COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN RURAL WATER SUPPLY IN AKWA IBOM STATE, NIGERIA

International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rsp[email protected]m 273 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN RURAL WATER SUPPLY IN AKWA IBOM STATE, NIGERIA Koffi Ayadu Edwin and Usip Edidiong Elijah Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Akwa Ibom State Polytechnic, Ikot Osurua Corresponding Author: ✉ [email protected] ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Paper ID: IJASTR68D31DC8D5458 Received: 2025-09-05 Published: 2025-10-07 DOI: https://dx.doi.org /10.5281/zenodo.17 330635 Page No: 273-293 Majority of rural Nigerian households do not have access to improved water supply despite several policies and programmes by successive administrations. This study is an attempt to assess the level of community participation in rural water supply in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. The research focused on the rural participation approaches, and the influence of socio-economic factors of rural dwellers in rural water supply. The study adopted combination of survey and cross – sectional research methods in the collection of data in the study area. Ninety – three rural communities were randomly selected using the quadrat sampling technique. The questionnaire was statistically administered to four targeted population: the household – heads, village heads, Local Government Council Officials and Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) on issues bordering on participation in rural water supply projects in the study area. Tables and percentages were used to analysed data at univariate level while multiple regression and factor analysis were used for the testing of the two research hypotheses at the bivariate levels. The result of the study showed that technical assistance factor (X3) contributed the highest in predicting the approaches of rural participation with (0.961) factor score loading while labour interaction factor (X8) contributed the least (0.484) factor score loading in the explanation of the rural participation approaches in rural water supply in the study area. On the socioeconomic influence; formally educated and married youth factor (X2) contributed the highest factor of (0. 531) while religious income factor (X6) contributed the least factor (0.450) in the explanation of the socio -economic factors influencing rural water supply in the study area. The study, therefore, recommends that the socialeconomic status of the people should be alleviated by enforcing compulsory education at the junior secondary level and encouraging entrepreneurial skills acquisition among the youths. This would make them to effectively participate in rural water projects and also the labour interaction approach should be strengthened to ensure effective participation in rural of rural water projects. Keywords: Community Participation, Rural Water, Sustainability, Rural Dwellers, Nigeria. International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html ISSN 2249-9954 Cite This Paper : Koffi Ayadu Edwin and Usip Edidiong Elijah (2025). "COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN RURAL WATER SUPPLY IN AKWA IBOM STATE, NIGERIA". INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL RESEARCH (IJASTR), vol. 15, no. 5, 2025, pp. 273-293. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17330635 International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rsp[email protected]m 274 1. Introduction Global population increase continues to create new and more challenges to the problem of clean and potable water supply both in rural and urban areas. Studies by Chitonge (2014), Hopewell and Graham (2014) and Gleick (2014) show that the challenges will be more phenomenal in emerging cities in Africa where these facilities are urgently needed. The daunting task facing local authorities is how to adequately supply clean potable water to the predominantly poor rural dwellers (Bakker et al., 2008). Experts and practitioners in the development studies have proposed varied management models targeted at improving access to water supply in the developing world (Ghai and Vivian 2014; Wraight, 2008, Mitchel, 2005; World Bank, 2004 and Gleick, 2003). Reports has established that billions of people worldwide are living without access to safe water with the vast majority of these people living in the rural communities (UNICEF and WHO, 2019). Poor quality of water has been implicated in 80% of all sickness and diseases worldwide through inadequate sanitation, polluted water, or unavailability of potable water supply (WHO, 2019), and at any given moment it has been estimated that half the world’s hospital beds are occupied with patients suffering from water-related diseases (UNICEF, 2021). One of the United Nation’s 2000 Millennium Goals (MDG’s) was to increase the proportion of the world’s population that has access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation (United Nations, 2010). While the international community has made advancements toward this goal over the past decade, progress in rural areas is still lagging relative to urban areas (United Nations, 2011). Worldwide, 80 per cent of the people who have limited access to drinking water supplies live in rural areas (United Nations, 2010) The World Bank (2016) recognised the lack of community participation as a reason for the failure of many community development attempts in developing countries. Thus, it should be noted that community participation often means the involvement of ‘the members of the community taking part in shaping, planning, developing, implementing and evaluating policies and actions which affect their lives and the life of their community. It has been established over the years that in water supply projects best results are obtained only when communities are involved in the planning and running of the project (Joseph, 2015, Koffi and Ikurekong 2020 and Ananga et al., 2020). Over the years successive governments in Nigeria have introduced various programmes to arrest problems militating against the development of rural Nigeria such as Operation Feed the International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rsp[email protected]m 275 Nation (OFN), Directorate of Food, Roads, and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI) Programme, Farm Settlement Scheme of the then Western Region, River Basin Development Authorities (RBDA) projects, and Integrated Rural Development (IRD) projects among others (Simon et.al., 2014). All these programmes have failed to contribute effectively to the development of rural communities especially the introduction and implementation of hand pumps water supply projects by DFRRI to various rural locations in South-Eastern Nigeria. One major factor has been identified as the failure of these programmes; which is the lack of effective community participation of rural dwellers at various stages in water project execution (Brain and Robert 2016 and Muniu et al., 2017). Research has also proved that lack of community participation has been a reason for the failure of many development projects in developing countries across the globe (World Bank, 2016). This is the foundation of the problem of this research which concerns the lack of effective participation of rural dwellers in water projects in Akwa Ibom State. This may be attributed to the challenge of identifying and implementing the various approaches of rural participation in water supply projects. However, most development project donors identify community participation as one of the prerequisites for improved performance in the water sector. It soon turned out that sustainable water supply services could not be achieved without involving the community not just in manual work, but also in the planning of programmes from the conceptualization stage to the final implementation stage (Therkildsen, 1998). Although, researchers have conducted studies on community participation approach in social services delivery (Felix, 2004; Elizabeth, 2008; Williams, 2008), none of these studies attempted to provide empirical evidence related to the sustainability of water supply under community participation as an alternative approach of providing water supply in the study area. Apparently, the absence of effective participation in rural water projects in the study area resulted in many projects uncertainty in sustainability, they function for short periods and collapse after funding institutions cease to provide support both financially and technically (Acha. J 2020). This has resulted in a decline in the water consumption level of the rural populace from the standards required. Therefore, this study seeks to fill the research gap by identifying an approach or combination of approaches that ensures effective rural participation for sustainable rural water supply in rural Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rsp[email protected]m 276 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Empirical Review Scholars and development practitioners have established a typology of participation approaches where the level of participation is assessed on the involvement of community in the development projects. Among the scholars is Arnstein (1969) who postulated eight (8) rungs on the level of citizen participation and categorized it into three categories The top of the ladder according to Arnstein is a symbol of full or genuine participation, the two bottom rungs of ladder represent nonparticipation; where people are allowed to participate, but it does not give them any opportunity to change programmes to their own needs and as a result maintains their status quo. The third category of participation encompasses the degree of tokenism, which allows the participation to be heard, to have a voice. Thus, citizen gains some degree of influence though it is still a form of tokenism as traditional powerholders continue to have the right to decide. It is the illusion of a voice without the voice itself. However, studies by Taylor et al., (2008) Cited in Preston et al., (2010) outlined four conceptual approaches to community participation which were; contribution approach, instrumental, empowerment and developmental approach and diagnosis how each of these approaches were applied in community water supply projects. Essentially, community participation promotes greater chances of success for development initiatives, efficiency in the use of resources, effectiveness, self-reliance, empowerment, sustainability and ownership of development initiatives (Botes, 2013; Davids, et al., 2009 Kumar, 2002; Brehanu, 2008). Nwankwoala (2011) reveals that there is no doubt that efficient and sustainable water resources management in Nigeria requires the participation of local communities. In addition, Njoh (2003) contends that participation had long been practiced by the indigenous communities before the arrival of the Europeans. Specifically, in a book titled Self - help water supply in Cameroon, Njoh stated that in pre-colonial Africa, it was common for communities to join hands in local development projects. Such projects included building chiefs’ palaces, market centers, erecting village bridges, or building community centers (Ananga et. al 2020). Moreso, review of literatures agrees that socio-economic factors have influence on community participation in rural water supply in both developed and developing countries. For instance, Bauma et al., (2000) argue that the level of participation is significantly influenced by individual socio-economic status and other demographic characteristics. According to Jones (2011), a study conducted on community participation in water supply in Mali revealed that citizenship were International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rsp[email protected]m 277 affected by four key structural factors namely age, level of education, gender and geographic location. The studies of Hassan et al., (2019), Gaboyan (2010), Harris (2006) and Toner and Clever, (2006) all agrees that age has a significant influenced on rural people participation in rural water supply project. Young and active age bracket between 18 – 55 years tends to participate more than the old people from 60 years and above. Nevertheless, John, (2009) opined that educational level of the citizenry has a significant correlation in the level of participation in rural water supply. Similarly, Joshi and Houtzager (2012) contends that education has a high positive correlation with publics engagement in rural water supply, while Mugizi et al., (2017) argued that education is essential in enhancing long-term participation of local community in any development initiatives. The level of education in the community affects the level of community participation in water projects (Dorsner 2004). Speer et al., (2013 and Shamiyulla and Ramu (2010) established in their separate findings that the level of education is a significant variable influencing community participation in rural water supply in rural communities. Lack of adequate knowledge and skills by the community members due to the high level of illiteracy have limited the scope of community participation in rural water development and thus perpetuating continues lack of safe and clean water within many communities. However, the study of Awortwi (2012) in Africa and Latin America concluded that income levels have positive relationships as a factor influencing community participation in rural water supply. In rural Kenya, it was established that the weak financial position of local communities not only reduces their capacity to participate in development projects, but also affect their ability to pay for water services (Kakumba and Nsingo, 2008). In addition, Phillip and Abdillahi (2003) report agrees with Awortwi (2012) findings that the relatively high level of participation depends on the household income earned per month. Therefore, a decrease in household income per month is associated with a decrease in the level of community participation in rural water projects in terms of monetary contribution. Similarly, findings of Ezenwaji et al., 2016 on factors influencing community participation in rural water projects in Matete Sub-County Kakamega County revealed that the low-income of the community affected their ability to give monetary contribution towards planning and implementation of community water projects in the study area. The community members who have high income levels were able to contribute towards water project implementation than those with lower income level. From Gender Perspective, Hassan et al., (2019) established that men tend to show greater participation in water development activities than International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rsp[email protected]m 278 their female counterparts. Gender has been widely noted as an important factor influencing participation, particularly in rural water supply projects (Cleaver, 2002; Cleaver and Toner, 2006; Singh, 2008; Sultana, 2009). 3. METHODOLOGY Geographically Akwa Ibom State is located in the coastal south-southern part of the country, lying between Latitude 4˚ 32' and 5˚ 31.1’ North of Equator, and Longitudes 7˚ 25’ and 8˚ 25’ East. It has inter-state boundaries with Cross River to the east, Abia to the north and north-west and Rivers to the southwest and to the south is the Gulf of Guinea The study adopt a combination of survey and cross – sectional methods because it allows the researcher to collect data from different groups of people/individuals at a particular point in time. The survey approach was used to collect data through questionnaires on four different targeted population that made the study area Akwa Ibom State. Primarily, data requirement for the study was sourced through the use of pre – tested structured questionnaire, and personal observations on the existing water supply projects in the study area while books, journals, and relevant reports / publications on the subject matter were consulted to beef - up the secondary method of data collection. The population data of rural dwellers in the state was extracted from the 1991 National Population Census figure. The population figure for each of the settlements in the state was projected to the year 2024, using 2.83 percent population growth rate. However, the selection of the rural household – heads from the sample communities was facilitated by drawing a map of Akwa Ibom State on a scale of 1cm to represent 1km, and dividing same into quadrats of 0.025km 2 which was clearly and serially numbered. The quadrat system allows for random selection of a required number of points or cases within a quadrant. A table of random numbers was used to select rural communities as units of observation from sampled quadrats because the grid maps contain the names of communities thus, it was easy to know the communities within each quadrat. In the context of this research, where a quadrat contained two or more communities, only one with the highest population was selected to represent such quadrat. However, where a quadrat contained a community with a population of 20,000 and above, such quadrat was skipped considering the rural focus of the study. The study adopted 10% sample fraction and a total of 93 out of 930 quadrats from a preliminary analysis was randomly selected using the table of random numbers. To determine the sample size for the rural household – heads in the sample communities, International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rsp[email protected]m 279 the researcher adopts Stroud and Booth (2007) formula in determining the sample size which is stated below;  =  − ()  where S = Required sample, P = Expected value at 70% base (Constant) N = The total working population size, n = Number of working area (villages)  = [(358433) − (0.7 358433)] 93  = 107530 93 = 1156 This implies that 1156 rural household–heads was selected from 93 settlements for water supply and community participation survey in Akwa Ibom State as shown in Table 1. Sample Size: Table 1 S/N Assigned no Names of Villages LGA Population (2024) Household Pop. Sample Size 1 457 Ikot Akpaya Etinan 3594 599 12 2 639 Ikot Umiang Ede Etinan 3539 590 12 3 701 Akpasak Efa Etinan 5849 975 17 4 550 Ikot Ananga Etinan 2390 398 8 5 215 Atan Aya Ibiono 1928 321 7 6 242 Afaha Nsai Ibiono 3388 565 12 7 I68 Ikot Idem Ibiono 2470 412 9 8 266 Ikot Ada Idem Ibiono 5816 969 17 9 933 Usuk Aka Ibono 3497 583 12 10 244 Odiok Itam Itu 4125 688 14 11 198 Ikot Antuen Itu 3006 501 10 12 199 Ikot Offiong Itu 6033 1006 17 13 114 Ndiya Etuk Ikono 3665 611 12 14 092 Itak Ikot Akpan Edem Ikono 3057 510 11 15 117 Ikot Onwong Ikono 2404 400 8 16 163 Ekpen Obom Nkuoro Ikono 2464 410 8 17 138 Ikot Ette Ikono 1855 309 7 18 061 Etok Iton Ikono 1571 262 7 19 210 Utu Edem Usuk Ikot Ekpene 7679 1280 20 20 049 Ndot Nkpe Ini 4242 707 14 21 048 Ibam Edet Ini 3297 550 11 (table continues) International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rsp[email protected]m 280 22 195 Ikot Ukap Itu 2677 446 9 23 032 Edem Idim Ini 2097 350 7 24 645 Idikpa Nsit Nsit Atai 2604 434 9 25 558 Ikot Uyo Nsit Atai 2281 380 8 26 709 Ikot Okpudo Nsit Ubium 4230 705 14 27 516 Minya Ntak Mkpat Enin 6397 1066 18 28 586 Minya Mkpat Enin 4622 770 15 29 763 Ikot Etefia Mkpat Enin 3268 545 11 30 461 Ikot Annung Ibesikpo Asutan 2659 443 9 31 431 Ikot Obio Odongo Ibesikpo Asutan 5214 869 16 32 285 Ikot Akpasia Ibesikpo Asutan 2379 397 8 33 583 Ekpene Ukpa Etinan 9034 1506 25 34 868 Odio Eket 4738 790 15 35 835 Esit Urua Eket 7795 1299 21 36 768 Ikot Abia Eket 6147 1025 17 37 870 Nditia Eket 1819 303 7 38 285 Afaha Esang Abak 5871 979 17 39 264 Ikot Obioko Abak 3796 633 13 40 314 Ikwek Abak 3801 634 13 41 341 Ikot Akpa Edem Abak 2692 448 9 42 443 Ikot Udo - Obong Etim Ekpo 5158 860 16 43 359 Nto Obio Etim Ekpo 6020 1003 17 44 360 Ikot Akpapan Etim Ekop 2466 411 9 45 474 Ndot Etim Ekpo 2246 374 8 46 237 Ikot Abiat Essien Udium 2990 498 10 47 205 Nto Nsek Essien Udim 5793 966 16 48 261 Ikot Akpan Essang Essien Udim 2848 475 10 49 236 Ikot Ntuen Essien Udim 2661 444 9 50 228 Iboho Essien Udim 2286 381 8 51 284 Mkpatak Essien Udim 2150 358 8 52 831 Abat Onna 5098 850 16 53 117 Ikot Onwon Onna 5720 953 16 54 224 Ikot Nya Itu 1972 329 7 55 678 Urue Ita Okobo 4882 814 16 56 468 Esuk Inwang Ekeya Okobo 4167 695 14 57 563 Ebighi Anwa Okobo 3350 558 11 58 562 Eyo Nko Okobo 2615 436 9 59 564 Nda Okobo 1951 325 7 60 010 Obot Ndom Ini 2519 420 9 61 109 Ikot Abia Obot Akara 2861 477 10 62 749 Uda Mbo 5596 933 16 63 717 Asak Ikang Mbo 3701 617 13 64 813 Iyesin Mbo 2652 442 9 65 847 Ibete Mbo 2923 487 10 66 384 Ikot Inyang Ika 4076 679 14 67 903 Mkpanak Ibeno 16318 2720 48 68 567 Esuk Mbiam Oron 2288 381 8 69 605 Mbiaso Oruk Anam 2655 443 9 70 756 Ikot Inuen Oruk Anam 4381 730 15 71 940 Obianga Eastern Obolo 2377 396 8 72 483 Ntak Ibesit Oruk Anam 3252 542 11 International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rsp[email protected]m 281 73 759 Ikot Osudu Ikot Abasi 2468 411 9 74 791 Ikot Akpa Idiang Ikot Abasi 2868 478 10 75 827 Atan Obom Ikot Abasi 3083 514 11 76 792 Ikot Ukpong Ekwere Ikot Abasi 3590 598 12 77 063 Atan Ukwuk Ini 2008 335 7 78 327 Akani Obio Uruan Uruan 4130 688 14 79 478 Ikot Akpaidem Ukanafun 5764 961 16 80 510 Afaha Obo Ukanafun 4282 714 14 81 713 Ubodung Urue Offong 3992 665 14 82 684 Eyo Eyekip Urue Offong 1888 315 7 83 692 Offot Oruk Anam 2879 480 10 84 686 Eyo Nsek Udung Uko 2599 433 9 85 773 Ekpene Obo Esit Eket 11547 1925 33 86 742 Uquo Iso Edoho Esit Eket 4412 735 15 87 838 Ine Ukpana Esit Eket 4036 673 14 88 810 Ntak Inyang Esit Eket 4036 673 14 89 806 Akpata Esit Eket 2815 469 10 90 393 Ibesit Okpokoro Oruk Anam 4296 716 15 91 610 Itung Oruk Anam 2102 350 8 92 609 Eteben Oruk Anam 2386 398 8 93 482 Ntak Obio Akpa Oruk Anam 3783 631 13 358433 59739 1156 Source: NPC, 1991. The second target population was the total number of community leaders/village heads of the sample rural settlements in the study area. Questionnaire was administered to the selected 93 community leaders on their level of participation in water supply in the area. The third group was the number of Local Government Council Officials incharge of community development projects. Finally, the fourth was the number of Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) in the rural settlements that make up the study area. 3.1 Data Presentation and Analysis Two research approaches were presented and analysed on community participation in rural water supply in the study area. However, hypotheses one state that the rural participation approaches do not significantly influence the rural water supply options in the study area. To analysed this hypothesis, factor analysis was used to reduce 17 independent (x) variables of participation approaches into nine (9) extracted components with their factor score as shown in Table 2. while dependent variable (y) is water supply option. International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rsp[email protected]m 288 Table 6: Rotated component matrix for socio – economic factor Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 Secondary. School .795 .101 .181 .038 -.005 .211 Trading .752 .376 .166 -.060 .019 -.104 Business .751 .047 .290 .108 .160 -.078 Single .745 .231 -.049 .395 .287 .112 Age: 19 -37yrs .659 .184 .230 .304 .253 .116 Age: < 18yrs .557 .249 -.133 .412 .241 .016 Male .553 .475 .331 .353 .256 .117 Income: N 36-72 .515 .428 .647 .042 -.006 .412 Female .494 .429 .592 .273 .190 .148 Age: >57 yrs .133 .800 .030 .056 .203 .068 Devoiced .212 .654 .267 .056 -.020 .211 Widowed .192 .649 .184 .087 -.009 .369 Income: N 72-108 .299 .624 .072 .535 -.073 -.215 Primary Education .345 .567 .689 .155 .086 -.137 Faming -.065 .566 .533 .035 .550 .026 No formal Edu. .267 .543 .153 .278 .444 .201 Age: 38-56 .193 .248 .836 .182 .004 .171 Married .286 .206 .744 .296 .278 -.107 Public Service .167 .253 .186 .807 -.076 .219 Post Education .017 -.092 .204 .658 .518 .117 Poly/Uni. Education .389 .290 .349 .513 .060 .171 Income level > N 144 .340 -.003 .291 .409 .507 -.181 Income level N 108 - 144 .358 .110 .041 .106 .768 .125 Clergy .062 .201 .029 .182 .137 .874 Source: Researchers’ Statistical Analysis (2025) Key: 1. Post - secondary youth/informal occupation 2. Non-formally educated and married youth 3. Lowly educated and married youth 4. Highly educated and employed youth 5. Highly educated and high-income professionals 6. Middle income unmarried clergy A multiple correlation/regression analysis of the six (6) extracted components from 24 original variables on socio – economic indicators were regressed with the rural water supply options. This was with a view to define the level of association of the two sets of variables as well as their causal relationships. For the Y1 variable (rain water supply options), a multiple correlation coefficient of R = 0.591 was obtained indicating that about 34.9% (r 2 =.349) of this variable is impacted by the six (6) extracted factor scores (Xvariables). The square of the multiple correlations coefficient R indicates the degree of predictability of the value of Y with all the Xvariables taken together as input data using simultaneous or standardized multiple regression analysis. Using the specific contributions of each of the individual factors, X2 (formally educated and married youth factor) contributed the highest in predicting the socio – economic factor contributions of (0.531) while X6 (religious income factor) contributed the least (-. 045) in the explanation of the socio – economic factors influence to rural water supply options in the study area. Therefore, the null hypothesis in this case is rejected as the overall result shows that the socio – economic factors do significantly influence the rural water supply options in rural Akwa Ibom State going by the International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rsp[email protected]m 289 significant pvalue of .000 which is less than .05 established for accepting the null hypothesis (see Table 7.). Table 7: Summarized result of multiple regression analysis Parameters Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Multiple R .591 .723 .604 .636 R Square .349 .523 .365 .404 Adjusted R 2 .304 .490 .320 .362 Standard Error 2.074 1.823 1.702 2.464 F 7.688 15.10 8.228 9.711 Sig F DurbinWatson .000 1.574 .000 1.662 .000 2.053 .000 1.725 Source: Researchers analysis result (2025) 4.Conclusion/ Recommendations Nigeria is one of the developing countries of the world that are in a very poor state of the provision of social amenities especially rural water supply despite several policies and programme by successive administrations. Studies have differently confirmed that majority of rural communities in Nigeria lack access to the improved water supply. Often times, they rely on free water supply sources such as streams and unprotected wells for their water needs which are susceptible to waterborne disease. This is a true reflection in the study area as the majority of the rural dwellers indicated that their source of water supply was from borehole but regrettably these sources were not functioning as the majority of the rural dwellers still source their water needs from streams and unprotected wells. Methods of rural participation approach in the provision of rural water supply to reduce the burden of access to the improved water supply was analysed and concluded that; labour interaction factor participation was low. This was due to several factors amongst which was the health and educational level of the rural dwellers thereby limiting their participation in rural supply projects in the study area. However, religious income factor contributed the least in explaining the socio - economic factors influencing rural water supply in the study area. Thus, the study recommends that the social economic status of the rural dwellers should be strengthened to enable them effectively participates in rural water supply projects while the technical assistant approach should be sustained REFERENCES Acha, J. (2020). Community self-helf projects as catalyst for sustainable community development projects in Bekwarra, Nigeria. International Journal of Continuing Education and Development Studies, 2(1), 40 – 49. Ananga, E., Agong, S.G., Acheampong, M. (2020). Examining the effect of community participation on beneficiary satisfaction with the work of water management committee in urban community-based operated water schemes. Journal of Sustainable Water Resource Management, (6), 49 – 57. International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rsp[email protected]m 290 Arstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. A Journal of American Institute of Planners, 35 (4), 216 – 224. Awortwi, N. (2012). The riddle of community development: factors influencing participation and management in twenty-nine African and Latin American communities. Journal of Community Development, 4(8): 89-104 Bakker, K., Kooy, M., Shofiani, N. & Ernst-Jan, M. (2008). Governance failure: Rethinking the institutional dimensions of urban water supply to poor households. Journal of World Development, 36(10), 1891-1915. Baurma, F,. Robert, A., Carolyn, C. Charlie, J. Eva, M. Kathy, M. and Robert, C. (2002) Epidemiology of participation: An Australian community Study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 5(4), 414 - 423. Botes, L. (2013). Community participation in development: Nine plagues and twelve commandments. Community Development Journal, 35(1) 41-58. Brain, J. & Robrt, S. (2016). Planning for sustainable water supply through partnership approach in wukari town Taraba State, Nigeria. Journal of Water Resources and Protection, 2(10), 916 – 922. Brehanu, W. (2008). Environmental impacts of rural water systems & integrated development for water and sanitation. Journal of the Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management, (13), 292 – 296. Chitonge, H. (2014) Cities beyond Networks: The Status of water services for the urban poor in African cities. Journal of African Studies, 73 (1), 58 – 83. Cleaver, F. (2002). Analysing gender roles in community natural resource management: negotiation, lifecourses and social inclusion, Bulletin, 31: 60–71 Cleaver, F. and Toner, A. (2006). The Evolution of community water governance in Uchira, Tanzania: The implication of equality of access, sustainability and effectiveness. Natural Resources Forum, 30: 207 – 218. Davis, J. & Brikke, F. (2009). Making your water supply work: Operation and maintenance for small water supply system, IWSC, The Hague. 219p. Damelin, E., Shamir, U & Arad, N. (1972). Engineering and economic evaluation of the reliability of water supply. Journal of Water Resources, 8(4), 861 – 877. Dorsner, C. (2004) Social exclusion and participation in community development projects: evidence from Senegal. Journal of Policy and Administration, 4(1): 366-382 Elizabeth, S. (2008). Analysis of a rural water supply project in three communities in Malawi. Participation & sustainability. UN Blackwell publishing Ltd. New York, 294p. International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rsp[email protected]m 291 Ezenwaji, E., Eduputa, B. and Okoye, I (2016). Investigation into the residential water demand and supply in Enugu metropolitan Area. American Journal of Water Resources 4(1): 22 – 29. Felix, E. (2004). Sustainability of rural water supply & sanitation services under community management approach: The Case of six villages in Tanzania. Gaboyan, M. (2010) Demographic factors affecting citizen participation in Armenia. https://www.crrc.am/hosting/file/_static_content/fellows/CELoG%20Fellowship/2016/ Margarita%20 Gaboyan.%20Factors%20of%20participation.pdf (Retrieved on 5 th June 2016) Ghai, D. & Vivian, J. (2014). Grassroots environmental action: People’s participation in sustainable development: Routledge, London. 236p. Gleick, P. (2003). Global freshwater resources: Soft-path solutions for the 21st century Science. Journal of Science and Technology, 3(5), 24 – 28. Gleick, P. (2014). The World’s water volume 8. The Biennial report on freshwater resources Vol 8. Island Press. 147p. Goldstein J., Rogers, T. & Fox, R. (2018). Social mobilization. Annual Review of Psychology. 69(1), 357 – 381. Harris, C. (2006). Doing development with men: Some reflections on a case study from Mali. IDS Bulletin, 37(6): 4756 Hassan, O. and Osore M, (2019). Assessing the Influence of Demographic Factors on Community Participation in a Demand Driven Development Project: The Case of Hazina Ya Maendeleo Approach in Coastal Kenya. Rural Development Bulletin, 4(7): 47 - 63 Hopewell, M. & Graham, J. (2014). Trends in access to water supply and sanitation in 31 major sub-Saharan African cities: An analysis of DHS data from 2000 to 2012. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 20 - 31. http://www.mil/dev/goa/rep/un/et/20/doc/html. (Retrieved on 7th February 2017) John, P. (2009). Can citizen governance redress the representative bias of political participation. Journal of Public Administration, 69(3): 494-503 Jones, S. (2011). Participation as citizenship or payment. A case study of rural drinking water governance in Mali. International Journal of Water Alternatives 4(1): 67 – 84 Joseph O., Emah. W, & Marvin, M. (2015). Assessing Sustainability of Rural Water Projects in Naivasha, Kenya, Case Study: Maraigushu Water Project. Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 4(7), 52 – 83. Joshi, A. and Houtzager, P. (2012). Widgets and Watchdogs: Conceptual Explorations in Social Accountability. Public Managent Review, 14: 145 – 162. International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rsp[email protected]m 292 Kakumba, U. and Nsingo, S. (2008). Citizen Participation in Local Government and the Process of Rural Development: The Rhetoric and Reality of Uganda. Journal of Public Administration, (43)2: 107-123. Koffi, A & Ikurekong E. (2020): Conceptual and Methodological Perspectives on Rural Water Supply pp 626 – 657. In: Victor. U and Jacob A (Editors) Land use Management and Environmental Sustainability in Nigeria. Parvenu Publishers Nigeria. 746p. Kumar, S. (2002). Methods for Community Participation: A complete guide for practitioners. London: ITDG Publishing. The Hague, Holland. 294p. Maria, S., Varouchakis E. & Karatzas, G. (2015). Game theory in water resources management. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 17(1), 786 – 791. Mitchel, B. (2005). Integrated water resource management, institutional arrangements, and land use planning. Journal of Environment and Planning, 37(8), 1335 – 1352. Mugizi, F., Ayorekire, J. and Obua, J. (2017) Factors that influence local community participation in tourism in murchison falls conservation area. Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering, 6(1): 209 - 223. Njoh, J. (2003). Self-help water supply in CameroonLessons on community participation in public works projects. The Edwin Mellen Press. Lewiston, New York. 249p. NPC, (1991). Census 1991 Final Result: Statistical Tables for Akwa Ibom State, National Population Commission, Abuja, Nigeria. 156p. Nwankwoala, O. (2011). Localizing the Strategy for achieving rural water supply and sanitation in Nigeria. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, (13): 1170 – 1176 Mugizi, F., Ayorekire, J. & Obua, J. (2017) Factors that influence local community participation in tourism in murchison falls conservation area. Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering, 6(1), 209 - 223. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007). Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Journal of Water Resources Management, 21(1), 49 – 62. Phillip, K. and Abdillahi, A. (2003). Popular participation and community work ethic in rural water development in Nandi District Kenya. Journal of social Development in Africa, 18 (2): 10 - 15. Preston G., Waugh H. & Larkins, S. (2010). Community participationin in rural primary health care: Intervention or Approach. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 16(1), 4 – 16. Shamiyulla, N. and Ramu, J. (2010). Participatory irrigation management in the context of future of irrigation in India, Asian. Journal of Development Matters, 4(1): 18-27. Simon, O. Judith, E. Esther, P. (2014). Rural development policies in Nigeria: A critical appraisal. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(9),307 – 320. International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical Research ISSN 2249-9954 Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijst/index.html volume 15, No. 5, 2025 Original Article ©2025 RS Publication, rsp[email protected]m 293 Singh, U. (2008) Community participation in the management of public good: Myth or Reality, case study of two villages in India, ISS Research Paper, No 5. The Hague, Holland. 143p. Speer, W., Peterson, N., Armstead, T. and Allen, C. (2013). The Influence of participation, gender and organizational sense of community on psychological empowerment: The moderating effects of income. American Journal of Community Psychology, 5(1), 103-113. Sultana, F. (2009). Fluid lives: subjectivities, water and gender in rural Bangladesh. Gender, place, and culture. CRC Press, Leiden, Netherland. 122p. Taylor, J. Wilkinson, D. Cheers, B. (2008). Working with communities in health and human services: Oxford University Press. London, 215p. Therkildsen, H. (1998). A study of the factors affecting sustainability of rural water supplies in Tanzania: Silsoe Institute of Water and the Environment, September 1998. Cranfield University, England. 218p. UNICEF & WHO. (2019). Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2019 Report on World Health Organization and United Nations Children's Fund. New York. 119p. UNICEF, (2021). Water, Sanitation and Hygiene programme in Nigeria. https://www.unicef.org/nigeria/water-sanitation-and-hygiene. (Retrieved on 24th April 2021). United Nations, (2010a). Sustainable Development Goals. 17 Goals to Transform Our World http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/water-and-sanitation/ (Retrieved on 27th May 2018). World Bank, (2004). Towards Water Secure Kenya: Water Resources Sector Memorandum. Washington D.C. London, 62p. World Bank, (2016). Water Supply, Sanitation, and Hygiene, Poverty Diagnostic Initiative. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/water. (Retrieved on 5th August 2018) World Bank, (2016). Water Supply, Sanitation, and Hygiene, Poverty Diagnostic Initiative. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/water. (Retrieved on 5th August 2018) www.wssinfo.org.pro.wat.sup.san._ 40.doc/html (Retrieved on 4th August 2019) Wraight, C. (2008). Rousseau’s the Social Contract: A Reader’s Guide. Continuum books. London. 136p