The Socio-Economic Impact of Village Wells on the Villages
Dr. VARDAN E. URUTYAN *
Dr. DANIEL J. DUNN**
*Armenian Agricultural Academy, Agribusiness Teaching Center, USDA MAP
Armenia, Yerevan Armenia
Now - Visiting Scholar, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
E-mails: vurutyan@uoguelph.ca, vardanur@yahoo.com
** Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics, International
Education Coordinator, Agribusiness Teaching Center Project Coordinator.
E-mails: dunn@usda.am, danldunn@yahoo.com,
The Socio-Economic Impact of Village Wells on the Villages
The Socio-Economic Impact of Village Wells on the Villages
Abstract:
This research study classifies and measures the benefits of the “Village Well” project conducted by the
USDA MAP during 2001. This research project analyzes the importance of water wells to villages, and
reveals the agricultural and socio-economical benefits of families it served. The study analyzes the socioeconomic situation of the village before and after the “Village Well” project. In order to analyze the socioeconomic impact of “Village Well”, an organized group visited those provinces where the wells operate,
conducted surveys among the users of water, and recorded all the problems referring to the operation of
water wells. Data are obtained by Stratified sampling and Proportional sampling methods in a field work
from 131 well users from 7 provinces of Armenia. In this study a number of statistical tests have been
implemented such as Hypothesis Testing, One-Sample Tests, Two-Sample and c-Sample Tests with
Categorical Data. Surveys revealed how people use wells, how water is distributed from wells, how people
pay for used water, whether well water is sufficient or not, if more wells are needed for that community. The
study allowed to analyze the need of continuing such projects and revealed the utility rate of water wells.
Key words:
Water Well, Groundwater Withdrawals, Hypothesis Testing, Socio-Economic Factors,
Survey, Utility Rate, Stratified and Proportional Sampling, Categorical Data.
Introduction:
Agriculture remains a dominant sector in the economy of Armenia. It provides varying levels of
productive employment to approximately half of the households, and contributes about 30% of GDP
(Economic Statistics 2002, Armenia). In Armenia, agriculture is strongly dependent on irrigation, since the
majority of crop production requires watering. Therefore, water for irrigation purposes remains the number
one water demand in Armenia.
Agricultural users have four sources of water: direct precipitation, stream-flow diversions, reservoir
storage and releases, and groundwater withdrawals. Storage of water in reservoirs is one form of drought
mitigation. When more precipitation is available, however, farmers can rely less on their stored water
supplies, and withdraw less water from streams and aquifers as well. Examples of irrigated agriculture in
Armenia include grapes, apples, wheat, barley, potatoes, and vegetables. Approximately 200,000 ha are at
present irrigated and roughly 85,000 ha that were previously irrigated have reverted to dryland due to failure
of pumping and conveyance systems (out of a total of roughly 494,000 hectares of cultivable area in the
whole country). The water is supplied to most of the irrigation schemes by 14 major conveyance irrigation
systems that are highly deteriorated. This irrigation delivery system is now inadequate to the new post-
2
The Socio-Economic Impact of Village Wells on the Villages
socialist reality. Those on-farm systems were designed to service large farms, which may have irrigated 50 to
400 ha from a single headgate or canal outlet. Presently, the same outlet may service 300 or more farmers,
given that the average size of an irrigated farm is currently 1.38 ha.
Because of the serious drought in year 2000, farmers experienced losses in corn by 100,000 tons, in
potato by 90,000 tons and in grass production by 225,000 tons. The loss in cattle ranching was $7.5 million.
Armenian Government received financial aids from different international financial organizations to
subsidize farmers’ losses (Harutyunyan, 2001). To solve these problems first of all it is very important to
have better water management in Armenian farms in order to continue to increase agricultural production and
improve incomes in the farm levels. The existing irrigation system is very inefficient.
Groundwater withdrawals, particularly village wells are one of the important irrigation sources.
There are many villages where water wells drilled during Soviet times are now inoperable for various
reasons, such as technical problems, pumps and engines malfunctioning, deficit of pipelines etc., leaving
some villages with only surface water supplies which actually disappear in late summer.
The Village Well project was established by USDA Marketing Assistance Program, which aimed to
rehabilitate deteriorated water wells and construct new wells for rural communities and farmers. The Village
Well Project is funded by the European Command of the U.S. Dept. of Defense through their humanitarian
assistance. USDA/MAP worked through Foundation of Applied Research and Agribusiness (FARA) to
identify well sites and conduct competitive bidding for wells. It also contained well rehabilitation in some
villages (Infanger, 2001).
The first and second stages of the Village Well project are virtually complete with 48 new or
rehabilitated wells making water available to 38,000 villagers. The U.S. Embassy in Armenia has allocated
an additional $300,000 for a third phase of Village Wells and Pipeline Projects. A Small Farm Water
Management Research Center (SFWMRC) was created in the Armenian Agricultural Academy to handle the
new research, demonstration, and educational priorities in improving agricultural water use in Armenia. This
center now has teams organized for monitoring the village wells, conducting on-farm field moisture
monitoring and furrow evaluation, and expanding training and education with extension agents. Our team is
one of the SFWMRC teams, which has objectives to analyze the importance of water wells to villages, and
reveal the agricultural and socio-economical benefits of well user families.
Our project has pursued the following goals:
1. To develop a methodology for conducting surveys which can be used in the future similar
projects.
2. To conduct surveys in those communities which have been selected according to the abovementioned methodology.
3. To make analysis user rate and the utility of wells based on the compiled data.
4. To analyze the socio-economic condition of families in the communities of water wells.
3
The Socio-Economic Impact of Village Wells on the Villages
5. To research the influence of “Village Well” project on the rise of efficiency of food
production.
Method and Description of the Project
In accordance with the importance of the first goal a sampling methodology was developed to implement the
Project. For the sampling plan Stratified Sampling method was used. The total number of wells at the
beginning of the study was 42. The population (42 wells) was subdivided into separate subpopulations, or
strata according to provinces. The wells are situated in 8 provinces. Here are the provinces and the wells:
T able 1:T he number of the W ater W ells inc luded in the S tudy
Province
Lory
Gegharq
Armavir
Aragats
Ararat
Shirak
10
16
5
4
2
2
Totalnumberofwater
wells
V. Dzor Syuniq
2
1
Total
42
1/3 ofwaterwells
33%
Wells in the Study
14
Proportional
percentage
24%
38%
12%
10%
5%
5%
5%
-
100%
3
5
2
1
1
1
1
-
14
Wells in the Study
Percentages are rounded
Due to budget constraint and average transportation expenses only 14 wells from 7 provinces were included
in the research. This number represents 1/3 of the population. To know how many wells from each province
we will select we used Proportional Sampling. In Lory province there are 10 wells. This is approximately
24% of the total population (42 wells). With proportional sampling, 24% of the first sample (14 wells) must
be selected in Lory province. In Lory province we selected 3 wells. Using the same method the results will
be the above captured table (Table 1.)
The next stage was well selection. These wells were selected by using simple random sampling method
within each of the strata.
Results of the Project:
The level of water wells usage was very low in 2002 which because of rainy weather. Most of the selected
wells have never been used because of absence of their necessity. Nevertheless there are also other reasons.
For instance, in Jrashen we found that wells hadn’t been ready for use. Other reasons were both the abundant
showers and delay of electronic devices. In fact, the water well Jrashen-5, which was included in the project
4
The Socio-Economic Impact of Village Wells on the Villages
according to the random sampling, didn’t take part in the project. For the above-mentioned reasons the water
wells of Qarakert in Armavir (which had technical problems of engine and pump), 2 wells of Poqr Masrik
and the well Arteni-2 were excluded from the project. During our visits those wells never operated.
Table 2 presents the selected wells, the real number of users, and area irrigated, which we found during
our visits.
Table 2: The real number of well users and quantity of irrigated land with the wells.
Lory province
Lernavan 2
Saramej 1
Jrashen
(All 5 wells in Jrashen during our visits were not working)
Gegharquniq province
Lchashen
Khachaghbyur 1
Khachaghbyur 2
Mets Masrik 2
Poqr Masrik 1
(the wells are not working/technical problems)
Armavir province
Qarakert
Mrgashat
(This well has a problem with the pump)
Ararat province
Shaghap
Shirak province
Gusanagyugh
(This well is used for utility needs, not for irrigation)
Vayots Dzor province
Elpin
Users
Area irrigated
90 users
60 ha
40 users
54 ha
*
20 users
20 users
60 users
50 users
**
15 ha
4 ha
12 ha
10 ha
***
40 users
30 ha
80 users
15 ha
****
72 users
8.5 ha
Aragatsotn province
Arteni 2
(The well is projected for the irrigation of 80ha of land but because of the lack of
pipelines it’s not working.)
TOTAL
*****
472
208.5
From the above information we can generalize that only 472 people used the 14 water wells included
in our project. These people used water wells only for the irrigation matters. The 14 wells irrigated about
208.5 ha of land (see Table 2.)
The number of surveyed people was determined according to the proportional and stratified sampling
methodology. The surveyed people were selected by the simple random sampling method. Thus:
5
The Socio-Economic Impact of Village Wells on the Villages
Thirty-six surveys were conducted in Lory (the 130 users of water wells in Lory province make up
28% of total 472 users, which means that the number of people to be surveyed is 28 % of 130), 48 surveys in
Gegharqunik (32%). In Armavir (Mrgashat) only 3 (8%) surveys were provided for in our plan but because
another water well of Armavir province (Qarakert) didn’t work we made 22 surveys. 14 surveys were done
in province of Ararat (17%), 11 in Vayots Dzor (15%).
Altogether 131 surveys were conducted which constitutes 28% of all water users. (Table 3.)
Table 3: The number of surveyed people in each of the strata.
Province
Lory
Gegharq
Armavir
Aragats
Ararat
Shirak
V. Dzor
Total
Totalnumberofwellusers
130
150
40
0
80
0
72
472
Percentage from the Total
28%
32%
8%
0%
17%
0
15%
100%
Quantity ofsurveyed users
36
48
22
0
14
0
11
131
The percentage numbers are rounded
As shown in the table, no surveys were done in Shirak province and Aragatsotn province. The water
wells here were used only for domestic use. We did our surveys in areas of water wells being used only for
the purpose of irrigation. Though we also conducted some surveys in the above-mentioned provinces.
The surveys revealed that water well users mainly irrigate their own land area, and only 14% of all
questioned people have irrigated rented lands.
Land areas didn’t exceed 2 hectares. Thirty-seven percent of questioned people had up to 1ha of
land, and only 63 % had lands of 1-2 ha. The irrigable lands were about 0.8 kilometers from the water wells,
particularly 1 km in Ararat, 0.6 km in Lori, 0.8 km in Vayots Dzor (see Appendix 1,2).
In general, 55% of questioned people wholly irrigated their lands by water wells. 41% irrigated only
the half of their lands (see Figure 1). Particularly, 75% of questioned people in Gegharquniq could
completely irrigate their lands. In comparison 73 % of questioned people in Vayots Dzor irrigated only half
their lands (see Appendix 1,2).
6
The Socio-Economic Impact of Village Wells on the Villages
Generally on their land well users grow vegetables and crop. To the question: Has your land ever
been irrigated before? 84% of surveyed people answered YES. In Lory, Gegharquniq and Armavir provinces
respectively 89%, 94% and 100% of questioned people answered positively.
Before they have used dams through irrigation net (53%), existing wells (5%) and other sources (see
Figure 2). These sources of irrigation have not been so efficient for water users.
Thirty five percent of surveyed people answered that the previous system of irrigation was efficient,
28% of surveyed people: satisfactory, and 37% of surveyed people: bad (see Appendix 1,2).
This question we can analyze by using statistical tests such as Z test of Hypothesis for the
Proportion. In terms of proportions the null and alternative hypothesis can be stated as follows:
. Ho:p ≥ 0.4
Table 4: Hypothesis Testing
Null Hypothesis
0.4
p=
Level of Significance
0.05
Answer: was efficient
42
Sample Size
131
Sample Proportion
0.320610687
Standard Error
0.043685203
Z Test Statistic
-4.106409066
The null hypothesis can be stated as follows: the previous
system of irrigation was 40% efficient. From our surveys
we know that 42 from a total of 131 users say the previous
system of irrigation was efficient. If a level of significance
α of 0.05 is selected, the decision rule will be
Reject Ho if Z< -1.645, otherwise do not reject Ho.
From hypothesis testing we know that –4.106<-1.645 and
Lower-Tail Test
-1.644853
we must reject Ho. Thus we may conclude that the previous
2.01039E-05
system of irrigation was not even 40% efficient and the null
Lower Critical Value
p-Value
H1:p < 0.4
hypothesis must be rejected (see Table 4.)
Reject the null hypothesis
Sixty nine percent of surveyed people answered that the well water is adequate during the irrigation
season, but for 31% of surveyed people the well water is not adequate. Particularly, 59 % of surveyed people
in Armavir province answered negatively (see Figure 2). In Armavir province surveys have been conducted
in the area of Mrgashat well. Farmers in this area feel that there is a necessity for the second well.
Figure 2: According to crops allocation does the well's
water satisfy your needs during the season?
Merely
28%
Doesn't
31%
Satisfies
41%
7
The Socio-Economic Impact of Village Wells on the Villages
However, 90% of surveyed people in Gegharquniq province answered that the well water is adequate during
the irrigation season (see Appendix 1,2). In terms of proportion the null and alternative hypothesis can be
stated as follows: Ho:p ≥ 0.75 (satisfies more than 75%) H1:p < 0.75
Hypothesis testing shows that the null hypothesis must be
Table 5: Hypothesis Testing
accepted. That means the level of satisfaction is 75% and
0.75
p=
Null Hypothesis
Level of Significance
more (see Table 5.).
0.05
Satisfies
Z test for the difference in two proportions shows that in
96
Sample Size
Gegharquniq and Lory provinces there is a significant
131
Sample Proportion
0.732824427
Standard Error
0.037832495
difference in water well satisfaction. Z test reveals that in
Gegharquniq province the farmers are using the wells more
-0.453989945 efficiently than in Lory province (see Table 6.). In Lory,
Z Test Statistic
Ararat and Vayots Dzor provinces there is not a significant
Lower-Tail Test
-1.644853 difference in satisfaction among the water users. That means
Lower Critical Value
0.324918051 that the water users in these provinces have almost the same
p-Value
level of satisfaction.
Do not reject the null hypothesis
Table 6: Hypothesis Testing
Lory/Ararat
Lory/Gegharquniq
Hypothesized Difference
Level of Significance
Hypothesized Difference
0
0
Level of Significance
0.05
0.05
Lory
Lory
Satisfies
26
Satisfies
26
Sample Size
36
Sample Size
36
Ararat
Gegharquniq
Satisfies
43
Satisfies
11
Sample Size
48
Sample Size
14
Group 1 Proportion
0.722222222
Group 1 Proportion
0.722222222
Group 2 Proportion
0.895833333
Group 2 Proportion
0.785714286
Difference in Two Proportions
Average Proportion
Difference in Two Proportions
-0.173611111
Average Proportion
0.821428571
Z Test Statistic
-0.063492063
0.74
Z Test Statistic
-2.055979849
-0.459565242
Two-Tailed Test
Two-Tailed Test
Lower Critical Value
-1.959961082
Lower Critical Value
-1.959961082
Upper Critical Value
1.959961082
Upper Critical Value
1.959961082
p-Value
0.039784324
p-Value
0.645828345
Do not reject the null hypothesis **
Reject the null hypothesis *
* There is a significant difference
** There is not a significant difference
8
The Socio-Economic Impact of Village Wells on the Villages
In opinion of all surveyed people the water from water wells is being distributed fairly. The water users use
wells by turn. Particularly, 57 % of surveyed people use the water by turn, 33% only 1-2 times, 10% - can
use whenever they want (see Appendix 1,2). To the question of “ Are there any cases when because of
technical problems you don’t irrigate the land?” 46% of people answered yes, 33% -very rare, 21%-no (see
Figure 3). The technical problems mostly appeared in Lory –61%, Armavir-59%, Vayots Dzor-45% (see
Appendix 1,2).
Figure 3. Are there any cas es when becaus e of
technical problems you don’t irrigate the land?
60%
40%
20%
46%
33%
0%
yes
notoften
21%
never
At the .05 level of significance, Z test for the difference in two proportions shows that there is a significant
difference in cases of technical problems and malfunctioning between Lory and Gegharquniq provinces (see
Table 7.). The cases of technical problems in other provinces have been repeated with equal proportions.
Table 7: Hypothesis Testing
Armavir/Ararat
Lory/Gegharquniq
Hypothesized Difference
Hypothesized Difference
0
Level of Significance
0
Level of Significance
0.05
0.05
Armavir
Lory
Cases of malfunctioning
22
Cases of malfunctioning
13
Sample Size
36
Sample Size
22
Ararat
Gegharquniq
Cases of malfunctioning
15
Cases of malfunctioning
Sample Size
48
Sample Size
6
14
Group 1 Proportion
0.611111111
Group 1 Proportion
0.590909091
Group 2 Proportion
0.3125
Group 2 Proportion
0.428571429
Difference in Two Proportions
0.162337662
Average Proportion
0.527777778
Z Test Statistic
0.951140414
Difference in Two Proportions
Average Proportion
0.298611111
0.44047619
Z Test Statistic
2.728146479
Two-Tailed Test
Two-Tailed Test
Lower Critical Value
-1.959961082
Upper Critical Value
1.959961082
p-Value
0.006369238
Lower Critical Value
-1.959961082
Upper Critical Value
1.959961082
p-Value
0.341533074
Do not reject the null hypothesis
Reject the null hypothesis*
9
The Socio-Economic Impact of Village Wells on the Villages
* The number of cases of well technical problems and malfunctioning in Lory province is proportionally more than that
is in Gegharquniq province. That means more attention must be paid to technical conditions of the wells in Lory
province.
Before the payments for water were done irregularly and the users paid high fees for the water used.
Fees were about 25000-30000 AMD/hectare for the entire season. (585AMD = 1USD)
Now fees are paid based on hours used. Particularly, to use the water well Saramech-2 in Lori one
should pay 600 AMD per hour. The fee for water well Lernavan-2 is 500 AMD per hour. Thus the average is
550AMD per hour. The fee per hour use of Lchashen water well is 600AMD, for Khachaghbyur-1 it’s
1104AMD, for Khachaghbyur 2–579 AMD, in Mets Masrik the fee is 650AMD. The average rate is
733.2AMD per hour in Gegharquniq (see Table 8.)
The fee for Elpin water well in Vayots Dzor is 600AMD, for Shaghap water well in Ararat it is 580
AMD. The situation is somewhat different for water well of Mrgashat. To irrigate 1000 square meters one
should pay 1000 AMD irrespective of used hours (see Table 8.). There are many people here who want to
use water, but because of lack of water supplies most of them simply cant do that. Most of the questioned
people find it necessary to build the second well, which would serve about 50 hectares. Arteni-2 well in
Aragatsotn, which was chosen according the random sampling, hasn’t worked because of the absence of
pipes. However Arteni-1 well operated here which was entirely used for the technical and utility purposes.
Here the people also were content with the wells, since before it was difficult to them to solve the
problems connected with water use. Now they are exempt from that problem.
Table 8: The fee per hour use of water well.
(580AMD = 1 USD)
Lory province
Lernavan 2
Saramej 1
Jrashen 5
Gegharquniq province
Lchashen
Khachaghbyur 1
Khachaghbyur 2
Mets Masrik 2
Poqr Masrik 1
Armavir province
Qarakert
Mrgashat
Ararat province
Shaghap
Shirak province
Gusanagyugh
Vayots Dzor province
Elpin
Aragatsotn province
Arteni 2
500 AMD
600 AMD
*
For 1 hour use
For 1 hour use
600 AMD
1104 AMD
579 AMD
650 AMD
**
For 1 hour use
For 1 hour use
For 1 hour use
For 1 hour use
***
1000 AMD
For 1000 sq. m. irrigation.
580 AMD
For 1 hour use
****
600 AMD
*****
10
For 1 hour use
The Socio-Economic Impact of Village Wells on the Villages
We can conclude that an average fee for water wells included in our project is 615.7 AMD per hour.
Half of the questioned people answered that the fee was obtainable; the other half gave opposite answer.
Particularly big differences were recorded in Armavir. Here 72% of surveyed people answered that fees were
expensive. Fifty two percent of surveyed people pay the fees at the end of season, 48% pays by installment
(see Figure 4).
Figure 4: When do you make payments?
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
52%
48%
0%
A t the
be ginning o f
the s e a s o n
A t the o f the
s eas o n
P a rtia ly
From the first look that seems good but the rainfalls inflicted losses to village Saramej referring to
the productivity of potato (see Table 9). Through surveys we have found out only the indicators of grain and
potato.
Table 9: The yield of grain and potato before and after the well irrigation.
The Yield (Grain ha/MTs)
Before
After
23
13
11
20
Lory
Gegharquniq
Armavir
Ararat
Vayots Dzor
32
23
9
Average
% Growth
-43
82
35
28
17
9
22
89
19.6
22.6
The Yield (Potato ha/c)
Before
After
88
82
115
125
200
300
190
228
115
171
Lory
Gegharquniq
Armavir
Ararat
Vayots Dzor
Average
141.6
15
% Growth
-7
9
50
20
49
181.2
28
The fluent rainfalls caused decrease in the productivity in province of Lory. That inflicted huge
damage to the crop of potato. The best results are recorded in Vayots Dzor where the productivity of wheat
11
The Socio-Economic Impact of Village Wells on the Villages
increased by 89% and potato – by 49%. The productivity of wheat rose by 82% in Gegharquniq. That
indicator for potato rose by 50% in Armavir (see Table 9).
We can’t unequivocally state that increase in productivity is only due to irrigation by water wells.
Many factors had their roles in it, but water wells had a specific impact (see Appendix 1.2). All surveyed
people think it’s necessary to have water wells in their communities. In the result of surveys 76% of people
weren’t aware of the rules of operating and protecting water wells. Particularly, in Armavir, Ararat, Vayots
Dzor provinces respectively 77%, 79%, 82% of surveyed people didn’t know about those rules.
In all provinces the users are aware of the rules of well exploitation and maintenance similarly. There
is not a significant difference. As the vast majority of water users are not aware of the above-mentioned
rules, therefore seminars must be organized for water well users to be competent of the rules of well
exploitation and maintenance.
Conclusions:
From the results of implemented project it’s evident that the water wells have great socio-economic influence
on villages. Although this year the using rate of wells was low enough (because of rainy weather) however
the wells had had great positive impact on villages, particularly in terms of increasing the productivity and
solving technical and utility problems. Of course, there are some drawbacks regarding the wells’ technical
condition. In particular we included 14 wells in our project. But 4 of them never worked because of technical
problems. Such cases should receive solutions as soon as possible. If we apply hypothesis testing of the
proportion the picture again is not promising.
Table 10: Hypothesis Testing
Null Hypothesis
Suppose before during the visits 3 wells from 10 had
0.3
technical problems and were not working. That will be
0.05
30% or 0.3. We want to determine whether there is
Wells with technical problems
4
evidence that the proportion of the wells with technical
Sample Size
14
problems has improved this year (i.e., has decreased
p=
Level of Significance
Sample Proportion
0.285714286
Standard Error
0.122474487
Z Test Statistic
-0.116642369
below .30). The null and alternative hypothesis can be
stated as follows.
Ho:p ≥ 0.3
H1:p < 0.3
Lower-Tail Test
Lower Critical Value
-1.644853
p-Value
0.453571684
Do not reject the null hypothesis
If a level of significance α of 0.05 is selected, the
decision rule will be Reject Ho if Z< -1.645, otherwise
do not reject Ho.
According to our data, during our visits 4 wells from our sample (14 wells) have not worked and have had
technical problems. From hypothesis testing we know that –0.116>-1.645 and Ho must be accepted. Thus in
12
The Socio-Economic Impact of Village Wells on the Villages
conclusion, the number of wells with technical problems prevails 30% (see Table 10.). This fact again proves
that technical conditions and problems of the wells deserve a separate mention. Based on the analysis of the
results of the Project we propose:
o
Based on the content and real results of the project to continue the above
mentioned project with the aim of revealing the socio-economic impact of water
wells having more wells in the project
o
To conduct applicable, educational and counseling activities among the users of
water wells referring to rules of operating and protecting the water wells.
o
To spare great consideration and attention to the technical condition of water wells.
Acknowledgment:
The implementing group of the project expresses its true thanks to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Marketing Assistance Project and the Foundation of Applied Research and Agribusiness (FARA),
particularly to Dr. Craig Infanger (USDA MAP former Director & Coordinator), Dr. Alan Lines
(USDA MAP Project Director & Coordinator), Dr. Charles Basham (USDA MAP Applied Research
Coordinator), and Dr. Hrachik Javadyan (Director of FARA) for their valuable assistance.
References:
Alan, L. “Six Month Accomplishment Report: January – July 2002”. Project Report, USDA MAP,
Yerevan, Armenia, 2002.
David M. Levine, Mark L. Berenson, David Stephan, “Statistics for Managers”, Fundamentals of
Hypothesis Testing: One-Sample Tests, p. 479-524. Two-Sample and c-Sample Tests with Categorical
Data, p. 669-673.
G. Eghiazaryan, ”Exploitation of the Agricultural Wells and Efficient Water Use”- November 2001,
Project Report, FARA.
Harutyunyan, V. “The main directions and priorities of economic development.” Economic Outlook,
Yerevan, September 21, 2001.
Infanger, C. “Six Month Accomplishment Report: January – June 2001”. Project Report, USDA MAP,
Yerevan, Armenia, 2001.
Vardan E. Urutyan,“The fundamentals of socio-economic development program for the country”,
Journal: “Information Technologies and Management” n.1, 2001.
13
The Socio-Economic Impact of Village Wells on the Villages
Appendices
Appendix 1.
Gegharq.
48
Armavir
22
Is your land private or rental?
Private
31
44
17
13
9
Rental
5
4
5
How many ha of land do you have?
Up to 1ha
27
18
8
From 1 to 2 ha
9
30
14
From 2 to 5 ha
0
0
0
How far is your land situated from the well?
Km
0.6
0.8
0.9
How much of your land is irrigated by the water well?
All
20
36
15
The half
12
10
6
A little plot
4
2
1
What kinds of crop do you grow?
Grain
14
22
9
Vegetables
15
13
10
Other
11
42
8
Has you land ever been irrigated?
Yes
32
45
22
No
4
3
0
Which source of irrigation did you have before?
Dams, through irrig. net
10
38
9
Existing wells
4
7
0
Other sources
22
2
13
Was that source effective for irrigation? Please evaluate.
Good
15
9
9
Satisfactory
13
14
8
Bad
8
25
5
Does the well’s water satisfy your needs during the season?
Satisfies
26
43
9
Does not satisfy
10
5
13
How frequently can you use the well?
Always
16
2
0
In turn
13
42
13
1-2 times
7
4
9
In your opinion, is the water distributed fairly to farmers?
1
2
114
17
0
14
0
4
7
0
57
74
0
1.0
0.8
7
7
0
3
8
0
8
4
6
5
4
5
10
4
7
4
116
15
6
0
8
8
0
3
71
11
48
5
3
6
4
2
5
42
40
49
11
3
7
4
96
35
0
7
7
0
6
5
18
81
32
14
0
11
0
131
0
6
6
2
5
4
2
61
43
27
Yes
36
48
22
No
0
0
0
Do you have problems with irrigating due to well malfunctioning?
Yes
22
15
13
Rarely
13
15
5
Never
1
18
4
How much do you pay now for using the well?
14
Ararat Vayots Dz.
14
11
TOTAL
131
131
Lory
36
Province
Surveyed people
AVG.
0.8
81
43
7
The Socio-Economic Impact of Village Wells on the Villages
AMD
550
579
Didn’t pay
When do you make payments during the season?
At the beginning
0
0
At the end
20
45
Partially
16
3
How would you estimate the payments?
580
600
0
13
9
0
7
7
0
0
11
0
85
46
9
5
5
6
66
65
23
190
9
115
19.6
141.6
28
228
17
171
22.6
181.2
14
0
11
0
131
0
3
11
2
9
35
96
12
2
8
3
108
23
Acceptable
21
25
6
Expensive
15
23
16
How much yield did you get in the past?
Grain
23
11
32
Potato
88
115
200
How much yield do you get now using the well?
Grain
13
20
35
Potato
82
125
300
Do you think the wells are mandatory in your village?
Yes
36
48
22
No
0
0
0
Are you aware of the rules of well exploitation and maintenance?
Yes
9
16
5
No
27
32
17
Do you think you have any responsibilities to wells’ preservation?
Yes
33
40
15
No
3
8
7
Appendix 2.
(In the table the number are given with percentage values)
Province
Surveyed people
Lory Gegharq.
28
32
36
48
615.8
1000
Armavir
8
22
Is your land private or rental?
Private
86
92
77
Rental
14
8
23
How many ha of land do you have?
Up to 1ha
75
38
36
From 1 to 2 ha
25
63
64
From 2 to 5 ha
How much of your land is irrigated by the water well?
All
56
75
68
The half
33
21
27
A little plot
11
4
5
Has you land ever been irrigated?
Yes
89
94
100
No
11
6
0
Which source of irrigation did you have before?
Dams, through irrg. net
28
79
41
Existing wells
11
15
0
Other sources
61
4
59
15
14
11
TOTAL
100.0
131
93
7
82
18
86
14
0
100
36
64
37
63
50
50
0
27
73
0
55
41
4
71
29
64
36
84
16
43
0
57
73
0
27
53
5
42
Ararat Vayots Dz.
17
15
The Socio-Economic Impact of Village Wells on the Villages
Was that source effective for irrigation? Please evaluate.
Good
42
19
41
36
Satisfactory
36
29
36
21
Bad
22
52
23
43
Does the well’s water satisfy your needs during the season?
Satisfies
72
90
41
79
Does not satisfy
28
10
59
21
How frequently can you use the well?
Always
44
4
0
0
In turn
36
88
59
50
1-2 times
19
8
41
50
In your opinion, is the water distributed fairly to farmers?
Yes
100
100
100
100
No
0
0
0
0
Do you have problems with irrigating due to well malfunctioning?
Yes
61
31
59
43
Rarely
36
31
23
43
Never
3
38
18
14
When do you make payments during the season?
At the beginning
0
0
0
0
At the end
56
94
59
50
Partially
44
6
41
50
How would you estimate the payments?
Acceptable
58
52
27
64
Expensive
42
48
72
36
Do you think the wells are mandatory in your village?
Yes
100
100
100
100
Not so much
0
0
0
0
No
0
0
0
0
Are you aware of the rules of well exploitation and maintenance?
Yes
25
33
23
21
No
75
67
77
79
Do you think you have any responsibilities to wells’ preservation?
Yes
92
83
68
86
No
8
17
32
14
16
36
18
45
35
28
37
64
36
69
31
0
55
45
10
57
33
100
0
100
0
45
36
18
46
33
21
0
0
100
0
52
48
45
55
50
50
100
0
0
100
0
0
18
82
24
76
73
27
80
20