female N=25
Male N=24
Female N=26
Education
Illiterate 2 12 4 19
Read and write 4 0 4 0
Elementary 15 4 13 8
Preparatory 0 12 13 8
Secondary 41 40 58 31
Intermediate diploma 15 24 0 12
B.S. 19 8 8 19
M.S. and above 4 0 0 3
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Primary Occupation * Government 15 8 21 0 Private sector 15 12 12 8 Retirement 52 4 67 8 Housewife 0 76 0 77 University student 188 0 0 4 Refused to answer 0 0 0 3 Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
* The difference between men and women in the GWT user group was statistically significant at 5% significance level, whereas between men and women in the control group the difference was statistically significant at 1% (see the t-test results in Table B2 in Appendix B).
The primary occupation of the women was as a housewife (reported by 76% of
women in GWT user households and 77% in control households). Some women
reported working for the government and in the private sector with the higher portion of
employed women in the GWT user households. Several women owned convenience or
clothing stores in their communities. Many men, on the other hand, were retired but
many continued farming or worked in the private sector.
Tables 2-3 through Table 2-6 present cross-tabulated results for the survey
responses on how primary male and primary female adults (husbands and wives)
8It can be assumed that families with GWT units were better off economically in comparison to control groups (also supported by average monthly income in Table 2-1) and could support their children’s higher education. However, this result has been reported only by men and not women in GWT user group, leaving doubts to the validity of reported result. Qualitative work showed that children’s education is one of the areas where women participate in decision-making and where their husbands consult them.
71
reported who in the household usually performed water and wastewater management,
and home garden production tasks, divided by the GWT user and control households.9
The comparison between women and men, and between the GWT user and control
households, is based on the assumption that the distribution of responses reflects the
gendered division of labor between women and men in the household. The comparison
is also based on the assumption that the execution of tasks performed by women in the
GWT user households are influenced by the use of GWT technology. Based on these, it
is expected that the GWT technology may shift the tasks traditionally performed by
women to be performed by couples jointly or all household members. Such a shift would
imply the change in normative roles towards more equal distribution of housework, that
is, men and women share household tasks leading to better relations.
Table 2-3 and Table 2-4 show that women and men in both groups attribute most
tasks in the water domain to men or to all household members. The tasks, where men’s
dominance is strongly evident, include paying water bills, purchasing water, and
pumping/maintaining water wells, all of which are associated with the public space. This
also implies that the payment for services and purchase of water by men shows who in
the household handles financial resources. Women’s tasks in both household groups
are segregated by their stronger presence in the private space. Men and women in both
groups attributed cooking, cleaning, and laundry to women in both groups although in
the control households these activities are also shared by couples jointly, while in the
GWT user households these activities are shared with all household members, based
on men’s and women’s responses).
9 The graphical charts of tables discussed in this section are included in Appendix B (Figures B-1 through B-4 depict men’s and women’s responses to ‘who’ questions in the water and GWT domain, and Figures B-5 and B-6 display men’s and women’s responses to ‘who’ questions in home garden domain).
72
Table 2-3. Women’s responses to the questions about who in the household performs water and wastewater related tasks, by GWT user and control households (percentages rounded)
Tasks Spouse Self Couple jointly
All HH members
Non applicable (N/a) Total
Fill/maintain water storage tanks GWT user 32 6 14 48 0 100% Control 46 6 23 23 2 100% Pay water bills GWT user 79 4 0 17 0 100% Control 92 0 4 4 0 100% Pump and maintain well GWT user 52 0 2 29 17 100% Control 58 6 0 17 19 100% Purchase water GWT user 56 0 2 10 32 100% Control 60 8 2 6 24 100% Use water for cooking, cleaning, laundry GWT user 4 54 4 38 0 100% Control 19 35 27 19 0 100% Hire labor to empty/dig cesspool GWT user 21 3 0 22 54 100% Control 14 1 0 13 72 100% GWT users only: Install GWT unit 52 4 8 36 0 100% Maintain/periodic cleaning of GWT unit 56 0 10 34 0 100% Monitor water in kitchen sink prevent solids/fats draining into GWT unit 56 4 12 28 0 100% Schedule/irrigate with treated greywater) 42 4 11 43 0 100%
Note: GWT user group N=24; control group N=26 ‘‘All HH members’ include tasks performed by husband and children, wife and children, and other HH members.
Table 2-4. Men’s responses to who in the household performs water and wastewater
related tasks, by GWT user and control households (percentages rounded)
Tasks Spouse Self Couple jointly
All HH members N/a Total
Fill/maintain water storage tanks GWT user 4 46 6 42 2 100% Control 4 50 17 27 2 100% Pay water bills GWT user 0 85 0 12 3 100% Control 0 88 0 12 0 100% Pump and maintain well GWT user 0 42 2 38 18 100% Control 0 67 0 13 20 100% Purchase water GWT user 0 71 0 4 25 100%
73
Table 2-4. Continued
Tasks Spouse Self Couple jointly
All HH members N/a Total
Control 2 58 4 8 28 100% Use water for cooking, cleaning, laundry GWT user 58 8 8 26 0 100% Control 33 8 25 34 0 100% Hire labor to empty/dig cesspool GWT user 0 19 1 18 62 100% Control 0 19 0 19 62 100% GWT users only: Install GWT unit 7 26 7 60 0 100% Maintain/periodic cleaning of GWT unit 0 50 13 37 0 100% Monitor water in kitchen sink prevent solids/fats draining into GWT unit 22 41 4 33 0 100% Schedule/irrigate with treated greywater) 3 32 20 44 1 100%
Note: GWT user group N=25; control group N=24 ‘All HH members’ include tasks performed by husband and children, wife and children, and other HH members.
However, it appears that the involvement of women in public spaces among the
control households was slightly higher in comparison to women from the GWT user
households, in particular purchasing water (8% reported by women from the control
group and 0% by GWT user group, respectively) and paying for services such as fixing
pumps or maintaining wells (6% and 0%, respectively). The qualitative data clarified that
water scarcity issues necessitated women to act and enter public spaces when their
husbands or adult sons were not at home because they needed to complete their
household chores. Women from control households also have slightly higher indication
of performing certain tasks related to water management jointly with their husbands,
followed by sharing tasks among all household members. For example, 23% of women
in the control households reported filling/maintaining water storage tanks together with
their husbands as well as sharing cooking, cleaning and laundry tasks with their
husbands (27%). In the GWT user households, women reported higher percentage of
74
tasks shared by all household members, including filling/maintaining water storage
tanks, pumping and maintaining water wells, cooking, cleaning and laundry. A similar
trend can be seen in men’s responses by household type. Note that no statistical tests
were performed to examine if the difference in responses between the GWT user and
control groups were statistically significant.
The bottom four rows in Table 2-3 and Table 2-4 display results collected from
the GWT user group only. Husbands and wives, and all HH members were designated
as individuals within households to perform GWT-related tasks. Similar to other water
tasks, husbands and wives attributed many tasks to men. The maintenance of the GWT
unit was largely undertaken by men, including checking the proper use of water in the
kitchen sink to prevent solids/fats draining into the GWT unit. This result was particularly
interesting because men and women during FGDs attributed this role primarily to
women. They explained that the maintenance of greywater started in the kitchen where
women would monitor and minimize the drainage of waste, fats, and solids into the unit.
Kitchen waste and solids were the main contributors to GWT unit malfunctioning and for
generating flies and bad odor.
On the other hand, as men reported doing most of the tasks related to the GWT
unit themselves, this may imply that technology use may be considered belonging to the
public space, since the GWT units were installed by an outside organization. Another
plausible explanation is that men may control the technology or the knowledge
associated with its operation. However, women during FGDs provided real-life
examples of their roles with GWT unit operation within the household from being in
75
charge to run it, preventing solid/fats from draining into the GWT unit, maintaining the
unit and using drip irrigation systems to water their gardens.
Overall, both the survey responses and the FGDs showed that many of the tasks
related to the use and maintenance of GWT technology are shared by the spouses. In
comparing men’s responses to women’s responses in the GWT user households, men
attributed higher percentage of tasks to be shared between couples, especially the
scheduling/irrigating with treated greywater (20% of men reported this task as a joint
activity vs. 11% reported by women). Sharing tasks between all household members
were reported high by both groups, especially men’s.
In terms of home garden production, women in the GWT user households
reported higher percentages of being the primary person responsible for
harvesting/processing of garden produce (32%) and irrigation (20%). Women in the
control households reported lower percentages: 21% and 8%, respectively. Men in the
GWT user group also assigned greater roles to women in harvesting/processing of
garden produce, although the percent of men assigning this activity to women was only
20% (as compared with 32% of women, as mentioned above).
As in the case with the water domain, the home garden domain included tasks
performed mostly by men in both the GWT user and control groups. However, men in
the GWT user households also attributed higher percentages of tasks in irrigation to
performing them jointly with their wives (30%), followed by harvesting/processing of
garden produce (22%), and home garden cultivation (16%). GWT user women’s
perceptions of the tasks performed jointly were similar, although in comparison to
women from the control households, there was a difference. Women in the control
76
group reported higher sharing of tasks between couples: 35%, 15%, and 19%,
respectively. In the GWT user households there appear to be a shift towards sharing
home garden tasks with all household members (see Tables 2-5 and 2-6).
Table 2-5. Women’s responses to who in the household performs home garden production-related tasks, by GWT user and control households (percentages rounded)
Tasks Spouse Self Couple jointly
All HH members N/a Total
Prepare land for planting GWT user group 44 12 8 36 0 100% Control 58 8 15 19 0 100% Cultivate home garden GWT user group 57 6 14 21 2 100% Control 58 8 19 12 3 100% Irrigate GWT user group 32 20 28 20 0 100% Control 35 8 35 22 0 100% Harvest/process garden produce GWT user group 6 32 20 38 4 100% Control 15 21 15 49 0 100% Sell and control earnings GWT user group 16 0 0 0 84 100% Control 15 0 0 0 85 100%
Note: GWT user group N=25; control group N=26 ‘All HH members’ include tasks performed by husband and children, wife and children, and other HH members.
Table 2-6. Men’s responses to who in the household performs home garden production-related tasks, by GWT user and control households (percentages rounded)
Tasks Spouse Self Couple jointly
All HH members
N/a Total
Prepare land for planting GWT user group 7 52 11 30 0 100% Control 4 50 25 21 0 100% Cultivate home garden GWT user group 10 47 16 24 3 100% Control 14 59 13 11 3 100% Irrigate GWT user group 7 26 30 37 0 100% Control 4 46 29 21 0 100% Harvest/process garden produce GWT user group 20 9 22 46 3 100% Control 10 13 35 40 2 100% Sell and control earnings GWT user group 0 15 0 0 85 100% Control 0 17 0 0 83 100%
Note: GWT user group N=27; control group N=24 ‘All HH members’ include tasks performed by husband and children, wife and children, and other HH members.
77
The survey results show that both husbands and wives attribute many tasks
related to household water, garden production, and other activities to men. Interestingly,
during FGDs, when women and men had a chance to discuss the gendered division of
labor with their same sex peers, women’s greater role in the household water and
garden production domain was highlighted. Women claimed more responsibility in those
areas, and men confirmed women’s roles in those tasks in separate FGDs. This
inconsistency between the survey responses and FGDs may be partially attributed to
the difficulty some survey respondents had with distinguishing the tasks performed
alone or jointly. Furthermore, there are social expectations of how gendered division of
labor is viewed in conservative societies like Jordan. Men tend to attribute many tasks
to themselves as the head of the household, and they consider both private and public
spaces under domains of their control. Women, as culturally subordinate to men,
‘encourage’ this perception despite the fact that they may be actually behind executing
those tasks.
In summary, the cross-tabulation results demonstrate the clear segregation of
tasks by women’s location within the private spaces, such as cooking, cleaning, laundry,
harvesting and processing garden produce, where women’s roles were more prominent.
There are also indicators of a shift in tasks performed jointly as a couple (more common
among control households), and by all household members (more common among
GWT user households). These results are descriptive in nature, and can be enhanced
by testing whether the differences in responses between the GWT user and control
groups are statistically significant.
78
Insights from FGDs and Discussion
The results and discussion from the qualitative fieldwork was used in this section
to interpret and obtain deeper insights about men’s and women’s experiences with
water scarcity. FGDs were structured around the three objectives of this chapter: (1)
examining gender roles and differences in the water and home garden domains, and
their interactions with women’s navigation of public and private spaces; (2) investigating
how a GWT technology influences gender roles and relations; and 3) examining how
women’s roles within separate spheres in the household economy impact their ability to
participate in household decision-making. It should be noted that while FGD and survey
responses were generally consistent, there were also some significant differences,
which are highlighted in the sections below.
Gender Roles and Differences in the Water and Home Garden Domains, and Their Interactions with Women’s Navigation of the Public and Private Spaces
Women and men in both the GWT user and control households played their
traditional roles defined by their designated domains of influence and prescribed by
patriarchal norms and expectations. The qualitative data shows that men’s roles were
more along the lines of deciding or giving direction about a certain task, whereas
women and children enacted that decision or direction. Men also provided physical
labor in garden production and managed water storage tanks including pump or
equipment maintenance, and hired labor (which is in line with the survey responses).
Men in the GWT user households also exercised more influence than women over
economic benefits that resulted from the GWT operation. The savings from less cesspit
cleanings (about 20 JOD or US$28 a month per cleaning) were retained in men’s hands
because household income is primarily vested with men. The increased production of
79
olives has not yet translated to increased sales of olives in the market. Instead olives
are consumed within the family or given to neighbors. However, several households
who sold olive produce in the market reported men’s direct involvement with selling or
delegating the task to an adult son. The municipal water accounts were registered
under the men’s names effectively putting a barrier on women’s access to this area of
the public space.
{Wife}; “I manage water in the household. I irrigate garden.”
{Wife}; “On water supply day I don't leave the house in order to take advantage of accesssing water to do heavy-duty water associated work (such as cleaning, carpet washing, washing clothes) and monitor water storage filling.”
{Wife}; “I do a lot of things. On water supply day, I clean the house, and fill water tanks for cooking/kitchen. Then I water plants.”
{Husband}; “I am responsible for water management in the house. I pay water bills.”
{Husband}; “I monitor water on water supply day.”
{Husband}; “Reduced cesspool cleaning saves about 20JD per cleaning.”
{Husband}; “My wife controls water in the household.”
The FGDs with women showed that women were involved with manual work in
the home garden, such as preparing land for planting, cultivation, and irrigation (this is
confirmed by FGDs with men, and this contradicts survey responses that showed men’s
assertions that it was men’s primary responsibility to execute these tasks). Additionally,
women performed many water-related activities in the household (filling the water tank,
cooking, cleaning, washing, maintaining household hygiene and irrigation). Women in
both groups argued that it is their responsibility to monitor water levels in the water
tanks on the top of the roof and in the water storage tanks in the ground, as well as
80
carrying water in buckets at night to irrigate trees and crops in the garden during the
water supply day. Women also co-managed gardens and contributed to decisions
related to harvesting and processing garden produce and exchanged garden output
with the neighbors or relatives on their own.10
Water scarcity affected all household members but especially women. It affected
women’s leisure time, interfered with their schedule of visits if they planned to visit a
family member, a friend or municipality office. The water supply day affected the
employed women the most because they needed to stay behind to complete all water-
intensive activities (cleaning, washing, laundry), and irrigation (especially in the control
groups, that do not have drip irrigation installed). Women associated many grievances
with water scarcity that contributed to poor quality of life improvements: water scarcity
affected their personal hygiene and that of their families, deprived them of sleep during
the water supply day, and interfered with their daily chores.
{Wife}; “Water scarcity affects my household chores. On water supply day I get tired because I do all work like washing and cleaning carpet. I do not distribute tasks. It also affects my hygiene. At times, I have to take one shower per week during summer.”
{Wife}; “My legs hurt and I am tired next morning after water supply day because I have to constantly check water storage tank on the roof and climb ladder.”
{Wife}; “I have to stay at home and monitor water use. On water supply day, I have to cancel all visits so I can complete major water tasks and irrigate garden.”
{Husband}; “Water scarcity increases money expenditures on water which is a financial burden on the household.”
10 However, as women become older or their children grew, labor-intensive tasks in water management and home garden were transferred to their adult daughters. Future research should look at children’s roles in household water management and home garden production combining it with the application of a water diaries approach to investigate the gendered variations in intra-household water use and management (Lahiri-Dutt and Harriden 2008).
81
{Husband}; “Water shortage affects men's responsibilities inside household because as a head of the household you must satisfy water needs within the house even if you have to purchase water.”
There are indications that water scarcity restricts women’s access to or
appearance in the public spaces. The concentration of women’s roles in private spaces
and related gender norms prevented women from obtaining benefits offered through
public spaces, such as physical, social and political resources, which are deemed
important to enhance women’s agency (e.g., building confidence). Interestingly, even
when asked a hypothetical question about the implications from water being in
abundant supply, women mentioned benefits inherent to their private spaces, including
the option to cultivate vegetables for household consumption, irrigate existing trees in
the garden, and store more water for household use. They also referred to potential
quality of life improvements, including better hygiene for women and all household
members, more leisure time to watch soap operas or socialize with neighbors, or more
balanced distribution of tasks over the week rather than doing all at once during the
water supply day. On the other hand, men related the possibility of receiving abundant
water for income-generating activities, such as expanding garden area or growing more
olive trees for market.
Current international programs focus on introducing water technologies that are
somewhat amenable to women but due to women’s seclusion to private spaces, women
often lack the technical skills or confidence to adopt the technologies, attend trainings
related to technology operation and maintenance, or have a platform to voice their
practical needs (for example, making the technology women-friendly). Targeting women
takes longer time and more work is needed to create enabling environments, for
82
example, involving women’s cooperatives that would help women build agency and
shorten the distance between resources in the public spaces and women in the private
spaces.
Investigating How a GWT Technology Influences Gender Roles and Relations
GWT technology, according to FGDs with men and women, resulted in women’s
increased ability to allocate water resources to various tasks to complete their work on
time, and feel good about it. The GWT technology equipped with drip irrigation allows
continuous irrigation of home gardens by delivering small quantities of water to the
trees, thus releasing more potable water for women to perform other domestic tasks in
the household. Women also noted that they do not need to worry about the exact time
when water is supplied nor if they need to postpone their visits to friends or other social
activities. This aspect of GWT benefit is particularly critical for enhancing women’s
presence in the public space, meaning that water does not act as a barrier to women’s
appearance, for example, in various community meetings or work, or to visit with
friends. In Madaba, GWT technology led women to start an olive soap-making factory
for tourists with the help of ICARDA.
{Wife}; “Because there is a GWT unit in my house, on water supply day I can rest more because I use treated greywater to irrigate trees.”
{Wife}; “In the past, the hose was not too long to reach every tree and therefore I needed to walk with the bucket to water every tree but I don’t have to do that now as I use drip irrigation and GWT output to irrigate the whole [garden].”
{Wife}; “Now we work with water more comfortably. We use more [fresh water] because we know the water will go to trees. For example, if I use water in the kitchen sink I know that water will not be wasted but it will go to the trees. I use more water to do more cleaning around the house and take showers.”
83
{Husband}; “After the GWT unit installation, my wife got relieved because she used to irrigate trees with a bucket and now she can simply run the drip irrigation system.”
{Husband}; “Before the GWT unit use I would fill four tanks - two tanks for irrigation, and two for household use but now I use only two tanks of water only for household consumption.”
The survey and then focus groups substantiated that water conservation is of a
greater concern for women than for men. Men associated water availability with
increased opportunity for farming (planting more trees) or savings in disposable income
provided by the GWT technology use (reduced cesspit cleanings and reduced potable
water purchases). Women related conservation to more water available for the
environment, or treated water being used to irrigate trees rather than being wasted.
GWT technology also offered quality of life improvements to women (improved
hygiene, less worries about water management or water being wasted). It also helped
them meet the expected standards of womanhood, that is, being a good mother or wife
(e.g. house is clean, laundry is done, children are well fed and clean). In the context of
Jordan, women are seen in subordinate roles and obedient to men. Similar to Ali,
Ahmad, and Batool’s findings in Pakistan (2016), the qualitative data confirms that
women are evaluated according to their caregiving roles of being a good mother, good
wife, or a good housekeeper, whereas men are evaluated as breadwinners for the
household. This perception demonstrates that patriarchy is internalized by women due
to ‘hegemonic masculinity’ and passed down from mother to daughters (Ali, Ahmad, and
Batool 2016). Although, the GWT technology led to women’s satisfaction with their
practical needs and patriarchal expectations, it can be argued that this satisfaction is a
pre-requisite of women’s empowerment, since women cannot move along the
84
empowerment path until they feel comfortable and confident about themselves and
satisfying their primary normative role of a caregiver.
Examining How Women’s Roles in the Household Economy Impact Their Ability to Participate in Household Decision-making
FGDs revealed that men distributed water and other resources (labor, income) in
the way that maximized their utility or fulfillment of their duty in the society (as a
provider) without concern for their wife’s utility. The same was somewhat true for
women because they prioritized water to satisfy their role as a caregiver: cooking,
cleaning, washing, etc. However, when it comes to meeting personal needs, women
were more willing to sacrifice or restrain their personal needs (hygiene).
To a man’s eye ‘additional’ water, labor and income could be used to expand the
farm, whereas women look at additional water as an opportunity to complete their
household chores in a manner that is satisfying to them and does not burden other
household members. For example, women noted that GWT technology allowed them
and their household members to take longer and more frequent showers vs. control
households where women could not afford excessive use of water and thus restricted
the frequency of water use for the family’s hygiene. In the eyes of the social norm this
taints women’s role as a ‘good’ mother or caregiver, which is critical for women to
maintain in patriarchal societies.
{Wife}; “Kitchen and the house are the first priority [for additional water]. Inside home I will increase water use for cleaning and hygiene.”
{Wife}; “I will plant vegetables, such as squach, Molokhia, ming and parsley for household consumption.”
{Husband}; “Increase agricultural production, especially grow vegetables like tomatoes, cucumber and okra.”
85
Moreover, FGDs revealed that women do not receive individual economic
benefits from the use of GWT technology in the household, but they still consider
themselves ‘winners’ when using the GWT technology. The technology enables women
to work within their sphere of influence to increase benefits for their family through
quality of life improvements. Women noted during interviews that they liked that GWT
technology allowed them and all other household members sleep at night during the
water supply day, as well as they did not have to worry about water being wasted
because water used inside the house would ultimately find its way to irrigate a tree or
garden through a GWT unit. Furthermore, the technology allowed women to re-allocate
potable water to growing herbs and vegetables in the home garden. Thus, the impact of
the technology, since it remains confined within women’s domains of influence, did not
allow women to challenge the existing gendered norms, and left men in charge of the
household even as women gained greater agency by feeling increased self-worth.
Nuances from Mixed-method Approach
There were some nuances observed during field data collection that merits a
short section of its own. While FGD and survey responses were generally consistent,
there were also some significant differences. As noted earlier, both quantitative and
qualitative data collection was sex disaggregated. In the past, the facilitators from
NCARE conducted numerous interviews with household heads (usually men) but had
limited experience with interviewing secondary respondents from the same household
(a woman in this case). Furthermore, interviewing men and women in separate groups
is also a somewhat new practice in Jordan that represents a potential interviewer bias in
qualitative data collection practice. This may have contributed to somewhat
contradicting results of the focus groups and the survey. Based on the survey
86
responses, women wanted the men to appear to be the responsible party for almost
every housetask, despite the fact that surveys were conducted in women’s private
space (at their homes) one-on-one by female enumerators, meaning that in the private
space women had the opportunity to be more comfortable to openly express their
perceptions and concerns. On the contrary, FGDs with women were conducted in the
public space (in a community center), which compelled women to be frank about their
contribution to household’s economy and the important role they played in maintaining
the household’s wellbeing. They were not afraid to claim that most tasks in the
household regarding water management, home garden production, and overall home
economics were performed by women or jointly with their husbands. These nuances
merit further research to understand why women were more compelled to acknowledge
their roles in the public space vs. private space, and whether it was a peer-to-peer
pressure or solidarity with other women in the public space that gave women confidence
to speak out.
Concluding Remarks
Recent social and economic changes in Jordan (access to better education,
increased economic opportunities and improved technologies) appear to enhance
women’s agency in household decisions, although their role is still secondary and they
participate when asked by husbands. Decisions related to allocating production
resources and assets on the farm (outside of the household compound) are made solely
by men. Women appear to be more involved when resource allocation decisions are
related to their prescribed roles of a caregiver, thus increasing their participation in
decisions related to children’s health, clothing, education, and marriage. Women who
own small businesses in the community appear to have full control of their earned
87
income, although this income is considered secondary to the male’s income. Women
can spend their own money on themselves, their children, and for supporting their
households with small items. To use their husband’s income for other purposes, the
women have to ask their permission.11
There are several important findings that can be drawn from the study. The first
is that the economic benefits from GWT technology stay in the hands of men despite
women’s contribution to their acquisition. This implies that women’s contribution in
achieving these economic benefits may remain unrecognized. In addition, based on the
survey responses, men tended to claim larger roles in most tasks around water, home
garden and GWT technology domains (as compared with the survey responses from
women from the same households.) This research also shows that women receive non-
economic benefits from the GWT technology use that resulted in quality of life
improvements for them and their household members, such as having more water to
complete household chores, more time to sleep, and not worrying about water being
wasted. Finally, there is a positive shift in the gendered division of labor. More
household tasks are being shared by couples jointly or all household members. This
helps enhance women’s agency to move from the private space to the public space
(e.g., leave the house to visit friends, or seek employment). This has important practical
and policy implications. Targeting women by offering improved access to public space
resources, such as trainings, technical skills, and social gatherings, help women build
confidence. From Kabeer’s empowerment framework, this is important because
improved access to social and human resources enhances one’s agency.
11 It should be noted that whether wives receive allowance from husbands was not inquired during fieldwork.
88
Complementary to this is the fact that increasing the presence of women in public
spaces can influence transformational forces of allowing women not only access to
resource-rich public spaces but also take advantage of them to strengthen their
presence in the public space.
ICARDA’s and NCARE’s targeted approach to involve women as full participants
in the greywater project resulted in additional benefits. This research shows that women
are essential to adoption, and the proper operation and maintenance of the GWT units.
Women’s cooking and dishwashing practices in the kitchen affect the functioning of the
unit. Women were careful with oil and grease to reduce its leakage into the GWT unit. A
similar practice was disclosed in relation to using a greywater system-friendly soap to
wash dishes. Thus, technology out-scaling strategies in Jordan should consider women
as active participants in outreach programs and involve women when designing the
outreach and adoption interventions.
89
CHAPTER 3 WOMEN’S COMMAND OVER WATER: DOES IT CONTRIBUTE TO WOMEN’S
EMPOWERMENT?
The main objective of this chapter is to examine the relationship between
women’s command over GWT technology or the treated greywater, used to supplement
irrigation in home gardens, and women’s participation in intra-household decision-
making. Both theoretical and empirical research on intra-household resource allocation
and women’s empowerment has long concluded the importance of women’s
participation in decision-making for their own or their children’s welfare (Quisumbing
and de la Briere 2000; Doss 2013; Dito 2015). Many of these studies have focused on
how getting monetary resources into the hands of women, such as income, conditional
cash transfers, or loans, and assets including land, is related to welfare outcomes, such
as improved nutrition, health and education (Allendorf 2007; Doss 2005, 2013). Fewer
studies explored the actual bargaining or decision-making process, or whether material
resources/technology, for example, a water intervention, can influence women’s agency
and lead to similar outcomes (Koolwal and van de Walle 2013; Njuki et al. 2014;
Domenech 2015).
Following Kabeer’s empowerment framework, it is now widely accepted that
women’s empowerment requires an increase in women’s agency so that when women
capitalize on material, human or social resources they gain an “ability to define goals
and act upon them” (Kabeer 1999, p. 438). This aspect of empowerment is often
measured in terms of women’s participation in household decision-making (Kishor and
Subaiya 2008). In their demographic and health surveys (DHS) comparative study of 23
developing countries including Jordan, Kishor and Subaiya (2008) showed that many
DHS studies analyzed whether women participate in decision-making in a number of
90
relevant domains, and the modality of their participation, that is, whether making
decisions alone or jointly with their husbands. They concluded that:
The analysis of women’s participation in decisionmaking shows clearly that participation in decisionmaking is not a single undifferentiated variable. For any given decision, making the decision alone, making it jointly with a husband or someone else, or participating in the decision at all (alone or jointly) constitutes unique variables with different correlates. This makes it difficult to treat decisionmaking as a single indicator of empowerment; to treat participation of any type in one decision as being similar to participation of the same type in any other decisions; and, for a given decision, to treat participation of one type as equivalent to participation of another type. Thus, if women’s participation in decisionmaking is to be used, as an indicator of empowerment, theory and context must drive the definition of what type of decisionmaking in what type of decisions constitutes empowerment (p. xvi).
One of the implications of this conclusion is that the theory and context are
critical to consider in the analysis of decision-making as a proxy of women’s agency.
The analysis of the decision-making context is important since it can help explain what
matters the most to women’s empowerment in that particular setting - whether to
participate in decision-making alone or jointly and in what type of decisions (e.g., see
Twyman (2012) for discussion of decision-making in Ecuador), or participate in
decision-making at all (see Anderson and Eswaran’s (2009) for women’s autonomous
decision-making in Bangladesh). In her dissertation study, Twyman (2012) examines
the relationship between the intra-household distribution of assets and wealth, and
women’s bargaining power in relation to the decisions regarding one’s employment and
spending one’s own income decisions. The study finds that in households in which only
women own real estate women are more likely to make autonomous decisions. In
contrast, in households with a fairly equal distribution of wealth and where both spouses
own real estate, couples are more likely to make joint decisions. In Bangladesh,
Anderson and Eswaran (2009) showed that choosing the appropriate threat option of
91
bargaining, from a theoretical perspective, matters when analyzing women’s
autonomous decision-making. They found that where divorce (as a threat option) is not
practical for women to exercise bargaining, women retreat to a non-cooperative
outcome, that is, separate to their spheres of domain of control to exercise autonomous
decision-making.
This study tests the hypothesis that the use of GWT technology is likely to
increase women’s agency (bargaining power) in rural Jordanian households. Woman’s
participation in household decision-making (alone or joint) is used as a direct indicator
of women’s empowerment (see Kishor and Subaiya’s (2005) discussion and Twyman
(2012) who used the same approach). Given that Jordan is a deeply patriarchal and
conservative Muslim country, women’s participation in decision-making in any modality
(alone or jointly) is considered to be empowering.
Here, the effects of GWT technology use on decisions made by women (alone or
jointly) in the two domains under women’s responsibility: household water and
wastewater management and home garden production, are evaluated and compared.
Having water as a scarce resource combined with examining how water and
wastewater management decisions are made, and the spillover effects of water
decisions on home garden production decisions, allows for the evaluation of the effects
of a GWT intervention on women’s decision-making agency, and of the extent to which
command over GWT or supplemental water affects women’s bargaining position in a
male-dominated society, and governed by traditional gender and family norms. Thus, a
wife’s participation in decisions made by men in the household may also be a sign of
women’s empowerment.
92
Furthermore, Twyman (2012) emphasized the importance of evaluating men’s
perceptions of their wives making decisions alone or jointly, and following this approach
both women’s perceptions of their decision-making alone or jointly as well as men’s
perceptions of their wives making decisions alone or jointly in the two domains are
considered.1 This is also driven by evidence from Chapter 2 in which men often direct
the execution of household tasks in those two domains, and women then perform the
tasks alone or jointly with their husband or children. Therefore, understanding the
circumstances that lead to women’s increased or reduced participation in household
decisions where women’s primary role is seen as a caregiver becomes imperative in
determining the decision-making processes that contribute to rural Jordanian women’s
empowerment.
The questions explored in Chapter 3 include: (1) how does the GWT technology
use impact women’s participation in household decision-making? (2) what are the types
of decisions (alone or jointly) women make in the household? And, finally, (3) can
access and control over domestic water resources represent a path to women’s
empowerment? Next I provide an overview of Jordanian women’s status followed by a
discussion of implications of operationalizing the empowerment process discussed in
the literature.
Context: Women’s Status in Jordan
Like in many Arab countries, the process of state modernization in Jordan
improved the position of women (Al-Dajani 2001; Al Maaitah, Olaimat, and Gharaeibeh
2011). In 1992, Jordan ratified the UN’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
1 In her study, Twyman (2012) also looked at women and men’s agreement that they make decisions jointly, which allowed her to distinguish between true egalitarian households and those that are not. This dimension was not included in my analysis.
93
Discrimination against Women and established the Jordan National Commission for
Women to pave the way toward treating women as equal citizens, and improving
women’s social, economic, and political statuses (Pettygrove 2006). Jordan introduced
changes to the Personal Status Law among which the minimum legal age of marriage
increased to 18.2 As a result, women achieved considerable improvements in
education, maternal and child health, declines in fertility, and narrowed the spousal age
gap, however, their participation in the labor market remains low and women are not
equal to men before the law (USAID 2012b; OECD 2014b). This is reflected in the
relatively low Gender Inequality Index (GII), which measures gender-based disparities in
reproductive health, empowerment in the public sphere (share of parliamentary seats),
and economic activity (employment). Jordan’s GII value is 0.478 ranking Jordan 86 out
of 188 countries (UNDP 2016).3
Despite revisions, Jordan’s Personal Status Law is considered discriminatory
against women (UN Women 2015). Sharia law, which serves as the main source of
legislation for Personal Status Law, still permits early marriages, only religious
marriages are legally recognized, women are restricted to male legal guardianship
(wilaya), only fathers are regarded as the sole legal guardians of children, women’s
inheritance is half of men’s in the same relationship (e.g., sister/brother), women have
limited ability to divorce, and only men can pass on Jordanian citizenship to their
2 The Personal Status Law of 1976 regulates the jurisdiction of Sharia for Muslims in Jordan, leaving issues related to marriage, divorce, custody and inheritance to the Sharia court (OECD 2014b).
3 The value is low due to low representation of women in the parliament (only 11.6% seats are held by women), fewer women participate in the labor market (14.2% of women vs. 64.4% of men), and only 78.5% of adult women attain secondary level of education compared to 82.7% of men. In addition, the index includes health-related indicators, including 58 women die of pregnancy related causes for every 100,000 live births and the adolescent birth rate is 23.2 births per 1000 women of ages 15-19 (UNDP 2016).
94
children (USAID 2012b; OECD 2014b).4 Furthermore, only men can easily divorce by
saying “talaq” three times, women must petition the Sharia court for divorce or if they
pursue a ‘khula’ divorce, the wife surrenders her dowry and gives up rights for future
financial support. This puts women at a disadvantage when examining the ‘threat’
options in the intra-household bargaining framework in household decision-making as
discussed by Anderson and Eswaran (2009).
In terms of women’s command over household resources and assets, Jordanian
women can legally own land, non-land assets (e.g., jewelry), and enter into financial
transactions without their husband or guardian’s permission according to the Civil Code
(OECD 2014b). However, land ownership among women is very low (varies between
3% and 15% according to different sources) and most land plots are small because
women acquire ownership to this land mostly through inheritance (that is, eligible for
only half of men’s inheritance).5 Moreover, rural women lack access to economic
resources (such as equipment or capital), which complicates their land ownership for
productive uses and constrains economic opportunities for income earning (OECD
2014b). Women can take loans from the bank, although their lack of collateral puts
women at a disadvantage compared to men in obtaining loans. However, in recent
decades, many international donors and national programs started to extend micro-
finance opportunities to women, especially in rural areas. Many women participate in
revolving loan fund programs to borrow micro-loans to start small household-based
4 According to OECD report (2014b), DoS reported that early marriages of brides aged 15-19 made up 26% of the total number of marriages registered between 2009-2011 in Jordan.
5 Anecdotally, women in any case frequently give inherited land back to male relatives or to their husband (based on communications with Dr. Samia Akroush).
95
businesses for making hand-made crafts, growing herbs for market or to install water-
harvesting or water-saving technologies, including the GWT technology.6
When it comes to accessing or controlling income, Jordan’s Population and
Family Health Survey (2013) showed that about 39% of working married women can
make decisions alone on how to spend their earned income, whereas the majority of
working women (58%) decide jointly with their husbands how to spend their income.
This figure is lower for working married women in rural areas (30%) in addition to the
fact that fewer rural women work in the formal economy. The survey also provided
insights into women’s ownership of high value assets, such as a house and land, which
can be used by women as a threat option (e.g., divorce) in bargaining. About 93% of
married women (age 15-49) do not own a house or land. However, women’s age,
household wealth and higher education contribute to increasing women’s ownership
potential, especially in urban areas. The survey also provided a comparison of
ownership of assets between governorates. In Karak and Madaba (two study
governorates), the majority of married women (age 15-49) do not own a house (97% in
Karak and 95% in Madaba), nor land (94% and 92%, respectively). Women’s
independent decision-making is shaped by age, marital status, number of children and
sons, and education level of the women. Sixty-five percent of married women can make
decisions, alone or jointly with their husbands, related to their health, major household
purchases and visits to family or relatives (Dos and ICF International 2013).
In Kishor and Subaiya’s comparison study of DHS in 23 countries (2008), joint
decision-making in Jordan in relation to large household purchases, purchases for daily
6 According to survey and FGDs with greywater users in this study, none of the women nor households borrowed funds to install GWT units in their homes.
96
needs and visits to family or friends is positively correlated with household wealth index
and women’s education level. Women from more affluent households and better
educated had higher chances to participate in decision-making with their husbands. The
majority (53%) of women decided jointly with their husbands on large household
purchases, compared with only 37% of women deciding alone on purchases for daily
needs. Women also decided jointly with their husbands on decisions related to visiting
family or friends (66%), while women decided alone on their own health care (61%).
Operationalization of the Empowerment Process
Empowerment means different things to different people. Social science
researchers often emphasize the operationalization of empowerment through socio-
economic and socio-cultural contexts because what means or contributes to
empowerment in one place or culture is not necessarily the same in a different location
or culture and groups of people. As noted earlier, I followed Naila Kabeer’s
empowerment framework, which defines empowerment as the process in which women
acquire enabling resources to enhance their agency to make strategic life choices. The
interactions between resources and agency is multidimensional, operates at individual
and collective levels, as well as intersects with various life domains, such as economic,
socio-cultural, political or psychological, and is shaped by public and private spaces
(Kabeer 1999; Malhotra, Schuler, and Boender 2002; Mason and Smith 2003;
Pettygrove 2006; Kishor and Subaiya 2008; Swain and Wallentin 2016). The
empowerment process is also dynamic and subject to evolving socio-cultural, economic
and political processes (Kabeer 1999, Malhotra, Schuler, and Boender 2002). For
example, individual-level changes in one’s life such as age, education, marriage and
having children can affect women’s empowerment (Malhotra, Schuler, and Boender
97
2002). Family or community support, and an enabling environment (women-friendly
legal system, political participation, and or economic development) can also contribute
to women’s empowerment (see Mason and Smith 2003; Doepke and Tertilt 2014).
Empowerment is also affected by a gendered system of norms (for example, seclusion
of women to private spaces) that can enhance or constrain women’s empowerment
(see Anderson and Eswaran 2009).
For the purposes of this study I operationalized empowerment as the rural
married women’s agency to make or participate in household decision-making whether
alone or jointly with their husbands. As stated earlier, what matters in this sense is
women’s overall participation in household decision-making, however I differentiated
between decisions made by women alone or jointly with their husbands. Decisions
made alone are defined as decisions the wife makes independently of her husband. For
joint decision-making, I followed Diane Coleman and Murray Straus’s framework about
marital decision-making power as discussed in Twyman (2012). They defined joint
decision-making when a husband and wife make decisions together and report as such
(Coleman and Straus 1990).
Furthermore, I also examined the domains where women traditionally make
decisions alone, which on one hand can demonstrate the women’s agency to make
some decisions, while on the other hand, a woman making the decision alone in her
domain of responsibility would not indicate empowerment but merely highlight the
normative role and traditional division of labor (Twyman 2012). In such cases,
evaluating the involvement of husbands or a shift from autonomous to joint decision-
making may indicate a change in gender relations and signal signs of empowering
98
conditions. Finally, exploring husbands’ perceptions of women’s participation in
household decision-making sheds light into power dynamics within the household, and
helps determine opportunities and barriers to women’s participation in household
decision-making as equal partners.
Water as a Measurement Indicator in the Empowerment Process
Difficulties in measuring the empowerment process are well documented. In her
framework, Kabeer (1999) argued that for a resource to be useful as a measure of
empowerment, its “dimension has to be defined in ways which spell out the potential for
human agency” to realize itself (p. 444). Specifically, “how changes in women’s
resources [under their command], translate into changes in the choices they are able to
make depend, in part, on other aspects of the conditions in which [women] are making
their choices” (Ibid. p. 443). This implies that analysis must go beyond accessing a
resource because women can have access to a resource (for example, water) to fulfill
their practical needs (e.g., to cook or do laundry). Having control or command over
water can enable women to re-allocate that water to meet their strategic interests (e.g.,
use water to grow herbs for market or use more water for personal hygiene). However,
it is not easy to measure ‘control,’ nor do researchers agree on a universal definition of
control. Literature provides different meanings of control – access, command over,
ownership or entitlement, although the most common definition is operationalized as
“having a say in a relation to the resource in question” (Kabeer 1999, p. 444).
Furthermore, Malhotra, Schuler, and Boender (2002) argue that resources are not
empowerment by themselves but “may be more usefully construed as enabling factors
or catalysts for empowerment” (p. 9).
99
I apply resources from Kabeer’s empowerment framework in its interplay with
agency and achievements. The resource in this case is water and non-water material
resources that can enable the empowerment process, that is, provide users with an
ability to allocate the resource to satisfy one’s desires. The achievement is women’s
agency to participate in household decision-making that encompasses both the
productive uses of water as well as the spillover effects to other domains of family life,
such as children’s wellbeing, education and marriage (discussed in Chapter 4).
Data
The data analyzed in this chapter was based on the survey of 48 households
with couples (where both husband and wife responded to the decision-making
questions).7 The data was comprised of 44 men and 47 women, age 29 and over. The
household survey included several household decision-making domains related to water
and wastewater management, and home garden production activities inside the
household compound as well as different spheres where men and women could make
decisions within the purview of their power domains. The decision-making domains
analyzed in this chapter included questions asked in the following form: “Who decides
when (specific task) to be done?” The tasks were grouped into the following domains
(the remaining decision-making domains are analyzed and discussed in Chapter 4):8
7 Two households were dropped from the analysis because they were headed by female widowers. Additionally, 3 households from 48 represented responses from one of the partners (mainly wives) because their husbands were not available or refused to participate. But because I measured the effect of increased water availability on women’s decision-making agency I left women’s answers in the analysis.
8 Decisions (such as in relation to visits to family or friends, and own health care) often measured in DHS surveys were not used in this research due to the stated research purpose and design. See discussion in Chapter 1.
100
• Crop production: This domain included 9 independent tasks related to crop production.9
• Water procurement and wastewater management: Initially, this domain consisted of 15 independent tasks related to household water and wastewater management; while the final version included 13 independent decision-making tasks. Two tasks related to livestock care and paying municipal sewer bill were dropped because less than 10% of households reported caring for animals within a household compound, and none of the households were connected to the municipal sewer system.
• GWT unit management: This domain consisted of 8 independent tasks, which were inquired only from women and men from the GWT user group.10
Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 present women’s responses regarding who in the
household made decisions in relation to their domains of responsibility (see the previous
chapter), namely, household water and wastewater management, and home garden
production. Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 present men’s responses with regard to the same
domains. In each table the responses are organized as decisions made by the
respondents alone (self), decisions made by spouses (husband or wife, respectively),
decisions made jointly as a couple, by others (meaning involving other household
members who are often an adult son or daughter 18+ years old), and not applicable for
decisions that are not made in the household.
9 The crop production domain also included questions related to marketing home garden products such as 1) For all garden crops (and processed produce) sold from the last growing season, who decided how much to sell? 2) For all garden crops (and processed produce) sold, who made the sale? And 3) For all garden crops (and processed produce) sold, who decided how to spend the revenue? However, the responses to these questions were dropped because less than 10% of households reported marketing home garden produce in the local market. Most garden produce was reported to be consumed within the household (82%) or shared with neighbors (9%).
10 The tasks were later regrouped and organized into three main activities in this domain, namely, install GWT unit, maintain/periodic cleaning of GWT unit, and schedule/irrigate with treated greywater. The domain was then incorporated into household water and wastewater domain and provided results only for men’s and women’s responses from the GWT user group.
101
Table 3-1. Women’s responses to how decisions about household water and wastewater management are made (percentages rounded)
Decision Spouse Self Couple jointly Other
No response Total
Fill/maintain water storage tanks GWT user group 52 15 19 14 0 100% Control 75 21 2 0 2 100% Pay water bills GWT user group 78 9 4 9 0 100% Control 85 15 0 0 0 100% Pump and maintain well GWT user group 68 2 4 9 17 100% Control 67 10 2 2 19 100% Purchase water GWT user group 56 4 0 8 32 100% Control 65 12 0 0 23 100% Allocate water for cooking, cleaning, laundry
GWT user group 25 50 8 17 0 100% Control 38 31 19 12 0 100% Hire labor to empty/dig cesspool GWT user group 33 6 3 3 55 100% Control 26 4 1 0 69 100% GWT user group only: Install GWT unit 88 0 8 4 0 100% Maintain/periodic cleaning of GWT unit
92 3 1 4 0 100%
Schedule/irrigate with treated greywater
78 4 12 6 0 100%
Note: GWT user group N=25; control group N=22 ‘Other’ includes adult children in the household
Table 3-2. Women’s responses to how decisions about home garden management are made within a household (percentages rounded)
Decision Spouse Self Couple jointly Other
No response Total
Prepare land for planting GWT user group 84 4 8 4 0 100% Control 77 12 12 0 0 100% Cultivate home garden GWT user group 72 7 17 4 0 100% Control 76 8 12 4 0 100% Irrigate GWT user group 56 20 20 4 0 100% Control 58 12 23 7 0 100% Harvest/process garden produce GWT user group 42 28 22 8 0 100% Control 50 21 21 8 0 100% Sell and control earnings GWT user group 12 0 0 0 88 100% Control 14 0 0 0 86 100%
Note: GWT user group N=25; control group N=22 ‘Other’ includes adult children in the household
102
Table 3-3. Men’s responses to how decisions about household water and wastewater management are made (percentages rounded)
Decision Spouse Self
Couple jointly Other
No response Total
Fill/maintain water storage tanks GWT user group 13 70 13 2 2 100% Control 15 73 10 0 2 100% Pay water bills GWT user group 0 96 0 0 4 100% Control 4 96 0 0 0 100% Pump and maintain well GWT user group 2 74 2 4 18 100% Control 4 74 0 0 22 100% Purchase water GWT user group 6 69 2 0 23 100% Control 4 66 0 0 30 100% Allocate water for cooking, cleaning and laundry GWT user group 50 31 8 11 0 100% Control 33 13 29 25 0 100% Hire labor to empty/dig cesspool GWT user group 1 35 3 0 61 100% Control 0 40 0 0 60 100% GWT user group only: Install GWT unit 0 85 11 4 0 100% Maintain/periodic cleaning of GWT unit 4 78 10 8 0 100% Schedule/irrigate with treated greywater 2 68 18 12 0 100%
Note: GWT user group N=21; control group N=23 ‘Other’ includes adult children in the household
Table 3-4. Men’s responses to how decisions about home garden management are made within a household (percentages rounded)
Decision Spouse Self Couple jointly Other
No response Total
Prepare land for planting GWT user group 4 70 22 4 0 100% Control 4 79 17 0 0 100% Cultivate home garden GWT user group 4 64 24 8 0 100% Control 5 82 9 2 2 100% Irrigate GWT user group 4 48 30 18 0 100% Control 4 63 29 0 4 100% Harvest/process garden produce GWT user group 15 43 35 7 0 100% Control 21 46 31 2 0 100% Sell and control earnings GWT user group 1 14 0 0 85 100% Control 0 17 0 0 83 100%
Note: GWT user group N=21; control group N=23 ‘Other’ includes adult children in the household
103
Survey results show that women make more decisions alone in areas that are
defined by private space, whereas men have comparative presence in decisions that
overlap with public space (e.g., paying water bills). For example, women decided alone
in 50% of the cases in the GWT user group and 31% among the control group on the
allocation of water for cooking, cleaning and laundry (see Table 3-1). Women also made
more decisions alone (in relation to overall home garden decisions) in areas related to
processing or storing garden produce – 28% reported by women in the GWT user group
and 21% in the control group (see Table 3-2). Men responded similarly by attributing
higher autonomous decision-making to women in the allocation of water for cooking,
cleaning and laundry – 50% among the GWT user group and 33% in the control group
(see Table 3-3). In relation to decisions in home garden production, men attributed more
autonomous decision-making to women in processing or storing garden produce (15%
by women in the GWT user group and 21% in the control group), while attributing lesser
roles to women in other areas of decision-making in home garden production (see Table
3-4).
Patterns of decision-making also highlight traditional gender roles and socio-
normative expectations. As discussed above, women have more prominent
autonomous decision-making agency in their normative roles of caregivers (cooking,
cleaning, processing garden produce), whereas men in their normative roles of a
‘provider’ have higher autonomous decision-making in most areas of home garden
production, and water and wastewater management. As Chapter 2 showed, this is also
driven by men’s interactions with public spaces where some water- and home garden-
related activities involve either hiring labor or accessing public institutions, such as
104
buying fertilizer or chemicals, or purchasing tanker trucks of water or fixing water
pumps.
Also as noted earlier, men in both GWT user and control groups prevailed in
autonomous decision-making in water and wastewater management, and garden
production domains (see Tables 3-3 and 3-4). The percentage of decision-making they
attributed to themselves in both domains is at 48% or above. For decisions regarding
paying water bills, the percentage of decisions made by men alone reach 96% - another
evidence of men’s domination of the public space. This finding is also supported by
responses from women, who attributed a similarly higher percentage of decisions made
by men alone in the same domains for both treatment and control groups (see Tables 3-
1 and 3-2).
When comparing women from the GWT user group and control group in relation
to water and wastewater management, women in the control group attributed slightly
higher autonomous decision-making ability to themselves in comparison to women in
the GWT user group (Table 3-1). They reported making decisions alone in relation to
filling/maintaining water storage tanks - 21% of the time vs. 15%, respectively; paying
water utility bills - 15% vs. 9%, respectively; pumping and maintaining water wells - 10%
vs. 2%, respectively; and purchasing water (both tanker-trucked and bottled water) -
12% vs. 4%, respectively.11 A plausible explanation to this could be the fact that women
in the control group were more constrained by water scarcity, and may use this factor as
a way to exercise slightly higher agency to secure water. It also pushes women beyond
socially acceptable spaces, that is, accessing male-dominated public spaces to secure
11 Note that no statistical tests were performed to test for the statistical significance of the differences.
105
water. But whether this agency is driven by a necessity to meet a normative role or
reflect changes in power dynamics within the household and how women see their
changing roles requires further research.
In the GWT user group, women perceived slightly higher roles for joint decision-
making in filling/maintaining water storage tanks, as compared with men’s responses
(19% joint decision-making reported by women vs. 13% reported by men), whereas
men attributed higher joint decision-making irrigating home gardens with treated
greywater - 12% vs. 18%, respectively. In the control group, the joint decision-making
was perceived by men significantly higher in comparison to women. Men reported
making decisions jointly with women in filling/maintaining water storage tanks -10% by
men vs. 2% by women, allocating water for cooking, and cleaning and laundry - 29% vs.
19%, respectively; whereas in relation to joint decisions in paying water bills,
pumping/maintaining water wells, purchasing water and hiring labor to empty/clean
cesspool, men reported no role for women’s participation thereby further highlighting the
segregation of decision-making by private-public space interactions (see Tables 3-1 for
women’s responses and Table 3-3 for men’s responses).
In relation to decisions in the GWT technology domain, the husband’s
autonomous decision-making dominated, which is indicative of both men’s and women’s
responses in the GWT user group (see Table 3-1 for women’s responses and Table 3-3
for men’s responses). Men alone made decisions to install the GWT unit (85% reported
by men and 88% reported by women), to maintain/periodically clean it (78% and 92%,
respectively), and to plan/schedule/irrigate home gardens with treated greywater (68%
and 78%, respectively). Both men and women attributed little to women’s autonomous
106
decision-making capacity in the GWT technology domain (percentage of women’s
participation ranged between 0% and 4% at most). As discussed in Chapter 2, this
again contradicts the narratives women and men provided on women’s roles and
decision-making capacity in relation to the GWT technology domain in households
during FGDs, where women asserted larger decision-making roles to themselves in
managing and allocating the use of treated greywater. In relation to joint decision-
making, men attributed a higher percentage to women’s involvement. In particular, men
reported making decisions jointly in scheduling and using treated water for irrigation
(18% reported by men vs. 12% reported by women), and maintaining and periodic
cleaning of the unit (10% vs. 1%, respectively).
In the home garden production domain, women attributed higher autonomous
decision-making to themselves in both groups in comparison to how men perceived
women’s autonomous decision-making (see Table 3-2 and Table 3-4, respectively).
Women from the GWT user group reported higher autonomous decision-making in
comparison to women from the control group in irrigating home gardens - 20% vs. 12%,
respectively, and harvesting/processing garden produce – 28% vs. 21%, respectively.
This may imply that women in the GWT user group had more water (meaning treated
greywater) to allocate for home garden irrigation and as a result had higher probability
to harvest crops. Men attributed higher autonomous decision-making to women only in
the harvesting/processing garden produce area (15% reported by GWT user men and
21% by control men), whereas in other areas of home garden domain men attributed
less autonomous decision-making to women in both groups. Surprisingly, men in the
GWT user group attributed more decision-making in home garden irrigation to ‘others,’
107
that is, adult children of the couple who were 18+ years old, in comparison to women’s
autonomous decision-making in the same area. In terms of preparing land for planting,
and cultivating home gardens, women from the control group attributed higher
autonomous decision-making to themselves in comparison to women from the GWT
user group (12% by control women vs. 4% by GWT user women, and 8% vs. 7%,
respectively). Women in both groups did not attribute any autonomous decision-making
role to themselves in selling garden produce and controlling sale proceeds (reported as
0% across both groups). Despite the fact that most garden produce is consumed within
the households and small portions were shared with neighbors, the cross tabulation
results in this domain still highlight the segregation of women to private spaces and lack
of opportunities for women to access markets. This was also supported by men’s
responses about women’s autonomous decision-making in selling garden produce and
controlling sale proceeds where men attributed 0% participation to women in these
areas. In relation to men’s autonomous decision-making in home garden production,
men continue to dominate and control public spaces (e.g., markets).
With regard to joint decision-making, both women and men reported higher joint
decision-making in home garden production (see Table 3-2 for women and Table 3-4 for
men). GWT user men reported higher joint decision-making in decisions related to
harvesting or processing garden produce (35%), irrigation (30%), cultivating home
gardens (24%), and preparing land for planting (22%) vs. GWT user women’s
perceptions of joint decision-making in the same areas: 22%, 20%, 17% and 8%,
respectively. Men from the control group reported higher joint decision-making in
harvesting or processing garden produce (31%), irrigation (29%), preparing land for
108
planting (17%), followed by cultivating home garden (9%). In contrast, women from the
control group reported slightly lower joint decision-making in same areas: 21%, 23%,
12% and 12%, respectively.
The survey also explored decisions made by others in the household. Men in the
GWT user group attributed higher decision-making made by their adult children in home
garden production, which may be explained by the fact that the probability of having a
garden is considerably increased with the GWT technology application thus requiring
additional labor input from adult children in areas related to preparing land for planting,
cultivation, irrigation, and harvesting. Women in the GWT user group reported some
decision-making by their adult children (compare Tables 3-2 and 3-4). In terms of water
and wastewater management, adult children’s participation in decision-making also
varied between men’s and women’s responses. GWT user women attributed slightly
higher decision-making agency to their adult children in comparison to GWT user men
and control groups (see Tables 3-1 and 3-3).
In the survey, I also explored the extent of men’s and women’s input in
household decision-making around growing and processing garden crops for household
consumption and sale. Table 3-5 summarizes men’s and women’s inputs in these
areas. Women attribute input into most and all decisions when it is related to consuming
garden produce in the household (45% and 18% reported by women in the GWT user
group, and 45% and 32% by women in the control group, respectively), and processing
garden produce for home consumption (29% and 13% in GWT user group and 27% and
18% in control group, respectively). Men’s decisions dominate in relation to home
consumption and sale. Among the GWT user group, there were statistically significant
109
differences observed in the distribution of men’s and women’s responses in relation to
growing crops in the home gardens for household consumption (Likelihood ratio chi-
square - 10.501 at significance level of 10%), getting inputs for garden production
(Pearson chi-square – 11.136 at significance level of 5%), and taking harvests to market
(Likelihood ratio chi-square - 10.418 at significance level of 5%).
Table 3-5. How each spouse reports the extent of their involvement in household decision-making (percentages rounded)
Decision
GWT user group
Control Group Men N=21
Women N=25
Men N=23
Women N=22
Cultivating garden for household consumption
No input 14% 23%
5% 5%
Quite a bit of input 0 5
4 9
Input into most decisions 43 45
48 45
Input into all decisions 43 18
39 32
N/a 0 9
4 9
Likelihood ratio chi-square 10.501* (GWT user group)
Cultivating garden for sale in the market
No input 0 13
0 2
Input into most decisions 15 0
9 5
Input into all decisions 14 0
13 5
N/a 71 87
78 88
Getting inputs for home garden
No input 0 12
0 5
Quite a bit of input 0 13
5 0
Input into most decisions 38 29
26 27
Input into all decisions 43 13
26 18
N/a 19 33
43 50
Pearson chi-square 11.136** (GWT user group)
Selling harvest/processed goods in the market
No input 5 13
4 4
Input into most decisions 14 9
9 9
Input into all decisions 19 0
17 5
N/a 62 78
70 82
Likelihood ratio chi-square 10.418** (GWT user group)
*p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, and ***p < 0.01
Overall, the results of the survey data confirm that in water and wastewater
management: 1) most decisions were made by men alone except decisions related to
110
allocating water for cooking, cleaning and laundry where women exercised more
autonomous decision-making; and 2) with the GWT technology use, some autonomous
decision-making by men shifted towards joint decision-making, e.g., filling/maintaining
water storage tanks, which may create opportunities for women’s increased
participation in decision-making. In relation to home garden production and comparing,
the results show that: 1) men were more likely to make decisions alone about preparing
land for planting; 2) women were more likely to make decisions alone regarding
irrigation and harvesting/processing home garden produce; 3) men were more inclined
to making decisions jointly in comparison to women; and 4) with the GWT technology
use, men involved ‘other’ more than women in most decisions. It should be also noted
that the survey results were not tested for statistical significance of the differences, and
therefore the results require further research and analysis.
Conceptual Framework: Bargaining Power Framework
The conceptual framework to examine the relationships between women’s
command over GWT technology or the treated greywater and women’s agency to
participate in intra-household decision-making is based on the bargaining power
framework.
Economists have completed a considerable amount of empirical work on issues
of intra-household bargaining, resource allocation, and decision-making (Doss 1996,
2013; Quisumbing and De la Briere 2000; Deere and Twyman 2012; Doepke and Tertilt
2014). While some research looked at intra-household bargaining, others analyzed the
impact of a variety of factors on household outcomes when considering bargaining.
Initially, the economists used the unitary household model to analyze household
economic decisions treating the household as a single production, consumption or
111
investment unit that has a single set of preferences (Katz 1991; Doss 1996, 2013). This
model assumed that the allocation of resources, such as income, assets or other
proxies of bargaining power, within the household (holding other variables constant) did
not affect outcomes because all household members either shared a common goal or
that one person made decisions for all to maximize utility. Empirical evidence
challenged this interpretation suggesting that household members have different
preferences (Katz 1991, 1997; Agarwal 1997; Doss 1996, 2013). This led to the
development of other theoretical models of bargaining, including collective, cooperative
and non-cooperative bargaining models (Doss 2013). The collective model assumes
that households achieve pareto efficient outcome, that is, any alternative outcome
would lead to one household member being better off only after making the other
household member worse off (Doss 2013). They also allow for accounting of intra-
household differences in household members’ preferences and enable bargaining
power to play a role in decision-making. The cooperative model uses a game theory
approach to analyze bargaining power as a function of the external option of the two
bargaining individuals. The external option, defined as a fallback position (also known
as a threat point), is the welfare that an individual receives if he or she decides to leave
the household (ibid.). For example, a policy that increases women’s access to loans
may increase women’s bargaining power within the household regardless of whether a
woman has actively invested the loan in an economic enterprise because the key here
is the availability of different options for women to exercise an option that can positively
affect their bargaining power. The non-cooperative model helps test efficiency in
resource allocations (Udry 1996; Doepke and Tertilt 2014).
112
Despite having a few shortcomings, such as the bargaining model assumes that
resources in the hands of a man or a woman provide equal bargaining power or that a
man and a woman participate equally in decision-making, while women may be
restricted to making decision in certain areas due to cultural norms (see Katz 1991;
Agarwal 1997; Anderson and Eswaran 2009), the bargaining models are widely used
(Doss 2013). They allow to test and interpret the differences in preferences and
recognize that household members have different levels of bargaining power that
influence how decisions are made in the household. For example, in patriarchal
societies like Jordan a husband has a higher bargaining power in comparison to his wife
or the wife, as she becomes older and with a married son, can gain bargaining power
over her daughter-in-law (see Anderson and Eswaran 2009).
This research builds on the Nash bargaining model and treats the household
consisting of two economic actors (husband and wife) who are heterogeneous in
preferences and have different priorities, interests, needs, and levels of bargaining
power. Furthermore, their bargaining power (or the influence each spouse has over how
income, water and other resources is allocated) depends on the cultural norms (for
example, wife’s interaction with public and private spaces) and socio-economic
characteristics (wife’s age, education level, and number of sons). Although, as
discussed in Chapter 2, it is difficult for rural Jordanian women to exercise divorce as an
option of threat (for Nash bargaining models), I assume there is some non-cooperation
in bargaining in which case women use culturally acceptable threat options.12
12 During FGDs, women provided several examples of threat options, such as, not speaking to their husbands or leaving to their parents’ house and staying there until their husband changes his decision. This form of bargaining was not completely non-cooperative but it still involved negotiation between spouses and finding a solution where each felt satisfied.
113
To test how couples make decisions, it is assumed the couple stays together to
make the decision to maximize their joint utility (𝑈𝑖). It should be noted that each
spouse is informed about a ‘threat’ option of the other spouse and make their decision
based on this information: 𝑀𝑎𝑥 𝛼𝑈1 + (1 − 𝛼)𝑈2. The weights (𝑎) and (1 − 𝑎) attached
to each utility function (𝑈1 and 𝑈2) and represent the bargaining power of each spouse.
The weights lie in the continuum of 0 to 1. Approaching 1 means that the bargaining
power of spouse 1 increases while spouse 2’s bargaining power decreases. Moreover,
the weights are determined by the respective utility interaction, which is the outcome of
the threat option. As a wife’s threat option/utility becomes viable her bargaining will
increase or the lack of threat option will surrender her to the men’s bargaining power.13
Using this concept, it is assumed that as command over water benefits woman,
her bargaining power is expected to increase in that domain and have spillover effects
in the domains related to water, that is, home garden production where water is
considered as a productive input without which nothing grows. Although water does not
have a monetary value in this assumption, its intrinsic value is taken into account.
The empirical analysis is guided by considering the potential ways through which
women’s command over supplemental water may increase her bargaining power within
the household. The bivariate logistic regression was used to measure how water as a
resource can affect women’s household decision-making. The predictor variable of
interest is the increased water availability from GWT technology.
The main hypothesis is that the GWT technology is likely to impact women’s
bargaining power in the household. This is directly and indirectly measured by
13 The model is built on Twyman’s study of intra-household distribution of assets in Ecuador (2012).
114
increased water availability for home garden irrigation, and women’s overall satisfaction
with water use in their household that affects their psychological condition. Specifically,
there is a positive association between the use of a GWT technology and women’s
participation in decision-making in water and home garden production domains. Lastly,
women’s access to the GWT technology is likely to lead to decisions made alone in the
water domain, and jointly in the home garden domain.
Table 3-6 provides a description of each of the variables included in the
regression. Several dependent variables, which manifest several empowerment
indicators, were used for regression: 1) women’s participation in household decision-
making alone and jointly in each of the two domains: water and wastewater
management, and home garden management, and 2) men’s reporting of women’s
decision-making alone or jointly in the same domains.14 The control variables in Table
3-6 such as age, difference in spousal age, number of children, sons and adult females
in the household other than the wife, education years completed by husband and wife,
the schooling differences between the husband and wife, wife’s primary occupation as a
housewife, and the wife’s participation in community affairs, were used to capture the
possible factors of effects on women’s decision-making. In Arab societies, women’s
bargaining power within a household and community tend to increase with age and
having children and in particular sons. The relative positions of spouses to each other
14 The dependent variables were constructed from the suvey questions described in the Data section of this Chapter. Since the water and home garden decision-making questions included modules consisting of numerous tasks, the index variable was created that took into account each decision in which the household participated. The woman’s participation was counted only in those cases when she made decision either alone or jointly; otherwise she was not considered participating. The same approach was used to count men’s reporting of their wife’s making decisions alone or jointly. Thus, woman’s participation in a decision gave a score of 1 and 0 otherwise. The denominator was determined by the number of decisions in each domain the household reported making the decision.
115
measured by spousal age and schooling differences were used to determine how these
differences might affect the bargaining process. It was assumed that women’s primary
occupation as a housewife would have stronger association in the bargaining process
given it provides women an advantage of being home to exercise the decisions.
Table 3-6. List of variables and their definitions Variable name Operational definition
Joint decisions in water – her reporting
Binary dependent variable; 1 if wife feels she can decide jointly with her spouse, 0 otherwise
Joint decisions in water – his reporting
Binary dependent variable; 1 if husband reports that his wife can decide jointly with him, 0 otherwise
Joint decisions in home garden – his reporting
Binary dependent variable; 1 if wife feels she can decide jointly with her spouse, 0 otherwise
Joint decisions in home garden – her reporting
Binary dependent variable; 1 if husband reports that his wife can decide jointly with him, 0 otherwise
Decisions alone by wife in water - his reporting
Binary dependent variable; 1 if husband feels his wife can decide alone, 0 otherwise
Decisions alone by wife in water – her reporting
Binary dependent variable; 1 if wife feels she can decide alone, 0 otherwise
Decisions alone by wife in home garden – his reporting
Binary dependent variable; 1 if husband feels his wife can decide alone, 0 otherwise
Decisions alone by wife in home garden – her reporting
Binary dependent variable; 1 if wife feels she can decide alone, 0 otherwise
Age Age in years Age difference between spouses (husband-wife)
Difference in years
Number of children Number of children in the household Number of sons Number of sons in the household Number of adult women other than wife
Number of adult women other than wife in the household
Wife doesn’t work (housewife) Dummy variable; 1 if wife reported being a housewife, 0 otherwise
Education years completed Number of years of formal schooling completed Schooling difference (man-woman)
Difference in years
GWT trainings attended Dummy variable; 1 if wife attended a GWT training program, 0 otherwise
Wife is active in the community Dummy variable; 1 if wife belongs to a community-based organization or has a leadership role in the community, 0 otherwise
Increased water availability from GWT technology
Dummy variable taking the value of 1 if household uses GWT unit, 0 otherwise15
15 The dummy variable was consucted from responses to the survey question ‘If your household reuses greywater where it is used?’ The responses to the question included: 1) to irrigate home garden and 2) ‘other.’ Since all GWT user households reported reusing treated greywater for home garden irrigation the dummy variable was created.
116
Results
The means and standard deviation of the dependent and independent variables
are presented in Table 3-7. On average, women were younger in the sample in
comparison to men (48.51 vs. 54.30 years old, respectively), which is correspondingly
reflected in the mean age difference between spouses (4.91 years old for women vs.
5.25 for men). Women, on average, had 4.66 children and 2.40 sons, while men had
4.48 children and 2.25 sons. The mean number of adult women other than the wife
residing in the household is 0.94 in the women’s sample vs. 0.98 in the men’s sample.
This variable has been used in other studies in Asia to measure the impact of social
networks (e.g., collective support within a household) on women’s agency.
Table 3-7. Descriptive statistics for binary logistic regressions
Women N=47
Men N=44
Mean Std. D. Mean Std. D
Binary dependent variables:
Joint decisions in water – her reporting 0.64 0.49
Joint decisions in water – his reporting 0.77 0.42
Joint decisions in home garden – his reporting 0.52 0.51
Joint decisions in home garden – her reporting 0.57 0.50
Decisions alone by wife in water - his reporting 0.45 0.50
Decisions alone by wife in water – her reporting 0.47 0.50
Decisions alone by wife in home garden – his reporting 0.27 0.45
Decisions alone by wife in home garden – her reporting 0.53 0.50
Independent variables:
Age 48.51 9.05 54.30 10.60
Age difference between spouses (husband-wife) 4.91 5.06 5.25 5.05
Number of children 4.66 1.96 4.48 2.01
Number of sons 2.40 1.38 2.25 1.31
Number of adult women other than wife 0.94 1.24 0.98 1.25
Wife doesn’t work (housewife) 0.85 0.36
Education years completed 9.74 5.10 10.68 3.86
Schooling difference (man-woman) 1.15 4.70 1.23 4.85
GWT trainings attended 0.26 0.44 0.34 0.48
Wife is active in the community 0.15 0.36
Increased water availability from GWT technology 0.53 0.50 0.48 0.51
117
The mean of wife does not work (housewife) is 0.85. Other variables associated
with women’s employment or other economic activities were dropped from the model
because less than 10% of the women in the entire sample were economically engaged
in any activity.
In the survey, education was measured using nine levels (illiterate, read and
write, elementary, preparatory, vocational apprenticeship, secondary, intermediate
diploma, B.S. and higher). For the purposes of regression, the responses were
converted into years of education, which also helped estimate the schooling difference
between men and women and evaluate if it has an impact on women’s agency. I
assigned 0 years to illiteracy level, 6 years to being able to read and write, have
elementary or preparatory levels, 12 years to vocational apprenticeship, secondary or
intermediate diploma, and 16-18 years to those who have B.S and higher education,
respectively. As a result, the women’s mean was 9.74 years of education completed,
while the men’s mean was 10.68 years, respectively. Both means fall within the range of
12 years needed in Jordan to complete secondary education, implying that the majority
of men and women had secondary education. The mean for schooling difference
between women and men was 1.15 years among women and 1.23 years among men in
the sample. On average, 0.26 of the women and 0.34 of the men attended GWT
trainings offered by NCARE, which covered such topics as GWT unit operation and
management, irrigation scheduling, and mitigating health risks from using greywater for
home garden irrigation. On average, 0.15 of the women in the sample were active in the
community. The mean of the variable of interest in the women’s sample was 0.53 and
0.48 in the men’s sample.
118
Tables 3-8 through 3-15 present bivariate logistic regression results measuring
the effect of increased water availability from GWT technology on household decision-
making around water and wastewater management, and home garden management
made by wives alone and jointly, and men’s perceptions of their wives making decisions
alone and jointly. The coefficients are reported in the results tables. On several
occasions, the odds ratio was calculated by taking an exponent of the coefficient
(exp( 𝜷)). The first model in each table (Model I) is the baseline model since it does not
include the predictor variable – increased water availability from GWT technology. The
second model in each table (Model II) presents results for models measuring the effect
of the predictor variable on household decision-making around water and wastewater
management, and garden production.
Women’s Decision-making in Water and Wastewater Management as Reported by Women Themselves
Decisions made alone: Model I (baseline) in Table 3-8 shows that age
differences between spouses and woman being a housewife are associated with
women’s making decisions alone. As age difference between spouses increases,
women are more likely to make decisions about water and wastewater management
alone. Using odds ratio of exp(0.176), which is 1.192, women with increasing age
difference are 0.84 (1/1.192) times more likely to make decisions alone. Women in
households in which the wife did not work nor was engaged in any economic activity
(that is being solely a housewife) are 0.03 times more likely to decide alone (1/29.073
the odds). This can be explained by the fact that women spend most of their time at
home and carry the responsibility for water allocation decisions during the absence of
119
their husbands.16 Model II in Table 3-8 presented similar results. Using odds ratio of
exp(0.192), which is 1.211, women with increasing age differences are 0.83 (1/1.211)
times more likely to make decisions alone, and women-housewives 0.03 times more
likely to decide alone (1/32.686).
Decisions made jointly with husbands: The baseline (Model I) in Table 3-10
shows that the number of children, number of sons, woman being a housewife, the
schooling difference between the man and woman, and wife’s participation in
community affairs are associated with women making decisions jointly with their
husbands. As the number of children decreases, women are less likely to make
decisions jointly with their husbands; specifically, the odds ratio calculated as exp(-
1.118), which is 0.327, showed that women with less than 4 children are 3.06 (1/0.327)
times less likely to make decisions jointly with their husbands. However, as the number
of sons increases in the household, women’s joint decision-making increases and
women are 0.17 more likely to make decisions with their husbands (1/5.98 the odds). In
this model, the wife, being a housewife, also increases her making decisions jointly with
her husband. The decrease in schooling differences between men and women makes it
less likely for women to make decisions jointly with their husbands. This may imply that
women make decisions alone, which can contribute to their bargaining power. Women
who actively participate in community-based organizations or have a leadership role in
the community are more likely to make decisions jointly with their husbands. This
confirms literature on women’s bargaining, that is, women’s increased social capital (or
participation in the public sphere) contributes to their empowerment. Model II in Table 3-
16 Since this gives women a comparative advantage in decision-making, it is still considered as the determinant variable in the regression.
120
10 presents similar results. The variables, such as the number of children, number of
sons, women being a housewife, schooling difference between man and woman, and
the wife’s active participation in the community are significant. Model II also shows that
increased water availability from GWT technology application is significantly associated
with women making decisions jointly with their husbands. In fact, the odds ratio
calculated as exp(2.175), which is 8.803, makes it 0.114 times more likely for women to
participate in joint decision-making with their husbands in managing household water
and wastewater resources.
Women’s Decision-making in Water and Wastewater Management as Reported by Men
Decisions made alone: Table 3-9 Model I (baseline) shows that age differences
between spouses and GWT trainings attended by spouses are significant. The increase
in age differences between the husband and wife is more likely to offer opportunities for
women to make decisions alone, thus, she is 0.85 times more likely to make decisions
alone using the odds ratio (1/1.175). The GWT trainings, which women and men
attended, also provide a medium for women’s increased participation in decision-
making alone. Women who attended GWT trainings are 0.22 times more likely to make
decisions alone. Model II presents similar results in which age differences between
spouses increases the odds of women to more likely participate in decision-making
alone (0.84 times), and attendance at GWT trainings more likely to increase women’s
chances towards making-decisions alone. The predictor variable - increased water
availability from GWT technology - is not associated with regression results in this
model.
121
Decisions made jointly with husbands: In Table 3-11, the baseline highlights
that age and schooling differences between men and women are significant variables.
As women age they are more likely to make decisions with their husbands together, in
particular using odds ratio results, older women are 0.84 times more likely to participate
in joint decision-making with their husbands. As the schooling differences between men
and women decreases, women are less likely to make decisions with their husbands
jointly, in fact, they are 1.31 times less likely to participate in decision-making with their
husbands. The results in Model II are stable. Both age and schooling difference
between husband and wife are significant and present similar results as in the baseline.
Women’s Decision-making in Home Garden Management as Reported by Women Themselves
Decisions made alone: The baseline in Table 3-12 shows that only the wife,
being a housewife, is significant at 1% making it more likely for women to make
decisions alone when it comes to managing home gardens. All other variables are
insignificant. The Model II, that includes the predictor variable, provides the same result,
and no significant association exists between predictor variable and women’s decision-
making on their own when managing the home garden.
Decisions made jointly with husbands: The baseline (Model I) in Table 3-14
results in three significant variables: wife being a housewife, attending GWT trainings,
and the wife’s active participation in community affairs. The wife, being a housewife,
makes the woman more likely to make decisions with her husband together.
Surprisingly, attending GWT trainings makes women less likely to participate in
decisions with their husbands jointly. This can be explained by the fact that most
training women attended were focused on the GWT technology operation, and therefore
122
there may be no association of GWT technology use with decisions in home garden
production. However, the wife’s being active with community affairs makes her more
likely to make decisions with her husband. In Model II, the predictor variable is
significant in the regression along with the same variables that are significant as in
Model I. Women who are housewives are more likely to make decisions with their
husbands together. Attending GWT trainings makes wives less likely to make decisions
with their husbands together. The variables, including the wife’s being active with
community affairs and increased water availability from GWT technology, make the
woman more likely to make decisions with her husband together. The variable interest
increases the odds by 0.22 times.
Women’s Decision-making in Home Garden Management as Reported by Men
Decisions made alone: The baseline (Model I) in Table 3-13 does not include
any significant variables. The only difference is in Model II where education years
completed is a significant variable. As the schooling difference between husband and
wife reduces, the women are less likely to make decisions alone as perceived by their
husbands. The regression results can be compared with the results in Table 3-4, which
shows men making most garden production decisions alone.
Decisions made jointly with husbands: The results from Table 3-15 show that
the baseline (Model I) and Model II do not include any significant variables. As stated
above, the regression results can be compared with the results in Table 3-4, which
shows men reporting some joint decision-making with their wives, although most
decisions in this domain are made by men alone.
123
Table 3-8. Binary logistic regression results for models measuring the effect on household decision-making around water and wastewater management made by wives alone - her reporting
Model I (baseline) Model II
Coeff. (𝜷) Std. Err. Coeff. (𝜷) Std. Err.
Intercept 0.288 3.465 -0.037 3.526
Age -0.082 0.052 -0.088 0.054
Age difference between spouses 0.176 * 0.092 0.192 * 0.100
Number of children -0.195 0.407 -0.196 0.406
Number of sons 0.068 0.411 0.085 0.414
Number of adult women other than wife 0.554 0.615 0.614 0.623
Wife doesn’t work (housewife) 3.370 *** 0.956 3.487 *** 0.987
Wife controls her own wage -0.780 0.944 -0.732 0.948
Education years completed -0.014 0.093 -0.006 0.094
Schooling difference (man-woman) 0.060 0.099 0.059 0.101
GWT trainings attended -0.431 0.860 -1.078 1.075
Wife is active in the community 1.357 1.095 1.298 1.110
Increased water availability from GWT technology 0.872 0.860
Number of cases (n) 91 91
Likelihood ratio chi-square (df) 40.444 (11) *** 41.481 (12) ***
Pseudo R2 0.359 0.366
Notes: Reference categories given in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, and ***p < 0.01
124
Table 3-9. Binary logistic regression results for models measuring the effect on household decision-making around water and wastewater management made by wives alone – his reporting
Model I (baseline) Model II
Coeff. (𝜷) Std. Err. Coeff. (𝜷) Std. Err.
Intercept -2.114 3.438 -1.071 3.688
Age -0.012 0.054 -0.027 0.059
Age difference between spouses 0.161 * 0.09 0.176 ** 0.093
Number of children 0.259 0.364 0.262 0.382
Number of sons -0.370 0.416 -0.383 0.436
Number of adult women other than wife -0.460 0.544 -0.444 0.567
Wife doesn’t work (housewife) -21.11 5329.15 -21.47 5202.01
Wife controls her own wage -18.70 8960.32 -18.38 8968.86
Education years completed 0.099 0.103 0.090 0.103
Schooling difference (man-woman) 0.127 0.087 0.142 0.090
GWT trainings attended 1.517 ** 0.768 2.255 ** 1.191
Wife is active in the community -20.353 11449.57 -20.531 11374.74
Increased water availability from GWT technology -0.920 1.061
Number of cases (n) 91 91
Likelihood ratio chi-square (df) 44.392 (11) *** 45.197 (12) ***
Pseudo R2 0.386 0.391
Notes: Reference categories given in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, and ***p < 0.01
125
Table 3-10. Binary logistic regression results for models measuring the effect on household decision-making around water and wastewater management made jointly – her reporting
Model I (baseline) Model II
Coeff. (𝜷) Std. Err. Coeff. (𝜷) Std. Err.
Intercept -7.956 4.304 -8.100 4.447
Age 0.068 0.057 0.059 0.061
Age difference between spouses 0.024 0.087 0.029 0.098
Number of children -1.118 ** 0.507 -1.248 ** 0.553
Number of sons 1.788 *** 0.652 1.935 *** 0.671
Number of adult women other than wife -0.454 0.691 -0.457 0.799
Wife doesn’t work (housewife) 5.848 *** 1.464 6.185 *** 1.524
Wife controls her own wage 1.300 1.221 2.039 1.400
Education years completed 0.045 0.139 0.014 0.142
Schooling difference (man-woman) -0.320 ** 0.131 -0.342 ** 0.145
GWT trainings attended 1.420 1.162 0.138 1.439
Wife is active in the community 5.646 ** 2.079 6.194 ** 2.141
Increased water availability from GWT technology 2.175 * 1.164
Number of cases (n) 91 91
Likelihood ratio chi-square (df) 70.039 (11) *** 73.996 (12) ***
Pseudo R2 0.537 0.557
Notes: Reference categories given in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, and ***p < 0.01
126
Table 3-11. Binary logistic regression results for models measuring the effect on household decision-making around water and wastewater management made jointly – his reporting
Model I (baseline) Model II
Coeff. (𝜷) Std. Err. Coeff. (𝜷) Std. Err.
Intercept -6.073 4.078 -6.139 4.487
Age 0.177 ** 0.076 0.178 ** 0.083
Age difference between spouses 0.047 0.14 0.048 0.141
Number of children 0.026 0.44 0.029 0.451
Number of sons -0.181 0.487 -0.185 0.498
Number of adult women other than wife -0.386 0.659 -0.391 0.672
Wife doesn’t work (housewife) -23.20 5192.2 -23.28 5151.6
Wife controls her own wage -18.66 8978.1 -18.65 8965.4
Education years completed -0.084 0.15 -0.085 0.152
Schooling difference (man-woman) -0.263 ** 0.125 -0.264 ** 0.132
GWT trainings attended -0.141 0.901 -0.173 1.263
Wife is active in the community -19.30 11395.6 -19.30 11373.3
Increased water availability from GWT technology 0.042 1.162
Number of cases (n) 91 91
Likelihood ratio chi-square (df) 79.473 (11) *** 79.474 (12) ***
Pseudo R2 0.582 0.582
Notes: Reference categories given in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, and ***p < 0.01
127
Table 3-12. Binary logistic regression results for models measuring the effect on household decision-making around home garden management made by wives alone – her reporting
Model I (baseline) Model II
Coeff. (𝜷) Std. Err. Coeff. (𝜷) Std. Err.
Intercept -3.396 3.363 -3.602 3.466
Age 0.032 0.046 0.030 0.048
Age difference between spouses -0.052 0.069 -0.051 0.070
Number of children -0.017 0.347 -0.030 0.348
Number of sons -0.140 0.373 -0.124 0.373
Number of adult women other than wife -0.171 0.516 -0.144 0.520
Wife doesn’t work (housewife) 3.625 *** 0.885 3.584 *** 0.875
Wife controls her own wage 0.799 0.873 0.883 0.882
Education years completed -0.098 0.099 -0.085 0.100
Schooling difference (man-woman) -0.091 0.099 -0.074 0.100
GWT trainings attended 0.467 0.748 -0.042 0.955
Wife is active in the community 0.428 1.012 0.345 1.023
Increased water availability from GWT technology 0.712 0.843
Number of cases (n) 91 91
Likelihood ratio chi-square (df) 39.57 (11) *** 40.294 (12) ***
Pseudo R2 0.353 0.358
Notes: Reference categories given in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, and ***p < 0.01
128
Table 3-13. Binary logistic regression results for models measuring the effect on household decision-making around home garden management made by wives alone – his reporting
Model I (baseline) Model II
Coeff. (𝜷) Std. Err. Coeff. (𝜷) Std. Err.
Intercept -0.719 3.715 3.045 4.644
Age 0.007 0.059 -0.051 0.074
Age difference between spouses -0.029 0.087 0.011 0.095
Number of children -0.174 0.438 -0.292 0.514
Number of sons 0.399 0.505 0.479 0.605
Number of adult women other than wife 0.907 0.623 1.143 0.740
Wife doesn’t work (housewife) -22.77 4909.6 -23.26 4676.9
Wife controls her own wage -15.28 8935.2 -15.34 8428.0
Education years completed -0.184 0.115 -0.209 * 0.127
Schooling difference (man-woman) 0.096 0.100 0.133 0.112
GWT trainings attended -0.085 0.881 19.36 7572.3
Wife is active in the community -16.17 11098.7 -16.59 10685.8
Increased water availability from GWT technology -19.82 7572.3
Number of cases (n) 91 91
Likelihood ratio chi-square (df) 27.786 (11) *** 33.752 (12) ***
Pseudo R2 0.263 0.310
Notes: Reference categories given in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, and ***p < 0.01
129
Table 3-14. Binary logistic regression results for models measuring the effect on household decision-making around home garden management made jointly – her reporting
Model I (baseline) Model II
Coeff. (𝜷) Std. Err. Coeff. (𝜷) Std. Err.
Intercept -3.590 3.075 -4.314 3.282
Age 0.024 0.046 0.023 0.049
Age difference between spouses 0.047 0.072 0.045 0.079
Number of children -0.036 0.328 -0.116 0.339
Number of sons 0.087 0.353 0.178 0.353
Number of adult women other than wife -0.750 0.566 -0.686 0.585
Wife doesn’t work (housewife) 2.986 *** 0.779 3.258 *** 0.855
Wife controls her own wage 0.657 0.895 0.680 0.897
Education years completed 0.015 0.095 0.037 0.097
Schooling difference (man-woman) -0.151 0.096 -0.161 0.102
GWT trainings attended -1.617 ** 0.887 -2.750 ** 1.122
Wife is active in the community 4.331 *** 1.495 4.619 *** 1.540
Increased water availability from GWT technology 1.505 ** 0.827
Number of cases (n) 91 91
Likelihood ratio chi-square (df) 43.681 (11) *** 47.218 (12) ***
Pseudo R2 0.381 0.405
Notes: Reference categories given in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, and ***p < 0.01
130
Table 3-15. Binary logistic regression results for models measuring the effect on household decision-making around home garden management made jointly – his reporting
Model I (baseline) Model II
Coeff. (𝜷) Std. Err. Coeff. (𝜷) Std. Err.
Intercept -4.612 3.321 -4.508 3.409
Age 0.070 0.051 0.069 0.052
Age difference between spouses 0.059 0.084 0.060 0.085
Number of children 0.536 0.350 0.534 0.348
Number of sons -0.364 0.389 -0.360 0.389
Number of adult women other than wife -0.557 0.528 -0.553 0.527
Wife doesn’t work (housewife) -20.88 5784.3 -20.85 5791.8
Wife controls her own wage -18.08 9343.9 -18.03 9302.7
Education years completed -0.022 0.097 -0.023 0.097
Schooling difference (man-woman) -0.038 0.082 -0.036 0.083
GWT trainings attended -0.663 0.727 -0.565 1.023
Wife is active in the community -18.59 12044.1 -18.59 12010.3
Increased water availability from GWT technology -0.124 0.919
Number of cases (n) 91 91
Likelihood ratio chi-square (df) 44.667 (11) *** 44.685 (12) ***
Pseudo R2 0.388 0.388
Notes: Reference categories given in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, and ***p < 0.01
131
Discussion
In reference with findings from the literature, the regression results in Tables 3-8
through 3-15 show different predictors of household decision-making processes
depending on the type of decisions made, that is, whether decisions are made alone by
women or jointly with spouses and considering whose responses (women or men about
their wife’s participation) are analyzed. As expected, models include different predictors
that are significant to women’s participation in household decision-making.
Age is positively correlated with women making decisions jointly in water and
home garden domains and making decisions alone in water domain as perceived by
their husbands. This implies that as women get older they are more likely to be trusted
by their husbands to be involved in decisions made jointly in water and home garden
domains and alone in the water domain. Women, being a housewife, are positively
correlated with their making decisions alone or jointly in both domains, which can imply
that as women spend most of their time in the household compound they perceive their
comparative advantage to make decisions in both domains. However, interestingly the
same variable is negatively correlated with men’s perceptions of women’s decision
making alone or jointly in the same domains.
Moreover, the number of sons the couple has, the wife spending most of her time
in the household, and women’s participation in community affairs are seen by women as
important determinants to their agency, especially in joint decision-making with their
husbands.
The two variables in regressions that are associated with women’s social capital
(number of adult women other than the wife in the household and the wife’s participation
in community affairs) are positively correlated with women’s making decisions alone in
132
the home garden domain, which implies that women feel more confident to make
decisions independently of their husbands. However, there is a negative correlation of
the wife’s participation in the community affairs variable with decisions made jointly with
husbands in the water domain as perceived by men. Wives attending GWT trainings is
positively correlated with men’s perceptions of wives making decisions alone in the
water domain, which means that men trust their wives to participate in decision-making
in relation to water and wastewater management.
The results from logistic regressions suggest that the relationship between the
increased water availability from GWT technology application and women’s decision-
making alone could not be statistically established. But when it comes to women’s joint
decision-making as perceived by women, there is a statistical significance: at a 10%
level in the water and wastewater management domain, and at a 5% level in the home
garden management domain. This implies that there is evidence that women’s
command over GWT technology and treated greywater is associated with women
making decisions jointly with their husbands in the water and home garden domains.
Moreover, the number of sons the couple has, the wife spending most of her time in the
household, and women’s participation in community affairs are seen by women as
important determinants to their agency, especially in joint decision-making with their
husbands. Overall, the results of regression analysis support individual narratives
women and men shared during the FGDs, which are presented and discussed in
Chapter 4.
Concluding Remarks
The empirical findings suggest that in rural Jordanian settings where gender
imbalance in household activities is common, women’s command over GWT technology
133
or treated greywater along with providing trainings and considering other socio-
economic characteristics of the household can improve women’s agency in household
decision-making.
Using insights from Kabeer’s empowerment framework and bargaining power, I
analyzed the extent to which a water intervention, such as the GWT technology or
treated greywater, can contribute to women’s agency, especially, in the domains that
are critically important to women. While the relationship linking increased water
availability and women’s empowerment is complex, fuzzy and likely to be household
specific, on one hand, the findings show the GWT technology or treated greywater is an
important ‘enabler’ of women’s agency, that is, it contributes to increasing women’s
decision-making agency in joint decisions with their husbands as women see it. This is
an important contribution to the empowerment literature where a water resource
intervention has been used to measure the effect of water as a physical resource (for
both domestic and agriculturally productive uses) on women’s empowerment. Previous
studies looked at the adoption of the water technologies in irrigated agriculture and their
effect on women’s decision-making (van Koppen, Hope, and Colenbrander 2012).
In addition, the study shows that women’s empowerment should be explored by
considering broader socio-economic and household relations including household
composition, age, education, woman’s status and social capital. These contribute to
who and how one in the household can gain and benefit from enhanced access to
household resources and expand one’s agency. Future research should expand
investigations to verify the associations between women’s command over physical
134
resources like water on women’s bargaining power in the household and compare the
effect with the characteristics of the place of residence, urban vs. rural.
In returning to questions posed at the beginning of this chapter, I can summarize
that: 1) woman’s command over water affects woman’s agency in rural Jordan. GWT
technology is positively correlated with decisions made jointly by spouses as perceived
by women in the domains that are important to them: water and wastewater
management and home garden management. Women continue exercising their
traditional roles in rural households and meeting the social expectations of being a good
mother and good wife. However, changes in women’s life cycle affect their agency. As
women become older, with more sons and the presence of other adult women in the
household, women gain confidence, higher status, rights and responsibilities than
younger women or women with no children in the households (see Kishor and Subaiya
2005; Leder, Clement, and Karki 2017). 2) Women’s ability to bargain depends on the
type of decisions they participate in. Joint decision-making is the preferred type of
decision-making for women’s agency from both women’s and men’s perspectives. It
contributes to building women’s confidence and trust in negotiating with their husbands,
and in the long run has a potential to translate into increasing women’s agency in
making-decisions alone. Finally, 3) women’s command over domestic water resources
represents a path to women’s empowerment if approached from the context-specific
understandings of women’s empowerment that extends beyond improved access to
resources to also account for the role of social networks and arrangements on women’s
agency. Trainings provided to women on GWT technology use were useful to increase
women’s agency combined with women’s increased participation and interaction with
135
public spaces that can boost women’s confidence. The command over water is
considered women’s domain and men recognize their wives’ contributions to managing
and conserving the limited water resources in the household. The GWT technology is
still a new technology that is gaining momentum among rural households, but for the
purposes of this research, it provided evidence that it can influence women’s bargaining
by providing alternative resources to allow women to receive benefits and fulfill their
social desires of being good wives and mothers.
136
CHAPTER 4 THE MAKING OF A DECISION: WHAT MATTERS FOR WOMEN’S EMPOWERMENT
IN RURAL JORDAN?
A large amount of empirical research has been dedicated to determine what
resources serve as the ‘enablers’ to improving woman’s position or bargaining power in
the household. Some approach resources from an economics perspective by looking at
intra-household distributions of income, assets, or labor force participation; some from
an agricultural perspective by looking at how access to land, labor, capital, equipment,
technology, and information influence women’s empowerment (Allendorf 2007; Doss
2013; Koolwal and van de Walle 2013; Njuki et al. 2014; Domenech 2015; Kafle,
Michelson, and Winter-Nelson 2016). Recent efforts have focused on the intrinsic power
of women’s agency, that is, measuring how an increase in self-confidence, self-worth
and social capital influences women’s empowerment (O’Hara and Clement 2018).
This chapter continues to build on the bargaining power framework presented in
Chapter 3 to discuss the interface of GWT technology use on key dimensions of
women’s agency and the spillover effects into other domains of the household
economy, in particular, decisions about minor and major household purchases made by
women alone or jointly. Using regression analysis and insights from FGDs I discuss
additional determinants of women’s agency in the rural Jordanian context. This chapter
also presents the women’s empowerment continuum in the context of rural Jordan and
briefly discusses the different stages of women’s participation in the household
decision-making process, determinants that are important to women’s bargaining, and
the interface of decision-making with private and public spaces.
137
Literature Review
Studies of women’s empowerment in Arab countries have predominantly focused
on empowerment outcome indicators such as impacts on child and maternal health
outcomes (Kishor 1995; Shukri 1996; Al Riyami, Afifi, and Mabry 2004). Some feminists
applied Islamic knowledge to promote women’s empowerment to question the
legitimacy of gender inequality in Muslim countries (Arnez 2010). However, there is little
data available on Arab women’s position and power dynamics within households to
understand how women’s empowerment evolves in the region (Moghadam, 2005).
The concept of women’s empowerment in Arab countries has particularly delicate
character. It is carefully constructed so that it does not promote empowerment as
women’s power over own lives.1 In Jordan, which is a patriarchal society, decision-
making is a male-dominated space, which does not welcome women’s participation, or
if it does, it defines the limits of participation according to socially ascribed spaces or
gendered roles. Even when the husband is deceased, a woman’s decision can be
overruled by another male member’s decision from an extended family (e.g., father,
brother, son, or uncle). Furthermore, there is a lack of empirical evidence examining
whether joint decision-making (decisions made by men and women together) or
decision-making alone takes place and how they influence women’s agency.
Political and cultural factors also play an important role in shaping women’s
empowerment process. According to El-Azhary, Jordan does not have anti-
discrimination laws; instead, there are ‘special protection laws’ that exacerbate
discrimination toward women by giving them a public image of being weak and in need
1 In patriarchal societies, a woman’s life is in the hands of her male guardian(s) who can be a father, spouse, brother or a male relative.
138
of protection (cited in Abu Kharmeh, 2012, p. 205). Despite substantial improvements of
women’s position in Jordan in recent decades discussed in Chapter 3 (to briefly mention
here, increased levels of education, decline in fertility, improved maternal and child
health, increased age of marriage and reduced spousal age gap), the traditional gender
roles and family norms, supported by the tribal and religious social structures, are still
common, further exacerbating gender-unfriendly legal constraints and the public
pressure environment (Tabutin and Schoumaker 2005).
Jordan is located in a region that carries the characteristics of Boserup’s male
farming system (see Beneria and Sen 1981). This continues to reinforce the powerful
male breadwinner ideology and restrict women’s mobility in public spaces (Moghadam
2005). Furthermore, the patriarchal norms continue to restrict economic imperatives of
involving women as active participants of growing economy.
Overall, empirical research on Arab women’s empowerment is limited. Empirical
evidence is needed to test and determine empowerment indicators that are critical to
women’s agency in Jordan and other Arab countries that take culture, religion and other
context into account. For example, women’s agency for mobility and participation in the
public domain, and the extent of decision-making agency, which can vary from small
purchase decisions to large purchase decisions and decisions to seek economic and
formal employment opportunities. However, additional research is needed to investigate
the link between differences in men’s and women’s access to economic resources and
its impact on women’s empowerment (Miles 2002). This chapter attempts to fill this gap
and provide empirical evidence on what matters to women’s decision-making in rural
Jordan and whether a water intervention can have a spillover effect on Jordanian
139
women’s bargaining in the rural household setting. This research also sheds light on
whether relative access to and control over intra-household resources vary by the
dimension of domestic power (i.e., types of household decisions). Previous research
shows that in patriarchal societies like Jordan, improved women’s position in the family
and life changes may be a strong predictor of their participation in decision-making
within households (Olmsted 2005, Kishor and Subaiya 2008). However, no existing
studies were found that explore the effect of access and availability of water (as a
resource) on women’s participation in decision-making.
Data and Methods
The data analyzed in this chapter builds upon data presented and discussed in
Chapter 3. The survey questions selected for statistical analysis came from 91
respondents who were either a husband (44 men in the sample) or wife (47 women in
the sample) representing 48 households who responded to the decision-making
questions. The questions analyzed in this chapter include:
• To what extent do you feel you can make your own personal decisions if you wanted to in regard to making minor household purchases? The minor household purchases implied purchases of household items needed on a daily basis, such as bottled water, sugar, and other items.
• To what extent do you feel you can make your own personal decisions if you wanted to in regard to making major household purchases? The major household purchases implied purchases of large household assets, such as car, house or agricultural land.2
The responses to these questions included:
• Not at all
2 This decision-making question set included 10 decision questions. Questions 1-6 in the set were associated with home garden activities, while the last two questions inquired about non-farm economic activities, and own wage or salary employment. These questions were dropped from the analysis because they contained missing variables as well as contained areas that were selected by respondents as non-applicable.
140
• Small extent
• Medium extent
• To high extent
• I always consult with spouse.
To evaluate the effect of the increased water availability from the GWT
technology or treated water and the spillover effects of increased bargaining in three
domains that are directly associated with GWT technology use, a woman’s household
decision score was constructed. The score included decisions made in water and
wastewater management, and home garden production domains.3 The score treated
joint and autonomous decisions in a way that is consistent with the literature (for
example, see the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index). The women’s
aggregate decision score (𝑊𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒) is an arithmetic average of women’s decision-making
score (𝐹𝑖) for the above three decision domains. If 𝑇 denotes the total number of
decisions made in three domains, (𝑇𝑖) denotes the number of decisions under each
activity domain 𝑖, 𝑊𝑖 denotes the number of decisions under domain 𝑖 made by a
woman.4 Then woman’s decision score for domain 𝑖, 𝐹𝑖 is calculated as the sum of
decisions made by the woman alone plus the number of decisions made jointly with her
husband divided by the total decisions made in the domain 𝐹𝑖 =𝑊𝑖
𝑇𝑖. By summing all
three domains, women’s aggregate decision score is 𝑊𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 = ∑𝐹𝑖
3𝑖 . By construction, the
score lies in the continuum from 0 to 1. As noted above, the decision score treats
autonomous and joint decisions equally, and assigns equal weight to all three-decision
3 See Data section in Chapter 3 for decisions in water and wastewater management, and home garden production domains.
4 Using this approach I also calculated the men’s decision score but it was not included in the regression analysis.
141
domains. In other words, this can be interpreted as the mean value (across three
decision domains) of decisions in which the woman participated.
As in Chapter 3, the binary dependent variable logistic regression was applied to
determine the key factors associated with women making decisions alone or jointly as
reported by women, and decisions made by women jointly with their husbands as
reported by men. Six models were estimated. The decisions regarding minor household
purchases and major household purchases were regressed separately.
Table 4-1 provides a description of each of the variables included in the
regression. These variables were used in combination with demographic and socio-
economic variables included in Table 3-1 in Chapter 3.
Table 4-1. List of variables and their definitions Variable name Operational definition
Wife decides alone on minor household purchases
Binary dependent variable; 1 if wife feels she can decide alone, 0 otherwise
Joint decision-making on minor household purchases – women’s reporting
Binary dependent variable; 1 if wife feels she always consults with her husband, 0 otherwise
Joint decision-making on minor household purchases – men’s reporting
Binary dependent variable; 1 if husband feels he always consults with his wife, 0 otherwise
Wife decides alone on major household purchases
Binary dependent variable; 1 if wife feels she can decide alone, 0 otherwise
Joint decision-making on major household purchases – women’s reporting
Binary dependent variable; 1 if wife feels she always consults with her husband, 0 otherwise
Joint decision-making on major household purchases – men’s reporting
Binary dependent variable; 1 if husband feels he always consults with his wife, 0 otherwise
Household monthly income in JOD
Proxy for household’s economic status. This variable doesn’t account for tangible assets each household has. It includes only the monthly monetary resources available to the household for spending.
Only woman works Dummy variable; 1 if wife reported being currently employed and remunerated, 0 otherwise
Husband controls his own wage Dummy variable; 1 if husband reported controlling his own wage, 0 otherwise
Wife controls her own wage Dummy variable; 1 if wife reported controlling her own wage, 0 otherwise
Wife owns jewelry Dummy variable; 1 if wife owns jewelry Woman’s household decision-making score
Arithmetic average of women’s decision-making score for three domains: water and wastewater management, and home garden production decisions.
142
Results
The means and standard deviation values of the binary dependent variables are
presented in Table 4-2. Following the literature, women’s autonomous decision-making
is defined as when wives make minor or major household purchasing decisions partially
(using ‘medium extent’ responses from the survey) and completely alone (using ‘to high
extent’ responses from the survey; Kishor and Subaiya 2005).5 A similar approach is
used to model women’s joint decision-making in the same domains: minor and major
household purchasing decisions. Drawing from the literature, the relative autonomy
(being able to negotiate and participate in joint decisions) may be more important to the
woman than making decisions alone. It is assumed that only when a woman or a man
responded that ‘[they] always consult with spouse (their husband or wife), in making
minor or major household purchasing decisions, the value was taken 1, or 0 otherwise.
Table 4-2. Descriptive statistics of the binary dependent variables
Women N=47
Men N=44
Mean Std. D. Mean Std. D
Wife decides alone on minor household purchases – women’s reporting
0.30 0.462
Joint decision-making on minor household purchases – women’s reporting
0.49 0.505
Joint decision-making on minor household purchases – men’s reporting
0.50 0.506
Wife decides alone on major household purchases -– women’s reporting
0.26 0.441
Joint decision-making on major household purchases – women’s reporting
0.51 0.505
Joint decision-making on major household purchases – men’s reporting
0.55 0.504
5 Kishor and Subaiya (2005) discuss a different set of options for questions related to decisions about minor and major household purchases. For the purposes of my analysis, I treated the ‘medium extent’ and ‘to high extent’ responses from the survey as decisions made by women alone and the ‘I always consult with spouse’ response as decisions made jointly.
143
The summary of the mean and standard deviation values of the indicator
variables included in regression models is provided in Table 4-3. These variables are
used in addition to indicator variables presented in Table 3-1 in Chapter 3. The mean of
the household’s monthly income reported by women is 481.90 JOD (or US$679.50) vs.
449.20 JOD (or US$633.40) reported by men.6 Only 0.15 women reported being
currently employed and remunerated, that is, at the time of the survey they reported
being economically engaged in the formal economy, while the majority of women, as
reported in Table 3-7 in Chapter 3, were not employed (reported being a housewife as
the primary occupation; mean value of 0.85). The majority of husbands control their own
wages (mean value of 0.86), which was primarily generated from retirement and
additional farming activities that most men were engaged in after retirement. The mean
value of women’s control of their own wages, if they work, is low (0.26), confirming
findings from the qualitative focus groups discussions, which explored whether women
controlled their own wage income. Almost half of the women in the sample owned
jewelry (mean value of 0.47 reported by women vs. mean value of 0.45 reported by
men).7 The mean of women’s household decision-making score is 0.30 as reported by
women and 0.21 as reported by men. It should be noted that the variables, such as
wife/husband’s control of their own wages and wife’s ownership of jewelry, were
included in the model to explore if they mattered in women’s decision-making agency
6 Household monthly income does not include earnings from the garden production but it is assumed to include savings from purchasing less potable water or paying less for water-related services. Therefore, regression results should be treated with caution.
7 The questions in the household survey were structured in a way where each respondent could indicate who in the household owned a particular asset allowing to obtain the ownership of the household asset.
144
(making decisions alone or jointly) regarding the minor and major household
purchases.8 9
Table 4-3. Descriptive statistics of the predictor variables Women
N=47 Men N=44
Mean Std. D. Mean Std. D
Household monthly income in JOD 481.9 400.2 449.2 298.3
Only woman works 0.15 0.360
Husband controls his own wage 0.86 0.347
Wife controls her own wage 0.26 0.441
Wife owns jewelry 0.47 0.504 0.45 0.504
Woman’s household decision-making score 0.30 0.259 0.21 0.183
The regression results of bivariate logistic models are presented in Tables 4-4
through 4-6. The results of each table are discussed below. The Model with letter (A, B,
C and so on) and the number 1 mean that it is the baseline model since it does not
include the predictor variable - increased water availability from the GWT technology.
The Model with a letter and the number 2 includes the predictor variable for each set.
The coefficients are reported in the results tables. On several occasions, the odds ratio
was calculated by taking an exponent of the coefficient (exp( 𝜷)).
Women’s Decision-making in Minor Household Purchases as Reported by Women Themselves
Decisions made alone: The baseline (Model A1) in Table 4-4 shows that
women’s age, the number of children and the number of adult women other than the
wife are associated with women making decisions alone regarding minor household
8 The survey also included a separate module (Module I: Household assets and access to them) to capture men’s and women’s distribution of assets in the household. Unfortunately, not all respondents completed the Module fully to use the survey results in the regression. Compared to other assets in the households, men and women provided responses on woman’s ownership of jewelry, which was included in the regression.
9 Women making decisions alone on minor or major household purchases from men’s perspective were not regressed because men were not asked about women making decisions in these domains alone.
145
purchases. Women, who are younger and with fewer children, are less likely to make
decisions on minor household purchases alone. Using the odds ratio of age (1/0.835)
and odds ratio of number of children (1/341), women, who are younger, 1.2 times and,
with fewer children, 2.93 times less likely to make decisions on minor household
purchases alone. However, in households with more adult women other than wife
(meaning there are more adult daughters residing in the household) women are more
likely to decide on minor household purchases alone.10 Model A2, which includes the
variable of interest (increased water availability from GWT or treated greywater)
presented similar results. Women, who are younger in age, 1.2 times (odds ratio of
1/0.834), and, with fewer children, 2.85 times (odd ratio of 1/0.35) are less likely to
decide alone on minor household purchases. Women from households with more adult
women other than wife residing in the household, are 0.11 times more likely to decide
on their own (1/9.06 odds ratio).
Decisions made jointly: The baseline (Model B1) in Table 4-4 shows that only
women’s age and the number of adult women other than wife residing in the household
are associated with women’s joint decision-making regarding minor household
purchases. As women age, they are more likely to make joint decisions about minor
household purchases; whereas when the number of adult women residing in the
household other than wife decreases, the women are less likely to make joint decisions
about minor household purchases. Model B2 with predictor variable shows that in
addition to women’s age, and the number of adult women other than wife, age
10 The variable ‘the number of adult women other than the wife residing in the household’ was constructed from the household roster, which captured only the children the couple had in each household. The roster did not ask for other adult female or male relatives in the family unless those resided with the compound of the household. There were a couple of households surveyed that included more than one wife. Those households were excluded from the 48 households used in the regression.
146
difference between spouses, household monthly income and increased water
availability from GWT technology are associated with wife making decisions on minor
household purchases jointly. In addition to women getting older, women are more likely
to make joint decisions about minor household purchases when the age differences
between spouses increases. The decrease in the number of adult women other than the
wife in the household and reduction in the household monthly income make women less
likely to make joint decisions. In Model B2, the reduction in the amount of available
water from the GWT technology leads to women making joint decisions less likely.
Women’s Decision-making in Major Household Purchases as Reported by Women Themselves
Decisions made alone: The results from Table 4-5 show that the baseline
(Model C1) and Model C2 (which includes the predictor variable) do not include any
significant variables. The qualitative data collected during FGDs with men and women,
show that wives do not make decisions alone about major household purchases.
Decisions made jointly: The baseline (Model D1) in Table 4-5 does not include
any significant variables. However, Model D2, which includes the predictor variable,
shows that women’s age, number of children, number of sons, women’s participation in
community affairs, and woman’s household decision-making score are associated with
the wife’s joint decision-making on major household purchases. As women age, they
are more likely to participate in joint decision-making. When women have fewer
children, they are less likely to participate in joint decision-making; however, when
women have more sons, they are more likely to participate in joint decision-making on
major household purchases. Having more sons may indicate that women feel they have
greater bargaining power to participate in decision-making. This may also indicate that
147
they command more respect from their husbands because they have more sons, which
may contribute to women’s confidence building. Women’s participation in community
affairs increases the likelihood of women’s joint decision-making. This is another
indicator of women’s increased bargaining power. The decrease in women’s household
decision-making score makes it less likely for women to be involved in joint decision-
making about major household purchases. Since the decision score aggregated both
autonomous and joint decisions in three domains (water and wastewater management,
and home garden production), to account for women’s relative decision making capacity
within the household, the decrease in the aggregate score (meaning women make less
decisions alone or jointly) leads women to less likely make decisions on major
household purchases jointly with their husbands.
Joint Decision-making in Minor and Major Household Purchases as Reported by Men
Joint decisions on minor household purchases: The baseline (Model E1) in
Table 4-6 shows that household monthly income, women’s education years completed,
and spousal schooling differences are associated with women’s participation in joint
decision-making regarding minor household purchases. Although as stated earlier the
monthly household income should be treated with caution, the decrease in monthly
income makes it less likely for women to participate in joint decisions. However, as
women acquire more education, they are more likely to participate in joint decisions.
The decrease in spousal schooling differences makes it less likely for women to
participate in joint decisions regarding minor household purchases. The Model E2
provides the same results, and there is no significant association between the predictor
148
variable and women’s joint decision-making on minor household purchases from men’s
perspective.
Joint decisions on major household purchases: The baseline (Model F1) in
Table 4-6 shows that only household monthly income and women’s education years
completed are associated with women’s participation in joint decision-making regarding
major household purchases. The decrease in household monthly income makes it less
likely for women to participate in joint decisions. However, as women acquire more
education, they are more likely to participate in joint decisions. The Model F2 shows the
same result, and there is no significant association between the predictor variable and
women’s joint decision-making on major household purchases.
149
Table 4-4. Binary logistic regression results comparing models measuring the effect on household decision-making around minor household purchases made by wives alone and jointly - her reporting
Baseline Model A1 Decisions alone
Model A2 Decisions alone
Baseline Model B1 Decisions jointly
Model B2 Decision jointly
Coeff. (𝜷) Coeff. (𝜷) Coeff. (𝜷) Coeff. (𝜷)
Intercept -9.907 -10.04 -28.86 -32.58
Age -0.181 ** -0.182 ** 0.141 * 0.189 **
Age difference between spouses -0.151 -0.152 0.134 0.201 *
Number of children -1.077 ** -1.05 ** -0.187 0.143
Number of sons 0.101 0.069 -0.022 -0.237
Number of adult women other than wife 2.213 *** 2.204 *** -0.979 * -1.528 *
Household monthly income in JOD 0.002 0.002 -0.004 -0.005 *
Only woman works 20.12 20.40 22.84 25.03
Woman doesn't work 18.63 18.78 23.46 24.78
Husband controls his own wage -2.678 -2.573 -0.736 -1.428
Wife controls her own wage -0.371 -0.452 0.316 -0.073
Education years completed 0.083 0.087 0.212 0.303
Schooling difference (man-woman) 0.104 0.113 0.096 0.152
Wife owns jewelry -1.412 -1.394 0.317 0.362
Wife is active in the community -1.829 -1.948 2.656 2.721
Woman’s household decision-making score 4.46 4.667 -3.957 -4.356
Increased water availability from GWT technology -0.264 -1.986 **
Number of cases (n) 91 91 91 91
Likelihood ratio chi-square (df) 39.344 (14) *** 39.423 (16) *** 56.618 (15) *** 61.713 (16) ***
Pseudo R2 0.352 0.352 0.463 0.492
Notes: Reference categories given in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, and ***p < 0.01
150
Table 4-5. Binary logistic regression results comparing models measuring the effect on household decision-making around major household purchases made by wives alone and jointly - her reporting
Baseline Model C1 Decisions alone
Model C2 Decisions alone
Baseline Model D1 Decisions jointly
Model D2 Decision jointly
Coeff. (𝜷) Coeff. (𝜷) Coeff. (𝜷) Coeff. (𝜷)
Intercept -12.89 -13.41 -32.64 -32.92
Age -0.104 -0.106 0.164 0.166 **
Age difference between spouses -0.085 -0.062 0.114 0.12
Number of children 0 0.207 -0.692 -0.672 *
Number of sons -0.829 -1.024 0.851 0.836 *
Number of adult women other than wife 0.257 0.067 0.186 0.162
Household monthly income in JOD 0 -0.001 -0.002 -0.002
Only woman works 39.05 40.53 23.60 23.81
Woman doesn't work 19.55 20.36 24.66 24.82
Husband controls his own wage -0.172 0.399 -0.057 -0.033
Wife controls her own wage -0.334 -1.028 -0.569 -0.636
Education years completed -0.085 -0.077 0.266 0.272
Schooling difference (man-woman) -0.033 -0.017 0.047 0.051
Wife owns jewelry -18.59 -18.45 0.278 0.289
Wife is active in the community -1.012 -1.436 2.977 2.972 *
Woman’s household decision-making score 2.455 3.179 -5.367 -5.354 **
Increased water availability from GWT technology
-1.251 -0.186
Number of cases (n) 91 91 91 91
Likelihood ratio chi-square (df) 34.434 (15) *** 36.019 (16) *** 56.951 (15) *** 57.008 (16) ***
Pseudo R2 0.315 0.327 0.465 0.466
Notes: Reference categories given in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, and ***p < 0.01
151
Table 4-6. Binary logistic regression results comparing models measuring the effect on household decision-making around minor and major household purchases made by wives jointly - his reporting
Baseline Model E1 Minor purchases jointly
Model E2 Minor purchase jointly
Baseline Model F1 Major purchases jointly
Model F2 Major purchases jointly
Coeff. (𝜷) Coeff. (𝜷) Coeff. (𝜷) Coeff. (𝜷)
Intercept -2.160 -2.607 -6.199 -6.899
Age 0.027 0.032 0.057 0.060
Age difference between spouses -0.073 -0.048 -0.043 -0.015
Number of children -0.127 0.195 0.005 0.314
Number of sons 0.260 0.012 0.398 0.155
Number of adult women other than wife 1.05 0.797 0.663 0.436
Household monthly income in JOD -0.007 ** -0.008 ** -0.004 ** -0.004 **
Only woman works -23.07 -22.585 -21.599 -20.835
Woman doesn't work -22.71 -23.208 -21.711 -21.668
Husband controls his own wage 0.068 0.264 0.576 0.913
Wife controls her own wage -0.207 -0.565 -0.489 -1.014
Education years completed 0.310 * 0.323 * 0.311 ** 0.304 *
Schooling difference (man-woman) -0.264 ** -0.247 * -0.155 -0.115
Wife owns jewelry -0.140 0.395 -0.004 0.670
Wife is active in the community 1.007 1.075 0.178 0.224
Woman’s household decision-making score 0.711 0.803 1.419 1.494
Increased water availability from GWT technology
-1.40 -1.340
Number of cases (n) 91 91 91 91
Likelihood ratio chi-square (df) 59.277 (15) *** 61.139 (16) *** 59.9 (15) *** 61.864 (16) ***
Pseudo R2 0.479 0.489 0.482 0.493
Notes: Reference categories given in parentheses *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, and ***p < 0.01
152
Insights from FGDs about Women’s Decision-making
Before discussing the results of regression analysis, it is important to incorporate
findings from FGDs, which can aid with the interpretation of regression results. The
findings are organized in a similar manner as regressions by reporting decision-making
insights from men’s and women’s perspectives separately, and then combining men’s
and women’s responses about joint decision-making and presenting the findings from
the spousal perspective.
Women were more engaged in recounting experiences of how they make or
participate in decision-making in the household, and what decisions they make alone or
jointly. The FGDs on household decision-making were not strictly structured and did not
probe perspectives in the same household domains as discussed in Chapters 3 (water
and wastewater management and home garden production) and 4 (minor and major
household purchases). The discussions were based on a set of probing questions,
which expanded during FGD session to capture as many nuances as respondents could
provide on how decision-making was done in their households. During FGDs both men
and women shared the ‘strategies’ or threat options used by them or their spouses to
get heard during the decision-making process.
Women’s Decision-making in Households from Women’s Perspective
Women have relative autonomy to make decisions in the household, however
most decisions they make alone or jointly can be characterized as follows: 1) decisions
related to internal household affairs and shaped by women’s normative roles. Women
decide on their own what to cook for the family, relatives or friends, when to visit
relatives or neighbors (women highlighted having a relative freedom in mobility) and
when to buy something for themselves or their daughters (e.g., clothes, cosmetics or as
153
one man described it “something that beautifies my wife”). And, 2) most decisions
women make were situated under the private space.
{Wife}; “[Husband] gave me freedom to make decisions such as make meals for my friends and relatives, visit my relative or neighbors, and buy something for myself or my daughter.”
{Wife}; “All decisions are pertained to inside the household. For example, if our son is sick I can take him to doctor without [my] husband's permission.”
{Wife}; “Jointly with [my] husband even in small decisions such as the type of trees to plant in the garden and buying things needed for home. Marriage of boys and daughters – I have greater participation in decision-making.”
{Wife}; “If [my] husband wants to change his job he discusses with me.”
To participate in decision-making, women have to continuously negotiate and
consider their husband’s mood, interests or desires, surrounding environment, and their
own experiences with past decision-making or having confidence before they engage in
the decision-making process.
{Wife}; “It depends on the mood of my husband. If he is in a good mood I can open a discussion on the subject and we decide. But if he has a bad mood I don’t discuss any matters with him. He asks [my opinion] in some decisions, for example, if [we] want to buy new furniture or new decorations for the house. If [he] wants to leave [his] job he discusses with me.”
{Wife}; “I participate in all decisions. At the end of the discussion, my husband makes the final decision.”
{Wife}; “I make about 90% of decisions in our family because my husband trusts me. All the decisions I made were right in the past. And [my] decisions were all correct...”
{Wife}; “When men sell land or cultivate new land husband must include his wife in decision-making. If I am not included [I] will be upset for a month.”
Women’s Decision-making in Households from Men’s Perspective
Similar to women, men’s stimulus to involve women in decision-making was
driven by women’s gender roles within the household, and private-space expectations.
154
Jokingly or not, some men related all decisions to their wives: “All decisions [in the
household] are tied to my wife...” In other instances, men attributed decision-making
only to selected domains for the wife’s involvement in household decision-making and
the majority of those decisions were made jointly. These domains included children’s
welfare (education, marriage or health), household daily activities, and some major
household purchases but limited to the purchase of a car or discussing the prospects of
buying land.
{Husband}; “[Decisions] that I share are related to marriage of children and children’s education…”
{Husband}; “If I want to buy a car I will discuss with my wife.”
{Husband}; “My wife decides what to cook, what to buy as clothes and other things for the house.”
{Husband}; “Buying new land is my decision but I will discuss with my wife.”
Domains Where Men Do Not Involve Women in Decision-making from Women’s
Perspective
During FGDs both women and men delineated domains where women’s input
was not solicited. According to women, men’s taking or giving loans was not discussed
in the households. Since men consider themselves as primary income earners, this may
mean that they do not feel obliged to discuss financial transactions with their wives. On
the other hand, some women implied participating in informal loaning to other fellow
women in the community or kinship group using their own income they earned or
acquired independently from their husbands (e.g., a monetary gift from children or
extended family). However, in most cases, men were aware of and approved this
financial transaction. Based on FGDs, women also lacked agency to decide on their
own when decisions pertained to their own employment. Almost in every instance, both
155
women and men suggested that men decided whether the woman may work and where
she may work.
{Wife}; “To loan money or take money from somebody without asking [me]. Otherwise, I make about 90% of decisions in our family.”
{Wife}; “All decisions are in my husband’s hand.”
{Wife}; “Decisions related to wife's employment must be approved by husband.”
{Wife}; “Government jobs for women are more preferable by men.”
Domains Where Men Do Not Involve Women in Decision-making from Men’s
Perspective
Another domain where women’s participation in decision-making was limited is
related to matters in public space. It was not clear from the FGDs what men meant but
based on survey responses and discussions with NCARE researchers after FGDs I can
assume that these matters were related to men’s interaction with public space including
market, employment, community meetings, political discussions, as well as finding
another wife. The discussion of men marrying the 2nd wife was a topic where men never
involved women in their decision-making.
{Husband}; “I don’t discuss my job prospects because she doesn’t know the nature of my work.”
{Husband}; “Issues outside the house are decided by men.”
{Husband}; “If I want to take another wife, change employment, purchase a house – I decide alone.”
{Husband}; “I make decisions myself related to charity or giving donations.”
{Husband}; “…if I want to marry another woman I won’t discuss this [with my wife] because she will object.”
156
Domains of Decision-making Important for Women from Spousal Perspective
According to men and women, domains associated with children’s wellbeing
were discussed jointly. This was the most common theme discussed during the FGDs,
and both men and women acknowledged that women had relative autonomy to decide
on their own when matters were associated with their children (e.g., taking a sick child
to the doctor, deciding on children’s education, or marriage prospects). Some men
regarded their wives having increased agency to make and exercise decisions, which
they attributed to woman’s educational level as well as to possible exposure to media or
other sources to obtain information or build awareness, or possible presence of a large
social network.
{Men and women in separate FGDs}; “Education of children.”
{Husband}; “Nowadays women are aware of everything…There are women that have ability and awareness and she makes a lot of things to happen.”
{Listing of decisions where men and women agreed on women’s input; separate FGDs}; “… marriage of children, building a new house, participation in social events (weddings), education of children especially in private schools.”
Other domains where spouses made joint decisions included holding/organizing
family celebrations, improving housing conditions (e.g., buying furniture), or making
large purchases, such as a house, a car or piece of land.
Although the survey results show that men decided on the GWT technology
adoption/setup alone, the FGDs provided a different account where it appeared that
men sought input from their wives before deciding whether to adopt or not to adopt the
technology; “I had to discuss with my wife because she works with me in the garden
and when I am not at home she will use [the GWT unit] to irrigate trees.”
157
To summarize, collecting men’s and women’s experiences and personal
accounts on how decisions are made in the household and women’s role in the
decision-making process helped verify survey results as well as tease out how
decisions were factually made inside the household and what predictors of women’s
bargaining were important to decision-making from the respondent’s perspective.
Discussion
To continue the discussion started in Chapter 3, in reference with findings from
the literature, the regression results in Tables 4-4 through 4-6 presented several new
predictors that are significant to women’s participation in household decision-making in
the rural Jordanian setting. Age continues to be positively correlated with women
making decisions jointly on major household purchases perceived by husbands. This
implies that as women age, they are more likely to be engaged by their husband in the
decisions related to land or house purchase, or other large asset purchases. Women,
being a housewife, are positively correlated with women making decisions alone or
jointly on minor or major household purchases from the women’s perspective. In
contrast, from the men’s perspective, women, being a housewife, are negatively
correlated with women making decisions jointly on minor or major household purchases.
These results imply that women who do not work are less likely to participate in minor or
major household purchase decisions jointly with their husbands. Moreover, men’s
control of their wages is negatively correlated with women making decisions alone or
jointly on minor or major household purchases from the women’s perspective. On the
other hand, the same variable is positively correlated with women deciding jointly on
minor or major household purchases from the men’s perspective. Although the empirical
results imply that women cannot exercise control over men’s income, their decisions are
158
still valued by their husbands and included in joint decisions about making minor or
major household purchases. The wife’s control of her own wage is positively correlated
with women making decisions jointly on minor or major household purchases, and alone
on major purchases. On the contrary, it is negatively correlated with joint decisions on
minor and major purchases from the men’s perspective. This may imply that men do not
recognize when women earn their own income and do not regard it as an important
contribution to household wellbeing. This also confirms the insights obtained from FGDs
when men stated that women mostly spend their income on themselves and their
daughters.
Furthermore, the results from logistic regressions suggest that the relationship
between the increased water availability from GWT technology application and women’s
decision-making alone or jointly about minor and major household purchases could not
be statistically established. This implies that there is no evidence that women’s
command over the GWT technology use spillover to other household decision-making
domains.
In summary, the empirical findings suggest that in the Jordanian rural setting
which is characterized by ‘space-based patriarchy’ and that the gender imbalance in the
household is pervasive, having access to supplemental water is not a sufficient
condition on its own to influence women’s agency in the domains that are not related to
water and wastewater management, or home garden production. The GWT technology
is a fairly new technology and produces adequate water only to keep trees and the
garden green, however it has not yet produced the conditions that could challenge the
power imbalance in the household. In agreement with literature, the age, number of
159
sons, education, and women’s involvement in community affairs are important
determinants to women’s bargaining in rural Jordanian households.
To further discuss how each predictor affects and contributes to women’s
empowerment in Jordan, I present a brief schematic depiction of the Jordanian women’s
decision-making continuum to highlight the different stages of women’s decision-
making, what each stage may involve and how these stages interact with space-based
patriarchy.
Figure 4-1 represents the continuum of women’s empowerment in the context of
rural Jordan. The figure consists of different elements, which define the journey that
married women of 29+ years old and with different degrees of empowerment can go
through to enhance their agency. Each element in the process is defined along a
continuum and guided by its interactions with public and private spaces. The continuum
represents the ladder the woman may have to climb to enhance agency. The first two
elements (expressing the opinion or participation in the consultation process) are
centered on private space. The degree of women’s empowerment is low and women
may express their opinion, give input when asked, or contribute to minor household
purchases such as buying bottled water, or other household items to meet their
normative roles within households. They rarely make decisions alone. Women’s
interactions with outside (public) spaces are limited or non-existent. Women in this
stage may be characterized as being young, with fewer children, and a son who is still
small.
The next element is associated with women’s participation in the decision-making
process, which may be to make decisions alone or jointly. There is likelihood of
160
women’s interaction with public spaces (for example, wife may be involved with
community affairs or wife may be employed), which is positively correlated with
women’s bargaining power. As women age, have more children and sons, become
better educated, and increase exposure to public spaces, these factors can contribute
to women’s enhanced bargaining power.
The final two steps are related to phases where women are seen as partners to
their husbands and leaders among peers. Women’s position is tightly bound with public
space. A woman either has a public life: she may be a politician or runs a community-
based organization. In this stage, women collaborate and participate with male
household members on all aspects of decision-making. They participate in decisions
about major household purchases (e.g., buying land or house) or they contribute their
wages to the household’s budget, which is recognized by male members of the
household. In the last element as the leader, women may control income or assets, and
allocate household resources to start income-generating activities. More importantly
because of their leadership role, women in this stage are seen as advocates of change
to challenge cultural norms and expectations that constrain women’s empowerment in
rural Jordan.
The empirical findings from this research positioned women from rural Madaba
and Karak between two elements: consultation and participations, which are deeply
positioned in the private space, although there are short exposure interactions with
public spaces. The determinants that are important to women’s bargaining power in this
continuum are women’s age, number of sons, number of adult women other than wife in
the household, education level, and women’s participation in community affairs. The
161
water intervention programs can contribute to enhancing women’s bargaining power in
the household but requires more than water as a resource to challenge the power
imbalance within the household.
Figure 4-1. Continuum of women’s empowerment in the context of rural Jordan
(author’s elaboration). Adapted from Personalize Learning, LLC.
Concluding Remarks
Both theoretical and empirical research on intra-household resource allocation
has long concluded the importance of women’s bargaining for themselves and their
children’s welfare, however, the manner in which it is accomplished and shaped is the
subject of exploration because different cultures and social norms influence the
process. In the context of rural Jordan, the results show that bargaining does not take
162
the shape of ‘revolt’ or ‘threatening’ to challenge power imbalances. Filing for divorce or
being divorced is a social taboo, and no women in this study resorted to this strategy.
Women, instead, take ‘polite’ ways to influence and negotiate with their husbands, using
skills acquired through long marriage and the status of having children, especially sons,
in their negotiations. However, there are occasions when women resort to retreating to
their parent’s home as a fallback position until their husbands change their decisions for
the benefit of women. This strategy was mostly reported by younger women who have
younger children and lack power to exercise influence over their husband’s decisions.
Older women use having sons, and years of marriage to influence their husbands to
account for their wishes, especially when it pertains to children’s health, education,
marriage and household well-being. Moreover, the findings demonstrate the importance
of assessing local meanings of decision-making processes and the gender norms
behind them that can help identify pathways toward enhancing women’s agency for
decision-making that are acceptable at the household and community levels. Context-
specific and, at times, household-specific measurements of women’s empowerment
may reflect women’s lived experiences, and the challenges and opportunities women
face. Alone or in aggregate they may make women more ‘empowered’ in comparison to
others in their communities or even in households.
163
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION: IMPLICATIONS AND MOVING FORWARD
The overall goal of this study was to examine how interventions promoting water-
saving technologies, such as greywater treatment, influence intra-household bargaining
dynamics in Jordan. In particular, the study examined: (1) the impact of GWT
technology on gender roles and relations around household water management and
home garden production domains; (2) whether the use of GWT technology offer
economic or non-economic benefits to women; (3) the impact of the GWT technology on
women’s participation in household decision-making; (4) the types of decisions (alone or
jointly) women make in the household; and (5) whether women’s agency from making
decision in the water and home garden domains spillover to other domains of household
economy Using water as a medium, the study collected contextual information on
factors that determine women’s decision-making power within rural Jordanian
households.
Chapters 2 through 4 address the above stated objectives that contribute to the
growing literature on understanding gender roles and relations, and how they are
influenced by intra-household resource allocation decisions within households. The
study also expands the body of knowledge on women’s empowerment in Jordan and
contributes to the growing literature on women’s empowerment and its interface with
household water used for domestic and production purposes.
Summary of Implications of Research Findings
The findings of the study have several implications related to the objectives of the
study, but also highlight some methodological implications that are worth noting in this
summary.
164
Methodological Implications
Besides Jordan-wide national demographic and health survey, household
surveys in rural Jordan rarely include women as additional respondents in the survey
design, presumably leading to large sample bias, which in turn undermines the external
validity of results by preventing their generalization to the entire population. In this study
both adult men and women were targeted through the quantitative and qualitative data
collection methods to mitigate a sample bias risk and obtain individual-level data to
compare perceptions and personal experiences by the members of the same
household. The survey enumerators from NCARE, who had limited exposure to
interviewing secondary respondents within the same household (a woman in this case
and on several occasions, adult son or daughter), noted their experiences during survey
administration. Their experiences and the results of the study suggest that women and
men respond to the same questions differently, which is largely driven by their separate
spheres of responsibility within the same household, or due to their socially prescribed,
gendered roles and domains. This highlights that who responds to questions matter and
in gender research, it matters significantly to understand the differential situations and
power imbalances of men and women within the same household. Coates et al. (2010)
observed similar effects in Bangladesh with household food security surveys. They
concluded that household surveys should ensure a balanced representation of
respondents with different demographic characteristics within the same household who
relay personal experiences that are not collectively or similarly shared by members of
the same household (Coates ibid).
Operationalization and measures of women’s empowerment are increasingly
nuanced; the study shows how one aspect of operationalization has changed and would
165
not have been revealed without the multi-pronged strategy of combining household
survey, FGDs, and transect walks. The survey results suggest that women wanted the
men to appear to be the responsible party for everything, even though surveys were
conducted in women’s private space (at their homes) one-on-one by female
enumerators, meaning that in the private space of their home women should be more
comfortable to openly express their perceptions and personal experiences. On the
contrary, when FGDs with women were conducted in a public space (in an office of
community-based organization), women appeared compelled to be candid about their
contribution to their household’s economy and the important role they play in
maintaining the household’s wellbeing. They were not afraid to claim that most tasks in
the household with regard to water and wastewater management, home garden
production, and the household’s overall wellbeing are controlled by women or jointly
with their husbands. These methodological distinctions merit further research to
understand why women are compelled or perhaps feel freer to acknowledge their roles
in the public space instead of in the private space, and whether it is a peer-to-peer
pressure or solidarity with other women in the public space that gives women
confidence to speak out.
Implications of Treating Water as a Resource on Women’s Empowerment
Interventions involving water resources or water infrastructure (technologies) and
women tend to focus on improving access to water for domestic or agricultural use, and
reducing time and labor burdens of access, which are general narratives of the
development discourse. They rarely focus on the management or control aspects of the
water or water technology that can have larger multiplying effects that vary from
children’s health (from improved hygiene) to household wellbeing to woman’s agency,
166
especially from the perspective of Kabeer’s (1999) ‘power within’, that is a satisfaction
with one self or self-realization. Evidence from this study shows that control and
management of water resources is not only biased in favor of men but the meaning of
‘control over a resource’ has different meanings. Men’s control over water resources is
related more to technical aspects of water use and management (e.g., fixing a water
pump), whereas women and children are directly involved in the actual practices of
water use and management. Instead of asking who has access to water it is more
informative to ask, “who is involved in water-related tasks (that is, who provides labor),
who decides when this task is to be performed or who controls the outcome of the
task?” by revealing the roles and contributions of different household members and,
particularly, women. Furthermore, as Kabeer (1999) argues in her discussion of
measuring resources: “How changes in women’s resources will translate into changes
in the choices they are able to make will depend, in part, on other aspects of the
conditions in which they are making their choices” (p. 443). This is an important
argument. The FGDs with women, in particular, show how women’s choices regarding
water management are affected by its availability, quantity, quality, part of the day or
time for its use, intention for its use, and, finally, the value that women assign to water.
To the hypothetical question, “What would women do if water was supplied in
abundance?” the most frequent answers obtained were storing water, irrigating home
gardens, and increasing water consumption in the household but not to the level where
it is overused. Thus, by going more in-depth with questions in the survey that are cross-
checked with FGDs, the findings can elucidate a number of complex social
arrangements in relation to water resources access, management, and decision-
167
making, but also shed light into intra-household priorities, concerns, and preferences of
the users.
The evidence from the study shows that the increased availability of water (under
the context of scarce water) is empowering to women. Although women do not receive
economic benefits from the GWT technology they still consider themselves ‘winners.’
This is because the GWT technology enables them to fulfill their societal expectations of
maintaining ‘a good womanhood’ and/or ‘a good motherhood’ image. This aspect of
social arrangement appears to be more important to women coupled with the quality of
life improvements. GWT technology allows women to fulfill their water-related tasks on
time and allows them and other household members to sleep at night during the water
supply day, and to maintain proper hygiene for themselves and the household. They
also do not have to worry about water being wasted because water used inside the
house would ultimately irrigate trees after undergoing treatment in the GWT unit.
Furthermore, the technology allows women to re-allocate potable water to grow herbs,
flowers, and vegetables in home gardens. As a result, the impact of the technology
within their domain of influence allows women to gain agency from feeling increased
self-worthiness and doing something good for the family and the environment.
GWT technology returns monetary benefits directly to men due to their position
within and navigation of public spaces as well as monetary resources are mainly
controlled by men within a household. The resource-rich public spaces, where men
largely pay water bills, purchase parts for water pumps, participate in community
discussions related to water interventions, as well as order cesspit cleaning and other
water-related services, continue returning the benefits of reduced cesspit cleanings or
168
fresh water purchases to the hands of the men. That is to say, by not having to pay for
services or purchases, men retain more financial resources for their own disposal.
Moreover, the empirical findings from this study suggest that in rural Jordanian
settings where gender imbalances in household activities is common, women’s
command over GWT technology along with providing trainings and considering other
socio-economic characteristics and household relations (such as household
composition, age, education, women’s status or social capital) contributes to women’s
agency, especially as women participate and contribute to joint decision-making.
Although the management of household water resources in Jordan by women helps
them meet their normative roles, the findings of the study highlight that water resource
or a water technology is similarly important as control over land, credit, livestock, or
other assets for women’s empowerment. It can contribute to enhancing women’s
agency to participate and influence household decisions that are more strategic in
nature, such as participating jointly in major household purchase decisions and
improving the wellbeing of their children (marriage or education).
Implications on Women’s Empowerment
Empowerment must be defined in the local/regional context. In this study the
participants were not asked to define women’s empowerment, but had I asked, I am
certain I would receive different definitions of empowerment that are shaped by
personal life experiences, aspirations and, in the case of Jordan, by men’s and women’s
navigation of private and public spaces. This tendency is supported by empirical
evidence in the empowerment literature (discussed extensively in Kabeer 2001;
Malhotra et al. 2002; Narayan 2002; Alkire et al. 2012; Leder, Clement, and Karki 2017).
There are many reasons why defining empowerment contextually is important. One, it is
169
shaped by socio-cultural, religious, economic, legal, and political environments that can
enable or restrain women’s empowerment. Two, it helps identify and choose among
various measures of women’s empowerment that are more substantial for that context.
Evidence from this study suggests that having sons and adult females other than the
wife residing in the household are empowering to rural Jordanian women. Women’s
ability to bargain also depends on the type of decisions they participate in. Joint
decision-making is the most preferred type of decision-making from both women’s and
men’s perspectives. It contributes to building women’s confidence and trust in
negotiating with their husbands, and in the long run have the potential to translate into
enhancing women’s agency in making-decisions alone.
Finally, understanding how women themselves operationalize empowerment is
as critically important as is how others view empowerment, particularly those who
support the empowerment process (Kabeer 2001; Leder, Clement, and Karki 2017).
Malhotra et al. (2002) argues that “the underlying structures of gender inequality are
often invisible to the actors in a particular social milieu; they are often experienced as
‘natural’ and, as such, inalterable” (p. 18). The findings from this study show that women
find ways to exercise agency even in the contexts where they are limited by choice. As
one of the respondent said in the FGDs:
“My fallback position to influence my husband is to take my children to my parents and stay there for a week or month until my husband changes his mind and takes my decision into consideration.”
This research provided evidence that GWT technology can have a positive
impact on women’s bargaining power in the household by providing alternative
resources to allow women to receive benefits and fulfill their social desires of being
good wives and mothers.
170
Moving forward
Using insights from Naila Kabeer’s empowerment framework, the extent to which
interventions in the domestic water sector, under conditions of extreme water scarcity,
may offer opportunities to women to increase their participation in intra-household water
resources allocation and home garden production decisions, was examined. The
findings of the study show that relationships linking water and other household resource
allocations and women’s empowerment are complex, context and household specific. In
addition, broader gender relations in the household (marked by age, household
composition, or one’s position in the household) and interactions between resource-rich
public and resource-poor private spaces influence the empowerment process. However,
progressive advancements in the country enabled women in Jordan to exercise life-
changing choices in relation to staying longer in school, marrying late, or having fewer
children, although women still experience limited economic opportunities to fully realize
their capabilities. All these concerns raise further questions regarding what factors are
more empowering to women in the household water sector and home garden
production: changing gender relations, economic and political factors, greater autonomy
and social attitudes, or a mix of all above.
Further research is needed to examine the importance of water resources and
water management technologies in the production decisions at the farm level using sex-
disaggregated methods. Research should continue exploring what other empowerment
factors challenge the socio-economic and political systems that keep women in private
spaces. Offering women new technologies, assets and new sources of income without
challenging the patriarchal gender norms and cultural expectations may not bring
171
changes but continue the status quo of men to benefit from intra-household resource
allocations.
Furthermore, a more thorough and larger sample size study is needed to test the
hypotheses in this study to be able to generalize results. The study on household-
decision making around home garden production and greywater use provides a limited
understanding of the power dynamics included in intra-household decision-making; it
needs to be scaled up to look into power dynamics in other spheres of women’s lives.
Another way to increase the validity of the findings is to conduct cross-country
comparisons where similar water-saving technologies, including the GWT technology, in
MENA are being promoted, such as in Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Lebanon.
Finally, this research confirms the importance of collecting individual, sex-
disaggregated data about women’s roles and decision-making in households in Jordan.
Although the results of the study require further validation (with larger sample size), the
study still highlights that intra-household resource allocation decisions are important to
the agency of women. In addition, it showed the importance of who to interview in the
household as well as framing questions that go beyond asking who in the household
has access to water. By combining a mixed-method approach and collecting sex-
disaggregated data, the study could directly examine the relationship between how men
and women make decisions and intra-household resources are distributed between
them.
Women’s empowerment in Jordan has seen dramatic changes in the recent
decade. Substantial efforts are in play to integrate more Jordanian women into public
spaces so women can take advantage of political and economic opportunities.
172
Conversations concerning gender roles are also becoming more prominent and thus
this research is a timely effort to contribute to the body of knowledge and support
women’s empowerment in Jordan.
173
APPENDIX A RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS
174
Household Survey Instrument
MODULE A: HOUSEHOLD IDENTIFICATION COVER SHEET
INS
TR
UC
TIO
NS
A.05 Type of Household 1=Male and female adult – household has at least one male and one female adult ≥18 years old 2=Female adult only – household has at least one female adult and no male adults ≥18 years old 3=Male adult only – household has at least one male adult and no female adults ≥18 years old
A.10 Outcome of Interview 1 = Complete 2 = Incomplete 3 = Absent 4 = Refused 5 = Could not locate
A.12ab & A.13ab Respondent Information The primary and secondary respondents are those who self-identify as the primary male and female (or female only) members responsible for the decision making, both social and economic, within the household. In male and female adult households, they are usually the husband and wife; however they can also be other household members as long as they are aged 18 or older. Household head may be identified as an older individual as a sign of respect and might not have all information about the younger members of the family. Therefore, make sure that someone else more knowledgeable should facilitate filling in the missing information (especially don’t know). In female or male adult only households, there will only be a primary respondent -- the principle female or male decision-maker aged 18 or older.
HOUSEHOLD IDENTIFICATION INTERVIEW DETAILS
A.01 Household ID number
A.06 Name of enumerator _______________________
A.02 Village
A.07 Date of first visit / / 2 0 1 5
A.03 District
A.08 Date of second visit / / 2 0 1 5
A.04 Governorate
A.09 Reason for second visit: ____________________________
A.05 Type of household
A.10 Final outcome of interview
RESPONDENT INFORMATION A.11 Date of data entry / / 2 0 1 5
A.12a
A.12b
Primary respondent’s first name and ID: _______________________________
A.13a
A.13b
Secondary respondent’s first name and ID: _____________________________
175
MODULE B: INFORMED CONSENT
Hello, thank you for speaking with us. I am a survey enumerator for the National Center for Agriculture and Research Extension (NCARE) Socioeconomic Division, a government agency that conducts agricultural research and training in Jordan. We are currently carrying out a household survey for NCARE, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) and the University of Florida (USA). The objective of the survey is to gather information on water resources use in rural households and home gardens (also referred as household gardens), as well as the application of treated greywater to supplement irrigation in home gardens in Jordan. This information will be used to assess the impact of greywater treatment technology (GWT) use on men and women’s roles in the household water management and home garden production in rural Jordan. Your and other households in your community have been selected to participate in this interview that includes questions about household water use, garden production, the role of men and women in household water management and other important decisions associated with household expenditures, income and assets use, and family background. The survey includes questions about the household in general, and about individuals within your household, if applicable. Your participation in this interview is voluntary; that is you are free to decide whether or not to participate in the study, as well as what questions you answer. All of the information that you provide will be held confidential to the extent provided by law. Your full name will not appear on the responses to the survey nor in any document generated by this study. Even though you will not receive any compensation nor direct benefits, your participation in this interview is very important, as it will help improve access of rural households to greywater treatment technology in Jordan. The interview has two parts. In the first part, we can interview the principle couple of the household together. If not then the two adults, a man and a woman who maintains the household and knows the most about household. This interview should take approximately 15 minutes. In the second part, we would like to interview each member separately; this interview should take about one hour and a half. Your participation in this study is very important to us and we would be very grateful if you would help us complete both parts of the interview. The data contained in this questionnaire are strictly confidential and will only be used for the objectives of the study. Do you have any questions about this survey or what I have said? If in the future you have any questions regarding the survey and the interview, or concerns or complaints we welcome you to contact Dr. Sandra L. Russo (Principal Investigator) at tel. +0013522731535 or [email protected]; and Nargiza Ludgate (co-Principal Investigator) at tel. +001352273-1531 or [email protected] at: 1765 Stadium Rd., Suite 170 HUB PO Box 113225, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-3225. You can also contact Dr. Samia Akroush, Director of the NCARE’s Socioeconomic Division (Jordanian research coordinator) at tel. 26-472-5071. NCARE’s address is Baq’a (19381) PO Box 639, Amman Jordan. We will leave one copy of this form for you so that you will have a record of this contact information and about the study. To begin the interview, we will need you to initial this page, indicating your consent.
CERTIFICATION: Initials of the informants _______________________________ and _____________________________. I, __________________________________, certify that I have read the above text to the person(s) noted above and name of enumerator
explained the protocol and objectives of this study. Signature of the enumerator ____________________________________________________________
LEAVE ONE COPY OF THE INFORMED CONSENT WITH THE HOUSEHOLD.
176
SECTION 1: THIS SECTION CAN BE COMPLETED AT THE PRESENCE OF BOTH PRIMARY AND SECONDARY RESPONDENTS.
MODULE C. HOUSEHOLD ROSTER AND DEMOGRAPHICS
Enumerator: ASK THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS. ASK THE PRIMARY
OR SECONDARY RESPONDENT, WHOEVER IS MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE AGE, COMPLETED EDUCATION, AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS.
First, we would like to ask you about each member of your household. Let me tell you a little bit about what we mean by household. For our purposes today, members of a household are adults or children that live and eat together for at least 6 months of the last 12 months preceding this interview. Therefore, the member of the household is defined on the basis of usual place of residence. There is exception to this rule as described below:
- Servants (household help), farm workers and other such individuals who live and take meals with the household are to be identified as household members, even though they may not have blood relationship with household head.
Please do not include:
- Anyone who died recently, even if he or she lived here more than 6 months in last 12 months, nor anyone who left the household less than 6 months ago with the intention of being away from the household for a longer period of time such as a household member living and working in city or other country or permanently (this includes either leaving through marriage, or servants and agricultural laborers who have left.)
People who live in same dwelling, but do not share food expenses or eat meals together are not members of the same household. For example, if two brothers each having his own family in the same house, but maintain separate food budgets, they would be constituted as two separate households. The following are example of a household:
- A household consisting of man and his wife/wives and children, father/mother, nephew, and other relatives or non-relatives
- A household consisting of a single person and a household consisting of a couple or several couples with or without children
Please list the names of everyone considered to be a member of this household, starting with the main male (or female, if no adult male) decision maker: LIST THE NAMES OF ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS. THEN ASK: Does anyone else live here even if they are not at home now? These may include children in school or household members at work. IF ‘YES,’ COMPLETE THE LISTING. THEN, COLLECT THE REMAINING COLUMNS OF INFORMATION FOR EACH MEMBER, ONE PERSON AT A TIME.
177
MODULE C. HOUSEHOLD ROSTER AND DEMOGRAPHICS
ID C O D E
First name of the household member: [Start with primary respondent, continue with the secondary respondent, if applicable, and other members]
What is [NAME’s] sex? 1 = Male 2 = Female
What is [NAME’s] relationship to the primary respondent?
What year was [NAME] born?
Marital Status: 1=Married 2=Widowed 3=Divorced 4=Single
Highest grade of education completed by [NAME]:
C.01 [First name] C.02 C.03 C.04 C.05 C.06
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
Response Codes
C.03 Relationship to primary respondent 1=Primary respondent 2=Spouse 3=Son/daughter 4=Son/daughter-in-law 5=Grandson/granddaughter 6=Mother/father 7=Brother/sister 9=Nephew/niece of primary respondent 10=Nephew/niece of spouse 11=Cousin of primary respondent 12=Cousin of spouse 13=Brother/sister-in-law 14=Mother/father-in-law 15=Servant/maid 16=Laborer 96=Other: ______________________________ Specify
C.06 Education level 1=Illiterate 2=Read & write 3=Elementary 4=Preparatory 5=Vocational apprenticeship 6=Secondary 7=Intermediate diploma 8=B.S. 9=Higher education
178
Response Response codes
C.07a C.07b
What was/is your primary occupation? Primary Respondent:
Secondary respondent:
__________________________________ __________________________________
C.08 Sources of household’s monthly income:
[Indicate amounts in Jordanian Dinars (JD)]
[Select all that apply]
Code and Amount ___ ____________ JD ___ ____________ JD ___ ____________ JD ___ ____________ JD ___ ____________ JD ___ ____________ JD ___ ____________ JD
Codes: 1=Wage labor 2=Farming 3=Livestock rearing 4=Government employment 5=Private sector employment 6=Retirement 7=Remittances 8=Business activity within household (except farming & livestock) 96=Other: __________________________ Specify
C.09 Who in the household contributes the most to household expenditures? [Indicate all that apply]
_______ _______ _______ _______
C.11 & C.12: Income & Expenditures 1=Primary respondent 2=Spouse 3=Son/daughter 4=Son/daughter-in-law 5=Grandson/granddaughter 6=Mother/father 7=Brother/sister 9=Nephew/niece of primary respondent 10=Nephew/niece of spouse 11=Cousin of primary respondent 12=Cousin of spouse 13=Brother/sister-in-law 14=Mother/father-in-law 15=Servant/maid 16=Laborer 96=Other: _________________ Specify
C.10 Who in the household manages the household income? [Indicate all that apply]
_______ _______ _______ _______
179
SECTION 2: THIS SECTION MUST BE ADMINISTERED SEPARATELY TO THE PRIMARY AND THE SECONDARY RESPONDENTS
MODULE D: HOUSEHOLD WATER PROCUREMENT AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
[Enumerator: For questions D.01–D.04 write answers in order of importance.]
Response Response codes
D.01 Please list up to 3 sources of water, in order of importance, for drinking purposes in your household.
1. ________ 2. ________ 3. ________
D.01-04: Water sources 1=Municipal network 2=Private well 3=Tanker-truck 4=Bottled water 5=Rainwater 6=Greywater (untreated) 7=Greywater (treated) 8=Canal/stream 96=Other: _______________ Specify 97=Not applicable
D.02 Please list up to 3 sources of water, in order of importance, to water livestock kept in the household compound.
1. ________ 2. ________ 3. ________
D.03 Please list up to 3 sources of water, in order of importance, for cooking, personal hygiene, laundry and cleaning in your household.
1. ________ 2. ________ 3. ________
D.04 Please list up to 3 sources of water, in order of importance, to irrigate home garden.
1. ________ 2. ________ 3. ________
D.05 How many water storage tanks (or cisterns) do you have in your household?
D.06 What is the total storage capacity of all the tanks/cisterns?
_______ m3
98=Don’t know
D.07 In the last month, how often did you fill the water storage tanks/cisterns?
1=1-2 times a month 2=3-4 times a month 3=5 or more times a month 97=Not applicable
Respondent ID (must match ID indicated on page 1 in Module A)
180
[Enumerator: List all sources of water and collect relevant information in each question.]
Please estimate the amount of water your household consumed, on average, from the following sources of water.
(In liters or m3) 97=Not applicable
98=Don’t know
Please estimate how much your household spent on water, on average. (In Jordanian Dinars)
97=Not applicable 98=Don’t know
Please estimate how much your household spent, on average, to maintain the private well.
(In Jordanian Dinars)
97=Not applicable 98=Don’t know
Last month
3 months ago
Last month
3 months ago
Last month
3 months ago
D.8a D.8b D.9a D.9b D.10a D.10b
01.Municipal Network
02.Private well
03.Tanker-truck
04.Bottled water
05.Rainwater
06.Greywater (untreated)
07.Greywater (treated)
08.Canal/stream
96.Other: __________
Response Response codes
D.11 What type of wastewater discharge services does your household have?
[Select all that apply. Go to question D.13 if response
is not <municipal sewer>]
1=Municipal sewer 2=Septic tank 3=Cesspool 96=Other: _____________
Specify
D.12a D.12b
If you use municipal sewer, how much did you pay for sewer? (In Jordanian Dinars)
Last month
Three months ago
[Skip to question D.15 if municipal sewer]
__________ __________
98=Don’t know
D.13 How many times did your household empty/clean the septic tank/cesspool in the last 12 months? [If <never> go to question D.15.]
98=Don’t know 99=Never
D.14 How much did you pay to empty/clean the septic tank/cesspool?
(In Jordanian Dinars)
98=Don’t know
181
[Enumerator: List all tasks to allow respondent to respond to each task applicable and indicate all persons responsible for it.]
Response Response Code
Who in the household usually performs the following tasks?
Who decides when any of the following tasks is to be done?
D.15 & D.16: Person responsible 1=Primary respondent 2=Spouse 3=Son/daughter 4=Son/daughter-in-law 5=Grandson/granddaughter 6=Mother/father 7=Brother/sister 9=Nephew/niece of primary respondent 10=Nephew/niece of spouse 11=Cousin of primary respondent 12=Cousin of spouse 13=Brother/sister-in-law 14=Mother/father-in-law 15=Servant/maid 16=Laborer 96=Other: _____________________ Specify 97=Not applicable
D.15 D.16
01. Fill water storage tank or rainwater cistern
02. Clean water storage tank or rainwater cistern
03. Pay utility (water) bill
04. Pump water from the well
05. Maintain well or fix water pump
06. Purchase tanker-truck water
07. Purchase bottled water
08. Set up and maintain greywater treatment unit
09. Use water for cooking, cleaning, and laundry
10. Water livestock in the compound
11. Irrigate home garden
12. Empty/clean septic tank/cesspool
13. Dig a new pit for septic tank/cesspool
14. Pay for emptying septic tank/cesspool
15. Pay municipal sewer bill
[Enumerator: Please clarify that household includes the house and garden.]
Please indicate how many of the following water outlets are in your household. [If not available then put <0>
DO NOT SKIP.]
[Enumerator: Ask this question only of greywater treatment (GWT) adopters] Please indicate which outlets drain into GWT unit: 0=No drain 1=Drain into GWT unit
D.17 D.18
01. Kitchen sink
02. Laundry machine
03. Dishwasher machine
04. Hand wash sink
05. Shower
06. Bath tab
07. Toilet
08. Outdoor tap (used for washing cars or sprinkling)
182
Response Response codes
D.19 Does your household separate greywater from wastewater? [If <no> or <never> skip to Module E]
D.19 and D.20: 1=Yes 2=No 3=Sometimes 99=Never D.20 Do you treat greywater before use?
D.21 How much greywater is generated in your household on average per week? [In m3]
98=Don’t know
D.22 If your household reuses greywater where is it used?
1=To irrigate the home garden 96=Other: ____________________ Specify
D.23 What percentage of the greywater is used to irrigate the home garden?
_________%
98=Don’t know
D.24 Why does your household use greywater? [Select all that apply]
1=There is not enough water from other sources 2=Water from other sources is too expensive 3=Supplement garden with irrigation water 4=Conserve freshwater 96. Other: _____________________ Specify 98=Don’t know
183
MODULE E: CROP PRODUCTION IN THE HOUSEHOLD GARDEN (Skip and go to next module if no household garden)
Response Response codes
E.01 What is the size of your household garden? (In Dunum)
98=Don’t know
E.02 Please estimate the percentage of the total cultivated home garden irrigated from the following sources of water during the last growing season.
1=Municipal water network __________% 2=Tanker-truck _______________% 3=Private well ________________% 4=Rainwater _________________% 5=Treated greywater______________% 96=Other, specify: _______________%
E.03 What type of irrigation system did you use? 1=Drip irrigation 96=Other: _______________________ Specify
E.04 What was the total volume of water used per irrigation during the last growing season? (In m3)
98=Don’t know
Which crops/trees did you cultivate during the last growing season? [Use <1> if applies, otherwise <0>]
Crop area In Dunum [If <1> was used in E.05]
Number of trees [If <1> was used in E.05]
Total production In kilograms [If <1> was used in E.05]
Frequency of irrigation per week during the growing season 1=Daily 2=4-5 times a week 3=2-3 times a week 4=Once a week 99=Never
E.05 E.06 E.07 E.08 E.09
01. Olives
02. Grapes
03. Almonds
04. Figs
05. Citrus
06. Pomegranates
07. Forage
08. Vegetables
09. Other: _____________ Specify
184
[Enumerator: List all tasks to allow respondent to respond to each task and indicate all persons responsible for it.]
Response Response Code
Who in the household usually performs the following tasks?
Who decides when any of the following tasks is to be done?
E.10 & E.11 Person responsible 1=Primary respondent 2=Spouse 3=Son/daughter 4=Son/daughter-in-law 5=Grandson/granddaughter 6=Mother/father 7=Brother/sister 9=Nephew/niece of primary respondent 10=Nephew/niece of spouse 11=Cousin of primary respondent 12=Cousin of spouse 13=Brother/sister-in-law 14=Mother/father-in-law 15=Servant/maid 16=Laborer 96=Other: _________________ Specify 97=Not applicable
E.10 E.11
01. Preparing land for planting
02. Deciding what to plant/grow
03. Planting
04. Pruning (if trees)
05. Irrigation
06. Fertilizing
07. Applying chemicals for crop protection (for pest or disease control)
08. Harvesting
09. Processing/storing
185
[Enumerator: List all crops/produce to allow respondent to respond to each and indicate the appropriate answer for it.]
How much did your household consume, sell or share from the following crops harvested or produce processed from your home garden during the last growing season? 1= All 2= About half 3=Less than half 4=None 97=Not applicable
Consumed in the household
(Processed and) sold in the market
Shared with neighbors or extended family/relatives
E.12a E.12b E.12c
01.Fresh or pickled olives
02.Olive oil
03.Olive oil soap
04.Grapes
05.Almonds
06.Figs
07.Citrus
08.Pomegranates
09.Forage
010.Vegetables
011.Other: _______________
[Enumerator: Ask below questions for responses in E.12b, otherwise skip to Module F
(if GWT user) or Module G (if non-GWT user)
Response Response codes
E.13 For all crops (and processed produce) sold from the last growing season, who decided how much to sell?
For E.13 - E.15: Sale 1=Primary respondent 2=Spouse 3=Son/daughter 4=Son/daughter-in-law 5=Grandson/granddaughter 6=Mother/father 7=Brother/sister 9=Nephew/niece of primary respondent 10=Nephew/niece of spouse 11=Cousin of primary respondent 12=Cousin of spouse 13=Brother/sister-in-law 14=Mother/father-in-law 15=Servant/maid 16=Laborer 96=Other: ______________________ Specify 97=Not applicable
E.14 For all crops (and processed produce) sold, who made the sale?
E.15 For all crops (and processed produce) sold, who decided how to spend the revenue?
186
MODULE F. HOUSEHOLD GREYWATER TREATMENT [Skip and go to Module G if control group]
Response Response codes
F.01 What type of greywater treatment (GWT) unit does your household have?
1=Two barrel treatment system 2=Four barrel treatment system 3=Constructed wetland system 96=Other: ___________ Specify
F.02 Does it work? [Skip to F.04 if <yes>]
1=Yes 2=No
F.03 If the GWT unit does not work, can you explain why? ____________________________________________________________________________ Write explanation here
F.04 What year was it built/installed?
F.05 What is the capacity of the GWT unit per week? (In m3)
98=Don’t know
F.06 How did your household pay for GWT unit installation? [Select all that apply] [Enumerator: If built/installed by donor, please ask the name of the organization and write down below] ________________________________________ Name of sponsor
1=Built by sponsor 2=Paid with household money 3=Bank loan 4=Borrowed from relatives 5=Borrowed from friends 96=Other: ______________________ Specify
F.07 What was the total cost of your GWT unit (including materials, equipment and installation)? (In Jordanian Dinars)
98=Don’t know
F.08 Do you use the output of GWT unit (i.e., treated greywater) to irrigate the home garden?
For F.08 – F.09 1=Yes 2=No 98=Don’t know F.09 Is your GWT unit equipped with a drip irrigation
system?
F.10 What was the total cost of the drip irrigation system installed (including materials, equipment and installation)? (In Jordanian Dinars)
98=Don’t know
F.11 Do you think the supply of treated greywater for irrigation is sufficient to irrigate your garden?
For F.11 – F.12 1=Yes 2=No 98=Don’t know
F.12 Does the GWT produce a reliable supply of treated greywater for irrigation?
187
[Enumerator: List all tasks to allow respondent to respond to each task and indicate all persons responsible for it.]
Response Response Code
Who in the household performed/ usually performs the following tasks?
Who decided/ decides when any of the following tasks is to be done?
For F.13 - F.14 Person responsible 1=Primary respondent 2=Spouse 3=Son/daughter 4=Son/daughter-in-law 5=Grandson/granddaughter 6=Mother/father 7=Brother/sister 9=Nephew/niece of primary respondent 10=Nephew/niece of spouse 11=Cousin of primary respondent 12=Cousin of spouse 13=Brother/sister-in-law 14=Mother/father-in-law 15=Servant/maid 16=Laborer 96=Other: _________________ Specify 97=Not applicable
F.13 F.14
01. Initial building/installation of the GWT unit (including digging a trench, re-piping and installation)
02. Ensuring a proper use of water in the outlet (i.e., a kitchen sink) to prevent solids/fats draining into GWT unit
03. Periodic cleaning/maintenance of the unit (e.g., cleaning a filter)
04. Repairing the unit if broken/or malfunctioning
05. Setting up the drip irrigation system (if applicable)
06. Scheduling irrigation for home garden
07. Using treated water for garden irrigation
08. Applying irrigation in the garden
[Enumerator: Select all that apply. Do not skip]
Did you grow the following crops before GWT installation?
1=Yes 2=No
Did you use potable water to irrigate the following crops during the last growing season?
1=Yes 2=No
What crops did you irrigate with treated greywater during the last growing season?
1=Used 0=Not used
Crop area, irrigated with treated greywater In Dunum
Number of trees, irrigated with treated greywater
F.15 F.16 F.17 F.18 F.19
01. Olives
02. Grapes
03. Almonds
04. Figs
05. Citrus
06. Pomegranates
07. Forage
08. Vegetables
09. Other: _______________ Specify
188
F.20 What changes did you notice after the GWT unit has been installed in your house compound? [Enumerator: Read each statement to capture response]
0=No change
1=Decreased 2=Increased
01. Municipal network water bill
02. Use of fresh water in the household
03. Use of fresh water to irrigate garden
04. Tanker-truck water purchase
05. Water withdrawal from the well
06. Septic tank/cesspool cleaning costs
07. Garden production
08. Cultivated area of the garden
09. Increased probability to harvest crop
F.21 How do you think the GWT unit affected your time?
[Enumerator: Read each statement to capture response]
0=No Change
1=Decreased 2=Increased
01. Time spent on procuring water for household needs
02. Time spent on maintaining septic tank/cesspool
03. Time spent on maintaining GWT unit
04. Time spent on growing crops in the home garden
05. Time spent on processing harvest from the garden
06. Time spent on leisure
F.22
[Enumerator: Read each statement to capture response]
Please indicate if you agree or disagree that GWT allows to:
01. Reduce freshwater use for irrigation
02. Provide needed water for garden
03. Increase garden production
04. Grow trees or other crops in the garden
05. Reduce household water bills
06. Reduce septic tank/cesspool cleaning expenses
07. Increase time used on home garden production
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
1=Strongly disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neither agree nor disagree
4=Agree
5=Strongly agree
189
Response Response codes
F.23 Did you attend any training programs on GWT use?
1=Yes 2=No
F.24 Who else from your household attended the training? ____________________________________________________________________________ Write their first name here
F.25 Please mark the topics of the trainings attended: [Enumerator: Read from below list] 01. Water management and GWT 02. GWT unit operation and maintenance 03. Irrigation scheduling 04. Mitigating health risks from greywater use 05. Basic agronomic practices 06. Other, specify: _____________________
________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________
1=Attended 0=Not attended
F.26 Do you know other households in your community who have a GWT unit?
For F.26 – F.27 1=Yes 2=No
F.27 Do you discuss/exchange information about GWT unit operation and maintenance with them?
190
MODULE G: GWT TECHNOLOGY – FOR CONTROL GROUP [Skip and go to Module H if GWT user]
Response Response codes
G.01 Have you heard about GWT units installed in your community?
For G.01–G.03
1=Yes
2=No
98=Don’t know
G.02 Have you seen a GWT unit installed in your community?
G.03 Do you know anyone who has a GWT unit installed in their house?
G.04 Would you use treated greywater to irrigate home garden?
[If <YES> go to question G.06]
1=Yes
2=No
3=Undecided
G.05 If <no> or <undecided>, please explain why:
________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
G.06 Would you install a GWT unit in your house?
1=Yes
2=No
G.07 Please explain why you would or would not install a GWT unit in your house:
______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
G.08 [Enumerator: Read each statement to capture response]
Please indicate if you agree or disagree that GWT allows to:
01. Reduce freshwater use for irrigation
02. Provide needed water for crops
03. Increase crop production
04. Grow trees or other crops in the garden
05. Reduce household water bills
06. Reduce septic tank/cesspool maintenance expenses
07. Increase time used on home garden production
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
1=Strongly disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neither agree nor disagree
4=Agree
5=Strongly agree
191
MODULE H: HOUSEHOLD DECISION-MAKING AROUND GARDEN PRODUCTION AND INCOME
[Enumerator: Go through each option under each question. Do not skip.] Response Response codes
H.01 Did you participate in any of the activities listed below in the past 12 months?
1=Yes
2=No
97=Not applicable
01. Growing crops in the garden for household consumption
02. Growing crops in the garden to sell in the market
03. Processing garden harvest to sell in the market
04. Selling harvest/processed goods in the market
05. Purchasing major household items (e.g., buying TV)
06. Participating in non-farm economic activities (small-business, buy-and-sell)
H.02 How much input do you have in making decisions about the following activities?
1=No input
2=A little input
3=Quite a bit of input
4=Input into most decisions
5=Input into all decisions
97=Not applicable
01. Growing crops in the garden for household consumption
02. Growing crops in the garden to sell in the market
03. Getting inputs for garden production or processing harvest
04. Taking harvest/processed goods to the market
05. Making minor household expenditures (e.g., buying sugar)
06. Making major household expenditures (e.g., buying TV)
07. Participating in non-farm economic activities (small-business, buy-and-sell)
H.03 Do you control income generated from below activities? 1=Yes
2=No
97=Not applicable
01. Selling crops grown in the home garden in the market
02. Selling processed harvest from the home garden in the market
03. Participating in non-farm economic activities (small-business, buy-and-sell)
04. Your own wage or salary employment
192
[Enumerator: Go through each option under each question. Do not skip.] Response Response codes
H.04 To what extent do you feel you can make your own personal decisions regarding below aspects of household life if you wanted to?
1=Not at all
2=Small extent
3=Medium extent
4=To high extent
5=I always consult with spouse
01. Growing crops or trees in the garden for household consumption
02. Growing crops or trees in the garden to sell in the market
03. Type of crops or trees to grow in the garden
04. Getting inputs for garden production or for processing harvest
05. Taking harvest/processed goods to the market
06. Controlling income from the sale of home garden produce in the market
07. Making minor household purchases (e.g., buy sugar)
08. Making major household purchases (e.g., buy TV)
09. Participating in non-farm economic activities (small-business, buy-and-sell)
10. Your own wage or salary employment
193
MODULE I: HOUSEHOLD ASSETS AND ACCESS TO THEM
Response Response Code
[Enumerator: Leave blank for assets not owned] Please indicate who owns the following assets in the household if your household possesses any of below assets
[Enumerator: Skip this question if no GWT unit installed] Did your household purchase any of the following assets with cash generated from garden production irrigated with treated greywater (even if partial)? 1=Yes 2=No
For I.01 only 1=Primary respondent 2=Spouse 3=Son/daughter 4=Son/daughter-in-law 5=Grandson/granddaughter 6=Mother/father 7=Brother/sister 9=Nephew/niece of primary respondent 10=Nephew/niece of spouse 11=Cousin of primary respondent 12=Cousin of spouse 13=Brother/sister-in-law 14=Mother/father-in-law 15=Servant/maid 16=Laborer 96=Other: ___________________ Specify 97=Not applicable
I.01 I.02
01. House (with garden)
02. Agricultural land
03. Other land not used for agricultural purposes (e.g., commercial land)
04. Large livestock (e.g., cattle)
05. Small livestock (e.g., goats, sheep)
06. Camels
07. Chicken, ducks, pigeons
08. Farm equipment (mechanized)
09. Farm equipment (non-mechanized)
10. Large home appliances (e.g., fridge, TV)
11. Small home appliances or house ware
12. Jewelry
13. Car
14. Motorcycle, bicycle
15. Savings (cash or in the bank account)
194
[Enumerator: use <0> if not owned by the household, do not skip]
Response Response codes
I.03 For the following assets owned by your household, who decides whether to sell or rent them most of the time?
I.03 - I.04:
1=Primary respondent
2=Spouse
3=Son/daughter
4=Son/daughter-in-law
5=Grandson/granddaughter
6=Mother/father
7=Brother/sister
9=Nephew/niece of primary respondent
10=Nephew/niece of spouse
11=Cousin of primary respondent
12=Cousin of spouse
13=Brother/sister-in-law
14=Mother/father-in-law
15=Servant/maid
16=Laborer
95=Refused to respond
96=Other: ______
Specify
97=Not applicable
01. Agricultural land
02. Other land not used for agricultural purposes (e.g., commercial land)
03. Large livestock (e.g., cattle)
04. Small livestock (e.g., goats, sheep)
05. Camels
06. Chicken, dusks, pigeons
07. Farm equipment (mechanized)
08. Farm equipment (non-mechanized)
09. Large home appliances (e.g., fridge, TV)
10. Small home appliances or house ware
11. Car
12. Motorcycle, bicycle
I.04 If you generate income from the home garden production can you on your own decide how to spend it on the purchase of the following items/products/services?
1=Yes
2=No
97=Not applicable 01. Food consumed in the household
02. Water for household consumption
03. Medical supplies if household member is sick
04. Educational expenses for household members
05. Present/gift for a family member’s wedding/celebration (e.g., birthday)
06. Jewelry
195
I.05 Do you have any personal money deposited in savings account or invested in business activity?
[If <no> skip to question I.09]
1=Yes
2=No
I.06 Is this savings account or business activity only under your name?
[If <yes> skip to question I.08]
1=Yes, only under my name
2=No, owned jointly with [NAME] _____________
Response Response codes
I.07 If these financial assets are held jointly with someone else, do you have the right to withdraw from this account or business activity?
1=Yes, independently
2=Yes, with both signatures
3=No, I don’t have the right
95=Refused to respond
97=Not applicable
I.08 Where did the money in this account or business activity come from?
[Select all that apply]
1=From garden production
2=From a spouse, &/or other household members
3=Gift at time of marriage
4= Gift at another time
5=Inheritance
6= Remittances
96=Other: __________
Specify
95=Refused to respond
98 Don’t know
I.09 If you have jewelry can you sell it if needed without asking someone else’s permission?
1=Yes, no permission needed
2=No, permission needed
3=No, I can’t sell
95=Refused to respond
97=Not applicable
196
I.10 If your household needs additional funds who decides to borrow funds from the following sources?
[Enumerator: List all options to allow respondent to respond to each and indicate persons responsible for it.]
For I.10 Fund borrowed
1=Primary respondent
2=Spouse
3=Son/daughter
4=Son/daughter-in-law
5=Grandson/granddaughter
6=Mother/father
7=Brother/sister
9=Nephew/niece of primary respondent
10=Nephew/niece of spouse
11=Cousin of primary respondent
12=Cousin of spouse
13=Brother/sister-in-law
14=Mother/father-in-law
15=Servant/maid
16=Laborer
96=Other: __________
Specify
97=Not applicable
01. From a formal lender (e.g., bank)
02. From an informal lender (e.g., private person)
03. From a relative
04. From a friend
05. From a group based micro-finance or lending (e.g., merry-go-rounds, savings club
06. Other, specify: __________________________
197
MODULE J: INDIVIDUAL AGENCY IN ECONOMIC DECISION-MAKING
Response Response codes
J.01 Are you engaged in any economic activity inside or outside the home to support your household?
[For example, make something to sell, offer a service, work on the farm, etc.]
1=Yes
2=No
J.02 Who decides whether you can be employed or engaged in an income-generating activity?
_______________________________________
Write NAME here
For J.02 - J.03:
1=I do, alone
2=Jointly with [NAME]
3=I do, with permission of [NAME]
4=No, someone else makes the decision [NAME]
97=Not applicable
J.03 If you earn income or receive money, who
decides about how to spend it?
_______________________________________
Write NAME here
J.04
[Enumerator: Skip this question if it is a female-headed household]
Does your spouse make own decisions whether to be employed or pursue an income-generating activity?
_______________________________________
Write NAME here
For J.04 – J.05:
1=Yes, alone
2=No, jointly with [NAME]
3=No, with permission of [NAME]
4=No, someone else makes the decision [NAME]
97=Not applicable
J.05
[Enumerator: Skip this question if it is a female-headed household]
Does your spouse make own decisions on how to spend the income s/he earns?
_______________________________________
Write NAME here
198
Response Response codes
J.06 Who manages the household’s food budget?
[Indicate all that apply]
For J.06 - J.07
1=Primary respondent
2=Spouse
3=Son/daughter
4=Son/daughter-in-law
5=Grandson/granddaughter
6=Mother/father
7=Brother/sister
9=Nephew/niece of primary respondent
10=Nephew/niece of spouse
11=Cousin of primary respondent
12=Cousin of spouse
13=Brother/sister-in-law
14=Mother/father-in-law
96=Other: ______
J.07 Who buys food for household consumption?
[Indicate all that apply]
J.08 In the last three months, have you disagreed with a decision that your spouse or another male/female adult in your household made about spending money?
[Skip to question J.10]
1=Yes
2=No
97=Not applicable
J.09 What were the decision(s) about?
[Indicate all that apply]
1=Did not allow me to buy an asset I wanted
2=S/he wanted to buy an asset and I was not in agreement
3=We disagreed over expenditures on clothes, food, etc.
4=We disagreed over expenditures for entertainment
5= S/he spends too much (wants to spend more than I want to)
96=Other: _____________
J.10 In general, when you disagree with the decisions made by other household members (other male/female adults), do you voice your opinion?
1=Yes
2=No
199
Response Response codes
J.11 Are you a member of a formal or informal group (or organization such as community-based or cooperative)?
[Skip to question J.16]
1=Yes
2=No
J.12 What is the name of this group?
_________________________________________________________________
Name
J.13 How long have your been a member?
J.14 Do you have a leadership role in this group?
[If <no> skip to J.16]
1=Yes
2=No
J.15 What is your leadership role?
_________________________________________________________________
Write leadership role here
J.16 Do you have a leadership role in your community?
[If <no> end survey]
1=Yes
2=No
J.17 What is your leadership role?
_________________________________________________________________
Write leadership role here
THIS IS THE END OF SURVEY!
THANK THE RESPONDENT AND LEAVE ONE COPY OF THE INFORMED CONSENT LETTER
200
Instrument for Focus Group Discussions
Questions for GWT USER GROUP
Introduction (10 min): Start with welcome, overview of topic, ground rules.
Icebreaker activity (10 min):
1. If you have unlimited water supply, how would you use it in your household?
Theme 1 (20 min): Water is a scarce resource in Jordan.
2. Does water shortage affect your household? Explain how. Probe a. How does it personally affect you? b. How does it affect your roles and responsibilities within the household?
Theme 2 (35 min): GWT technology provides supplemental water for home garden irrigation
3. Since you started using the GWT technology does your household purchase less, more or the same quantity of potable water? Explain why.
4. Do you use less, more or the same quantity of potable water for home garden irrigation? Explain why.
Probe If the response is less, inquire: Since you are saving potable water because you don’t use it for irrigation, then where do you use it?
5. In your opinion, who (further clarify: FG participant and spouse) in the household has been affected the most as a result of using GWT technology? Explain how.
Probe How did GWT technology use influence your ability to earn income from home garden production?
6. What are the barriers for households in your community to adopt the GWT technology? Probe What are other barriers except the cost?
7. Will GWT technology help address water shortage in your community? Explain how.
For men groups:
8. Describe when and how you involve your spouse in household decision-making processes.
For women groups:
8. Describe when and how you negotiate your participation in the household decision-making process (i.e., decision-making path).
Probe When is it important for you to be heard?
Summary and conclusion (15 min): Conclude with summary and confirmation, review purpose and ask if anything missing. Thank participants.
201
Questions for CONTROL GROUP
Introduction (10 min): Start with welcome, overview of topic, ground rules.
Icebreaker activity (10 min):
9. If you have unlimited water supply, how would you use it in your household?
Theme 1 (20 min): Water is a scarce resource in Jordan.
10. Does water shortage affect your household? Explain how. Probe a. How does it personally affect you? b. How does it affect your roles and responsibilities within the household?
Theme 2 (35 min): Greywater use in the household
11. Do you use untreated greywater in the household? Explain why or why not. Probe If you use untreated greywater, where do you use it? Explain why.
12. Do you think the use of GWT technology will address water shortage issue in your household? Explain why or why not.
Probe You just told me about … I’d also like to know how GWT technology can affect home gardening. Can you tell me how it can affect home garden production?
13. If your household decides to adopt GWT technology, who will decide? Explain why.
14. What are the barriers for households in your community to adopt the GWT technology?
15. Will GWT technology help address water shortage in your community? Explain how.
For men groups:
16. Describe when and how you involve your spouse in household decision-making processes.
For women groups:
8. Describe when and how you negotiate your participation in the household decision-making process (i.e., decision-making path).
Probe When is it important for you to be heard?
Summary and conclusion (15 min): Conclude with summary and confirmation, review purpose and ask if anything missing. Thank participants.
202
APPENDIX B ADDITIONAL TABLES AND FIGURES
Table B-1. Independent sample t-tests for descriptive statisitcs (Chapter 2)
Household N Mean SD t df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Age GWT user 52 47.73 13.32 -1.048 99 0.297
Control 49 50.33 11.43
Age women GWT user 25 48.12 9.03 0.525 48 0.602
Control 25 46.64 10.83
Age men GWT user 27 47.37 16.51 -1.709 49 0.09 *
Control 24 54.17 10.95
HH size GWT user 52 6.87 2.16 1.249 100 0.215
Control 50 6.36 1.91
Number of children
GWT user 52 4.87 2.16 1.03 100 0.305
Control 50 4.44 2.00
Number of sons GWT user 52 2.40 1.36 -0.131 100 0.896
Control 50 2.44 1.43
Monthly HH income
GWT user 52 456.35 393.51 0.437 100 0.663
Control 50 424.70 334.89
Size of home garden
GWT user 52 1.49 1.07 -0.001 100 0.999
Control 50 1.49 1.81
Total production - olives
GWT user 52 192.43 391.30 1.035 100 0.303
Control 50 117.49 336.49
*p < 0.1
Table B-2. Independent sample t-tests of primary occupation and education of men and women, compared by GWT user and control households (Chapter 2)
N Mean SD t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Primary Occupation GWT user household
Men 27 6.3 1.938 -3.238 50 0.002 **
Women 25 8 1.848
Control household
Men 24 5.46 0.833 -1.698 48 0.096 *
Women 26 11.42 17.175
Education
GWT user household
Men 27 5.85 2.051 0.721 50 0.474
Women 25 5.44 2.063
Control household
Men 24 5.17 1.761 -0.162 48 0.872
Women 26 5.27 2.601
* p < 0.1 and **p < 0.05
203
Figure B-1. Women’s reponses to ‘Who’ performs water and wastewater management-related tasks in the GWT user households
Figure B-2. Women’s reponses to ‘Who’ performs water and wastewater management-related tasks in the control households
204
Figure B-3. Men’s reponses to ‘Who’ performs water and wastewater management-related tasks in the GWT user households
Figure B-4. Men’s reponses to ‘Who’ performs water and wastewater management-related tasks in the control households
205
Figure B-5. Women’s reponses to ‘Who’ performs home garden-related tasks. Data
presented for the GWT user and control households.
Figure B-6. Men’s reponses to ‘Who’ performs home garden-related tasks. Data
presented for the GWT user and control households.
206
LIST OF REFERENCES
Abu Kharmeh, S.S. 2012. “Gender Empowerment in Jordan.” Canadian Social Science 8(2):201-208.
Abu-Lughod, L. 1985. “A Community of Secrets: The Separate World of Beduin Women.” Journal of Women in Culture and Society 10(4):637-657.
Agarwal, B. 1997. “Bargaining and Gender Relations: Within and Beyond the Household.” Feminist Economics 3(1):1-51.
Akerlof, G.A., and R.E. Kranton. 2000. “Economics and Identity.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 105(3):715-753.
Al-Atiyat, I. 2003. The Women’s Movement in Jordan: Activism, Discourses, and Strategies. Amman: Freidrich Ebert Stiftung.
Al-Beiruti, S.N. 2004. “The Potential of Greywater Treatment and Reuse in Jordan: Exchange of Know-how Between Islamic Countries.” In R. Raqab, ed. 55th Meeting of IEC International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage. International Workshop on Management of Poor Quality Water for Irrigation; Institutional, Health and Environmental Aspects. Moscow, Russia, pp. 168-178.
Al-Dajani, R.L. 2001. “Bedouin Livelihoods: The Role of Women in the Jordanian Badia.” MA thesis, Durham University.
Ali, R., Ahmad, F., and S. Batool. 2016. “Examining Empowerment: Narratives of ‘Homemakers’ from Rural Pakistan.” International Journal of Gender and Women’s Studies 4(1):47-53.
Alkire, S., R. Meinzen-Dick, A. Peterman, A.R. Quisumbing, G. Seymour, and A. Vaz. 2012. “The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index.” IFPRI Discussion Paper 01240.
Allendorf, K. 2007. “Do Women’s Land Rights Promote Empowerment and Child Health in Nepal?” World Development 35(11):1975-1988.
Al Maaitah, H., H. Olaimat, and Gharaeibeh, M. 2011. “Arab Women and Political Development.” Journal of International Women’s Studies 12(3):7-26.
Al-Mashaqbeh, O.A., A.M. Ghrair, and S.B. Megdal. 2012. “Grey Water Reuse for Agricultural Purposes in the Jordan Valley: Household Survey Results in Deir Alla.” Water 4:580-596.
Al Riyami, A., M. Afifi, and R.M. Mabry. 2004. “Women's Autonomy, Education and Employment in Oman and their Influence on Contraceptive Use.” Reproductive health matters 12:144-54.
207
Al-Shdiefat, S., M.S. El-Haddad, and A. Al-Sha’er. n.d. “Introducing Organic farming System in Olive Production and Linking Small Farmers to Markets: ‘A success Story’.” http://www.aarinena.org/documents/SuccessStories/Jordan.pdf. Accessed on June 15, 2015.
Altieri, M.A. 2002. “Agroecology: The Science of Natural Resource Management for Poor Farmers in Marginal Environment.” Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93:1-24.
Anderson, S., and M. Eswaran. 2009. “What Determines Female Autonomy? Evidence from Bangladesh.” Journal of Development Economics 90:179-191.
Arab Forum for Environment and Development. 2014. Water Efficiency Handbook. Identifying Opportunities to Increase Water Use Efficiency in Industry, Buildings, and Agriculture in the Arab Countries. Beirut, Lebanon: Technical Publications/Al-Bia Wal Tanmia.
Arnez, M. 2010. “Empowering Women through Islam: Fatayat NU between Tradition and Chance.” Journal of Islamic Studies 21(1):59-88.
Augustin, E., R. Assad, and D. Jaziri. 2012. “Women Empowerment for Improved Research in Agricultural Development, Innovation and Knowledge Transfer in the West Asia/North Africa Region.” Report. AARINENA: Jordan.
Austin, P.C. 2011. “An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Cofounding in Observational Studies.” Multivariate Behavioral Research 46(3):399-424.
Batliwala, S. 1994. The Meaning of Women's Empowerment: New Concepts for Action, in Population Policies Reconsidered. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Beneria L., and G. Sen. 1981. “Accumulation, Reproduction, and “Women’s Role in Economic Development”: Boserup Revisited.” Development and the Sexual Division of Labor 7(2):279-298.
Bennett, V., S. Davila-Poblete, and M.N. Rico. 2008. “Water and Gender: The Unexpected Connection That Really Matters.” Journal of International Affairs 61(2):107-126.
Bino, M.J., and S.N. Al-Beiruti. 2007. Studies of IDRC Supported Research on Greywater in Jordan Conducted by Intern-Islamic Network on Water Resources Development and Management. Amman, Jordan: INWRDAM.
Bino, M.J., S. Al-Beiruti, and M. Ayesh. 2010. “Greywater Use in Rural Home Gardens in Karak, Jordan.” In S. Mcllwaine and M. Redwood, eds. Greywater Use in the Middle East: Technical, Social, Economic and Policy issues. Ottawa, Canada: Practical Action Publishing, pp. 29-59.
208
Bushamuka, V.N., S. de Pee, A. Talukder, L. Kiess, D. Panagides, A. Taher, and M. Bloem. 2005. “Impact of a Homestead Gardening Program on Household Food Security and Empowerment of Women in Bangladesh.” Food Nutrition Bulletin 26 (1):17–25.
Cleaver, F. 1997. “Gendered Incentives and Informal Institutions: Women, Men, and the Management of Water.” Proceedings of the Workshop on Gender and Water, Sri Lanka.
Cline, W. 2007. Global Warming and Agriculture: Impact Estimates by Country. Washington DC: Center for Global Development and Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Coates, J.C., P. Webb, R.F. Houser, B.L. Rogers, and P. Wilde. 2010. “He Said, She Said”: Who Should Speak for Household About Experiences of Food Insecurity in Bangladesh?” Food Security 2:81-95.
Coleman, D.H., and M.A. Straus. 1990. “Marital Power, Conflict, and Violence in a Nationally Representative Sample of American Couples.” In M.A. Straus, and R.J. Gelles, eds. Physical Violence in American Families. New Brunswick, NJ: Translation Publishers, pp. 287-304.
Coles, A. 2009. “Domestic Water Provision and Gender Roles in Drylands.” HAGAR Studies in Culture, Policy and Identities 9(1):175-191.
Crow, B., and E. Odaba. 2010. “Access to Water in a Nairobi Slum: Women’s Work and Institutional Learning.” Water International 35(20):733-747.
Deere, C.D., and M. Leon. 2003. “The Gender Asset Gap: Land in Latin America.” World Development 31(6):925–947.
Deere, C.D., and J. Twyman. 2012. “Asset Ownership and Egalitarian Decision-making in Dual-headed Households in Ecuador.” Review of Radical Political Economics 44(3):313-320.
Deere, C.D., and Z. Catanzanite. 2016. “Measuring the Intra-household Distribution of Wealth in Ecuador: Qualitative Insights and Quantitative Outcomes.” In F. Lee and B. Conin, eds. Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Heterodox Economics. Northamptom, MA: Edward Elgar. pp. 512-534.
Department of Statistics [Jordan]. 2012. Statistical Yearbook 2012.
Department of Statistics [Jordan] and ICF International. 2013. Jordan Population and Family Health Survey 2012. Calverton, MD: Department of Statistics and ICF International.
209
Devoto, F., E. Duflo, P. Dupas, W. Pariente, and V. Pons. 2011. “Happiness on Tap: Piped Water Adoption in Urban Morocco.” NBER Working paper series No. 16933.
Dito, B.B. 2015. “Women’s Interhousehold Decision-making Power and Their Health Status: Evidence from Rural Ethiopia.” Feminist Economics 21(3): 168-190.
Doepke, M., and M. Tertilt. 2014. “Does Female Empowerment Promote Economic Development?” NBER Working paper No. 19888.
Domenech, L. 2015. “Is Reliable Water Access the Solution to Undernutrition? A Review of the Potential of Irrigation to Solve Nutrition and Gender Gaps in Africa South of the Sahara.” IFPRI Discussion paper 01428, Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Doss, C.R. 1996. “Testing Among Models of Intrahousehold Resource Allocation.” World Development 24(10):1597-1609.
Doss, C.R. 2005. “The Effects of Intrahousehold Property Ownership on Expenditure Patterns in Ghana.” Journal of African Economies 15(1):149-180.
Doss, C.R. 2013. “Intrahousehold Bargaining and Resource Allocation in Developing Countries.” World Bank Research Observer 28(1):52-78.
El-Fattal, L. 2011. “Chapter 4: Dissecting Equity: Addressing Gender in WDM.” In H. Laamrani, L. El-Fattal, and J. Weinberg, eds. Rethinking Water Demand Management: Power, Policy and Practice from the MENA Region. International Development Research Center, WADLMENA: Regional Water Demand Initiative, International Fund for Agricultural Development and Canadian International Development Agency, pp. 89-108.
Elmendorf, M.L., and R.B. Isely. 1983. “Public and Private Roles of Women in Water Supply and Sanitation Programs.” Human Organization 42(3):195-204.
Faour, M. 1989. “Fertility Policy and Family Planning in the Arab Countries.” Studies in Family Planning 20(5):254-263.
Fisher, M., J. Reimer, and E. Carr. 2010. “Who Should be Interviewed in Surveys of Household Income?” World Development 38(7):966-973.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1997. Gender: Key to Sustainability and Food Security: Plan for Action for Women in Development, 1996-2001. Rome, Italy: FAO.
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. 2008. Aquastat: Jordan – Country Fact Sheet.
210
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2011. The State of Food and Agriculture 2010-2011: Women in Agriculture: Closing the Gender Gap for Development. Rome, Italy: FAO Publication.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2016. AQUASTAT website. Website accessed on February 12, 2017.
Friedler, E. 2008. “The Water Saving Potential and the Socio-Economic Feasibility of Greywater Reuse within the Urban Sector – Israel as a Case Study.” International Journal of Environmental Studies 65(1):57-69.
Gadalla, S., J. McCarthy, and O. Campbell. 1985. “How the Number of Living Sons Influences Contraceptive Use in Menoufia Governorate, Egypt.” Studies in Family Planning 16(3):164-169.
Galie, A., J. Jiggins, and P.C. Struik. 2012. “Women’s Identify as Farmers: A Case Study from Ten Households in Syria.” NJAS-Wageningen J. Life Sci.
Galie, A. 2013. “Empowering Women Farmers: The Case of Participatory Plant Breeding in Ten Syrian Households.” Frontiers 34(1):58-92.
Galhena, D.H., R. Freed, and K.M. Maredia. 2013. “Home Gardens: a Promising Approach to Enhance Household Food Security and Wellbeing.” Agriculture & Food Security 2(8).
Government of Jordan. 2009. Water for life: Jordan’s water strategy 2008-2022. Ministry of Water and Irrigation. Amman, Jordan.
Gross, A., A. Maimon, Y. Alfiya, and E. Friedler. 2015. Greywater Reuse. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group.
Ho, G., and K. Mathew. 2002. “Sustainability of Water Resources.” Proceedings of the International Conference, November 2002, Perth, Western Australia.
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas. 2014. Final Report. March 2014.
Iskandarani, M. 2002. “Economics of Household Water Security in Jordan.” In F. Heidhues and J. von Braum, eds. Development Economics and Policy series Vol. 25. Frankfurt on Main, Germany: Peter Lang Publishers.
Ivens, S. 2008. “Does Increased Water Access Empower Women?” Development 51:63-67.
Jeppesen, B. 1996. “Domestic Greywater Re-use: Australia's Challenge for the Future.” Desalination 106:311-315.
211
Jeppesen, B. 1996(b). “Model Guidelines for Domestic Greywater Reuse for Australia.” Urban Water Research Association of Australia, Research Report No. 107, Brisbane City Council.
Johnson, S. 2005. “Gender Relations, Empowerment and Microcredit: Moving on from a Lost Decade.” The European Journal of Development Research 17(2):224-248.
Kabeer, N. 1999. “Resources, Agency, and Achievements: Reflections on the Measurement of Women’s Empowerment.” Development and Change 30:435-464.
Kabeer, N. 2001. “Conflict over Credit: Re-evaluating the Empowerment Potential of Loans to Women in Rural Bangladesh.” World Development 29(1):63.84.
Kabeer, N. 2005. “Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment: A Critical Analysis of the Third Millennium Development Goal 1.” Gender and Development 13(1):13-24.
Kabeer, N. 2010. “Women’s Empowerment, Development Interventions and the Management of Information Flows.” Bulletin 41(6):105–113.
Kafle, K., H. Michelson, and A. Winter-Nelson. 2016. “Does She Have a Say? The Impact of Livestock Transfer and Associated Training on Women’s Empowerment: Evidence from Zambdia.” 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, 2016, Boston, MA, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
Katz, E. 1991. “Breaking the Myth of Harmony: Theoretical and Methodological Guidelines to the Study of Rural Third World Households.” Review of Radical Political Economics 23(3-4):37-56.
Katz, E. 1997. “The Intra-household Economics of Voice and Exit.” Feminist Economics 3(3):25-46.
Keatinge, J.D.H., M.L. Chadha, J.d’A. Hughes, W.J. Easdown, R.K. Holmer, A. Tenkouano, R.Y. Yang, R. Mavlyanova, S. Neave, V. Afari-Sefa, G. Luther, M. Ravishankar, C. Ojiewo, M. Belarmino, A. Ebert, J.F. Wang, and L.J. Lin. 2012. “Vegetable Gardens and Their Impact on the Attainment of the Millennium Development Goals.” Biological Agriculture & Horticulture iFirst:1-15
Kishor, S. 1995. Autonomy and Egyptian Women: Findings from the 1988 Egypt Demographic and Health Survey. Calverton, MD: Macro International, Inc.
Kishor, S. and L. Subaiya. 2005. “Household Decision Making as Empowerment: A Methodological View.” Paper Prepared for Presentation at the 2005 Meeting of the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population (IUSSP) in Tours, France.
212
Kishor, S. and L. Subaiya. 2008. Understanding Women’s Empowerment: A Comparative Analysis of Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Data. DHS Comparative Reports No. 20. Calverton, MD: Macro International.
Klassert, C., K. Sigel, E. Gawel, and B. Klauer. 2015. “Intermittency, Storage, and Pricing for Piped and Tanker Water.” Water 7:3643-3670.
Koolwal, G., and D. van de Walle. 2013. “Access to Water, Women’s Work, and Child Outcomes.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 61(2):369-405.
Lahiri-Dutt, K., and K. Harriden. 2008. “Act on Gender: A Peer into Intra-household Water User in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Region.” Rural Society 18(3).
Leder, S., F. Clement, and E. Karki. 2017. “Reframing Women’s Empowerment in Water Security Programmes in Western Nepal.” Gender & Development 25(2):235-251
Libbus, K. 1997. “Contraceptive Decision Making in Sample of Jordanian Muslim Women: Delineating Salient beliefs.” Health Care for Women International 18(1):85-94.
Malhotra, A., and M. Mather. 1997. “Do Schooling and Work Empower Women in Developing Countries? Gender and Domestic Decisions in Sri Lanka.” Sociological Forum 12(4):599-630.
Malhotra, A., S.R. Schuler, and C. Boender. 2002. “Measuring Women’s Empowerment as a Variable in International Development.” Background Paper prepared for the World Bank workshop on Poverty and Gender: New Perspectives.
Mason, K.O., and H.L. Smith. 2003. “Women’s Empowerment and Social Context: Results from Five Asian Countries.” World Bank.
Mason, L.R. 2012. “Gender and Asset Dimensions of Seasonal Water Insecurity in Urban Philippines.” Weather, Climate, and Society 4(1):20-33.
Mcilwaine, S., and M. Redwood. 2010. “The Use of Greywater for Irrigation of Home Gardens in the Middle East: Technical, Social and Policy Issues.” Waterlines 29(2).
Miles, R. 2002. “Employment and Unemployment in Jordan: The Importance of the Gender System.” World Development 30:413-427.
Modernizing Extension and Advisory Services. 2015. “Working with Women’s Groups in Jordan – Building Networks and Social Capital.” Action Project Report. University of Florida.
213
Moghadam, V.M. 2005. “Women's Economic Participation in the Middle East: What Difference has the Neoliberal Policy Turn Made?” Journal of Middle East Women's Studies 1:110-146.
Molden, D. 2007. Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. London and Colombo, Sri Lanka: Earthscan and International Water Management Institute.
Mosedale, S. 2005. “Assessing Women's Empowerment: Towards a Conceptual Framework.” Journal of International Development 17:243-257.
Mourad, K.A., J.C. Bernstsson, and R. Berndtsson. 2011. “Potential Fresh Water Saving Using Greywater in Toilet Flushing in Syria.” Journal of Environmental Management 92:2447-2453.
Narayan, D. 2005. “Conceptual Framework and Methodological Challenges.” In D. Narayan, ed. Measuring Empowerment: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, pp. 3-38.
Njuki, J., E. Waithanji, B. Sakwa, J. Kariuki, E. Mukewa, and J. Ngige. 2014. “Can Market-based Approaches to Technology Development and Dissemination Benefit Women Smallholder Farmers? A Qualitative Assessment of Gender Dynamics in the Ownership, Purchase, and Use of Irrigation Pumps in Kenya and Tanzania.” IFPRI Discussion Paper 01357. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Odhiambo, G.O. 2017. “Water Scarcity in the Arabian Peninsula and Socio-economic Implications.” Applied Water Science 7(5):2479-2492.
O’Hara, C., and F. Clement. 2018. “Power as Agency: A Critical Reflection on the Measurement of Women’s Empowerment in the Development Sector.” World Development 106:111-123.
Olmsted, J.C. 2005. “Gender, Aging, and the Evolving Arab Patriarchal Contract.” Feminist Economics 11(2):53-78.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2014. Water Governance in Jordan: Overcoming the Challenges to Private Sector Participation. OECD Studies on Water. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2014b. “Jordan. Social Institutions and Gender Index,” OECD Development Center, http://www.genderindex.org/sites/default/files/datasheets/JO.pdf. Accessed on Feb. 8, 2017.
Pettygrove, M. 2006. "Obstacles to Women’s Political Empowerment in Jordan: Family, Islam, and Patriarchal Gender Roles," Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection. 358. Retrieved from http://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection/358
214
Potter, R.B., and K. Darmame. 2010. “Contemporary Social Variations in Household Water Use, Management Strategies and Awareness under Conditions of ‘Water Stress’: The Case of Greater Amman, Jordan.” Habitat International 34:115-124.
Potter, R.B., K. Darmame, and S. Nortcliff. 2010. “Issues of Water Supply and Contemporary Urban Society: The Case of Greater Amman, Jordan.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 368:5299-5313.
Quisumbing, A.R., and B. De la Brière. 2000. “The Impact of PROGRESA on Intra-household Decision-making and Relative Schooling Achievements of Boys and Girls, Part I.” In M. Adato, B de la Briere, D. Mindek and A. Quisumbing, eds. The Impact of PROGRESA on Women’s Status and Intra-household Relations. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Ray, I. 2007. “Women, Water, and Development.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 32:421-449.
Reininger, M.K. 2004. “Gender and Space in Jordan: Boundaries and Power in a Middle Eastern Society.” MA thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Rockwell, S.K., and H. Kohn. 1989. “Post-then-pre Evaluation.” Journal of Extension 27(2).
Sadiqi, F., and M. Ennaji. 2011. Women in the Middle East and North Africa: Agents of Change. New York, NY: Routledge.
Sen, A. 1990. “Gender and Cooperative Conflict.” In I. Tinker, ed. Persistent Inequalities. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 123-149.
Singh, N. 2006. “The Changing Roles of Women in Water Management: Myths and Realities.” The Changing Role of Women Wagadu Vol. 3. Spring.
Schreinemachers, P., M.A. Patalagsa, Md.R. Islam, Md.N. Uddin, S. Ahmad, S.C. Biswas, Md.T. Ahmed, R.Y. Yang, P. Hanson, S. Begum, and C. Takagi. 2015. “The Effect of Women’s Home Gardens on Vegetable Production and Consumption in Bangladesh.” Food Security 7:97-107.
Shukri, J.A. 1996. Arab Women: Unequal Partners in Development. Brookfield: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Smith, L.C., U. Ramakrishnan, A. Ndiaye, L. Haddad, and R. Martorell. 2003. The Importance of Women’s Status for Child Nutrition in Developing Countries. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Suleiman, W., B. Al-Hayek, M. Assayed, S. Dalahmeh, and N. Al-Hmoud. 2010. “Greywater Management in the Northeastern Badia of Jordan.” In S. Mcllwaine and M. Redwood, eds. Greywater Use in the Middle East: Technical, Social,
215
Economic and Policy Issues. Ottawa, Canada: Practical Action Publishing, pp. 29-59.
Swain, R.B., and F.Y. Wallentin. 2016. “The Impact of Microfinance on Factors Empowering Women: Differences in Regional and Dilvery Mechanisms in India’s SHG Programme.” The Journal of Development Studies 53(5):684-699.
Tabutin, D., and B. Schoumaker. 2005. “The Demography of the Arab World and the Middle East from the 1950s to the 2000s.” Population 60.
Tuccio, M., and J. Wahba. 2015. Can I Have Permission to Leave the House? Return Migration and the Transfer of Gender Norms. Discussion paper No. 9216. Bonn, Germany: IZA
Twyman, J. 2012. “Intra-household Distribution of Assets and Wealth in Ecuador.” PhD dissertation, University of Florida.
Udry, C. 1996. “Gender, Agricultural Production, and the Theory of the Household.” Journal of Political Economy 104(5):1010-1046.
United Nations. 2014. “Open Working Group Proposal for Sustainable Development Goals.” Full report of the Open Working Group of the General Assembly on Sustainable Development Goals A/68/970.
United Nations Development Programme. 2006. Human Development Report 2006: Beyond Scarcity – Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis. New York, NY.
United Nations Development Programme. 2012. The Millennium Development Goals Report. New York, NY.
United Nations Development Programme. 2014. Building the Post-2015 Development Agenda. 2014 Annual Report.
United Nations Development Programme. 2016. Human Development Report 2016: Human Development for Everyone. New York, NY.
United Nations Children’s Fund. 2016. Harnessing the Power of Data for Girls: Taking Stock and Looking Ahead to 2030. New York, NY.
United Nations Women. 2015. Transforming Economies, Realizing Rights: Progress of the World’s Women 2015-2016. New York, NY.
United Nations and World Bank. 2018. An Agenda for Water Action – Making Every Drop Count. High-Level Panel on Water Outcome Document.
United States Agency for International Development. 2012. A Review of Water Policies in Jordan and Recommendations for Strategic Priorities. Final Report. Amman, Jordan.
216
United States Agency for International Development. 2012b. Intervention Guide for the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI): Practioners’ Guide to Selecting and Designing WEAI Interventions. Washington, D.C.
Van Houweling, E. 2014. “Gendered Water Spaces: A Study of the Transition from Wells to Handpumps in Mozambique.” Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography DOI: 10.1080/0966369X.2014.970140.
van Koppen, B., L. Hope, and W. Colenbrander. 2012. “Gender Aspects of Small-scale Private Irrigation in Africa.” IWMI Working paper 153, Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.
World Bank, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). 2008. Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook. Washington DC.
World Bank. 2013. Transect Walk. World Bank: Washington DC. Retrieved from https://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTTOPPSISOU/Resources/1424002-1185304794278/4026035-1185375653056/4028835-1185375678936/1_Transect_walk.pdf.
World Health Organization (WHO). 2014. Progress of Drinking Water and Sanitation. 2014 Update. Geneva, Switzerland.
World Water Assessment Programme. 2012. The United Nations World Water Development Report 4: Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk. Paris, France.
Wutich, A. 2009. “Intrahousehold Disparities in Women and Men’s Experiences of Water Insecurity and Emotional Distress in Urban Bolivia.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly 23(4):436-454.
Wutich, A., and K. Ragsdale. 2008. “Water Insecurity and Emotional Distress: Coping with Supply, Access and Seasonal Variability of Water in a Bolivian Squatter Settlement.” Social Science & Medicine 67:2116-2125.
Zavala, M.A.L., R.C. Vega, and R.A.L. Miranda. 2016. “Potential of Rainwater Harvesting and Greywater Reuse for Water Consumption Reduction and Wastewater Minimization.” Water 8:264.
Zwarteveen, M.Z. 1997. “Water: From Basic Need to Commodity: A Discussion on Gender and Water Rights in the Context of Irrigation.” World Development 25(8): 1335-1349.
217
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Nargiza Ludgate grew up in rural Uzbekistan, in the Fergana Valley along its
eastern border with Kyrgyzstan – the breadbasket of Central Asia. Before coming to
USA, she worked for agricultural development projects in the former Central Asian
“stans” - Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan. Nargiza helped manage a
large model farm project that demonstrated modern agricultural production and water
management practices, and machinery to farmers and government officials. She also
worked with farmers to establish and manage cotton producer groups and water user’s
associations. She received a Graduate Diploma in Foreign Languages in 1999 and a
Bachelor of Science degree in economics in 2005 from Fergana State University,
Uzbekistan. In 2007, she earned her Master of Business Administration from New
Mexico State University. During her doctoral degree matriculation at the University of
Florida in the School of Natural Resources and Environment, she worked full-time at the
University of Florida. Through the University of Florida’s projects in the Middle East,
Nargiza was involved with gender research in Jordan. She studied Jordanian women’s
social capital, economic development issues and leadership opportunities to strengthen
rural community-based organizations. Her current dissertation research encompasses
her passion to study water resources management and women’s empowerment through
the use and adoption of modern water management technologies.