WaterWalla and Centre for Social Consulting India conducted a need assessment in the slum of Dharavi, Mumbai in order to investigate the water-related issues facing the community and to identify potential market-based solutions. We also developed a market analysis, technical recommendations for improved filtration devices and an implementation strategy for improving clean water access in Dharavi. To view our documentary video, visit us at: http://www.waterwalla.org/resources

1. Research & Insights
Need Assessment Study of Water
Distribution, Quality and Associated Problems
in Dharavi, Mumbai
Prepared by

2. Overview & Objective
WaterWalla and Centre for Social Consulting India conducted a study in Dharavi, Mumbai to investigate
the water situation and to identify market-based solutions that are affordable and acceptable to the
urban slum community.
• Ten different locations have been selected for the primary data collection, representing the most
deprived areas in terms of access to basic services.
• The report covers rooted issues related to water quality, access to water, infrastructure & leakages,
water-economics and health impacts and reveals specific challenges pertaining to quality and cost.
• The report also includes a market analysis; guidance for developing technical solutions; and a
proposed strategy for community mobilization and marketing.
2"

3. Methodology
3"
*Five focus group discussions (15 to 20 people) were conducted with households and Anganwadi workers.
**Documentary video available at www.waterwalla.org/resources
Data Collection Synthesis
Stakeholder
Interviews
Focus
group
discussions*
Survey data
analysis
Stakeholder
mapping
Survey
testing
Municipal
data
Google
Maps
Market Analysis
Recommendations
Documentary
video**
Context Analysis

4. Project Scope
4"
The following areas were surveyed in Dharavi.
• Social Nagar
• MP Nagar
• 90 ft. Road
• Opp. ONGC Building
• MG Nagar
• Mukhand Nagar
• Indira Gandhi Nagar
• Rajiv Gandhi Nagar
• Labour Camp
• Subash Nagar
• Near Nerul Masjid.
S5, S6, S11
S7
S12
S2
S3

5. 5"

6. Sample Size
Above mentioned stakeholders have been considered for the primary data collection. The stakeholders
were interviewed during the period of study.
6"
Stakeholders Sample Size
Households 160
Local Market 50
Aganwadi & Schools 30
Doctors 20

7. Respondent Profile
7"
85"
66"
7" 2" 0"
Hindu" Muslim" Shikh" Chris8an" Others"
Religious Identification
N=160&
39"
19"
42"
22"
27"
4"
7"
0"
0" 5" 10" 15" 20" 25" 30" 35" 40" 45"
No"Literate"
Primary"
Middle""
Secondary"
Higher"Secondary"
Diploma"
Graduate"
Post"gradute"and"Above""
Education Level
N=160&
The majority of
respondents
were Hindu and
Muslim.
More than 60% of
respondents
completed
middle school,
whereas one in
four had
completed
secondary
school.
47%"
53%"
Male"
Female"
Sex Ratio
N=160&
11%"
44%"
31%"
14%"<20"
21O35"
36"O50"
>50"
Age Group
N=160&
Of the total
sample, 53%
were female and
47% were male.
Three out of four
respondents
were between
the ages of 21
and 50.

8. Household Profile
8"
80% of the total respondents were earning less than Rs.
200,000 per annum.
More than 87% of respondents were accessing the municipal
water supply and 10% were purchasing water from private
players.
24"
52"
55"
9"
20"
0" 10" 20" 30" 40" 50" 60"
<50000"
50001"O"100000"
100001"O"
200000"
>200001"
Didn't"say"
INR&
Annual Income
N=160&
143"
16"
1"
0"
0" 20" 40" 60" 80" 100" 120" 140" 160"
Govt."Water"Supply"
Private"Player"
Well"and"Handpumps"
Others"
Source of Water
N=160&&

9. Water Usage (Drinking)
9"
• The daily requirement for drinking water varies
by family size.
• 93% of households require less than 35 liters of
drinking water per day.
• 61% of households require between 10 to 25
liters of drinking water per day.
• The majority of non-electric water purifiers on
the market have a storage capacity of
approximately 10L (or less), which corresponds
to the daily need of only 11% of the respondents
surveyed.
11%"
19%"
42%"
21%"
7%"
Daily Requirement of Drinking Water (Household)
4"to"10"Lts." 10"to"15"Lts." 15O25"Lts." 25"to"35"Lts." 35"and"Above"Lts"
N=160&&

10. Water Usage (Bathing)
10"
• Bathing is a core use of water, constituting a
significant portion of total usage.
• All respondents used less than 250 liters of water
per day for bathing.
• 90% of households require more than 40 liters of
water per day for bathing.
• 62% of households require between 40 to 150
liters of water per day for bathing.
10%"
34%"
28%"
28%"
20"to"40"Lts." 40"to"80"Lts." 80"to"150"Lts." 150"to"250"Lts." 250"and"above"Lts."
Daily Requirement for Bathing Purpose (Household)
N=160&&

11. Water Usage (Washing)
11"
• Washing constitutes another major use of water,
with a consumption pattern similar to that of
bathing.
• 99% of respondents used less than 250 liters of
water per day for bathing.
• 81% of households require more than 40 liters of
water per day for bathing.
• 62% of households require between 40 to 150
liters of water per day for bathing.
19%"
36%"
26%"
18%"
1%"
Daily Requirement for washing purpose
(Household)
20"to"40"Lts." 40"to"80"Lts." 80"to"150"Lts." 150"to"250"Lts." 250"and"above"Lts."
Daily Requirement for Washing Purpose (Household)
"
N=160&&

12. Water Usage (Other)
12"
42%"
34%"
15%"
9%"
Daily Requirement for Other Purposes
(Household)
20"to"40"Lts." 40"to"80"Lts." 80"to"150"Lts." 150"to"250"Lts." 250"and"above"Lts."
Daily Requirement for Other Purposes (Household)
"
N=160&&
• Other purposes for water usage include cooking,
cleaning clothes, etc.
• All respondents used less than 250 liters of water
per day for other purposes.
• For urban centers such as Mumbai, government
norms suggest a minimum total water supply of
150 liters per capita per day to sustain a
minimum standard of hygiene.
• The vast majority of respondents surveyed in
Dharavi (considering an average of 5 people per
household) are not able to meet this standard.

13. Water Source (Municipality)
13"
• Two major types of connections are found in
Dharavi – individual and group (community)
connections.
• Group connections are usually shared by 5 to 10
neighborhood households, who together pay
BMC (municipality) for the water connection.
32%"
68%"
0%" 20%" 40%" 60%" 80%"
Individual"Water"Supply"
Connec8on""
Community"Water"Supply"
Connec8on""
Types of Water Supply Connection
N=160&

14. Water Expenses (Municipality)
14"
• 44% of respondents access water for free.
Despite having municipal water connections,
bills are not provided by the BMC. In many
cases, BMC seeks to collect a Rs. 100,000 –
200,000 debt after 10 to 12 years, which causes
conflict.
• Another 45% are paying in the range of Rs. 500
to 2000 annually on regularly produced bills
(monthly/ quarterly) from BMC.
• The remaining 12% are paying Rs. 2001 and
above on an annual basis. These are typically
individual connection holders who pay their
entire bills on a monthly basis.
44%"
28%"
11%"
6%" 6%" 6%"
0%"
5%"
10%"
15%"
20%"
25%"
30%"
35%"
40%"
45%"
50%"
Rs."0O1" Rs.1O500" Rs."500O1000" Rs."1000O2000" Rs."2000O5000" Rs."5000"and"
above""
&&Annual Expenditure for Accessing Water
N=160&

15. Water Source (Community)
15"
• Many people are required to supplement their
daily water needs by seeking water from external
sources.
• These groups of people usually depend on their
neighbors’ water connections and are paying in
the range of Rs. 200 to 500 per month, for
accessing water.
• However, they get only 5 to 15 minutes per day
to collect their water.
26%"
74%"
0%"
10%"
20%"
30%"
40%"
50%"
60%"
70%"
80%"
Yes" No"
Purchase of Water From Community Members
N=160&

16. Water Expenses (Community)
16"
• Out of 41 respondents who receive water from
community members, 17% access it for free.
• 80% pay in the range of Rs. 1 to 1000 to
neighbors for their water.
• The cost varies depending on the requirement of
water and the demands of neighbors who are
supplying the water.
17%"
63%"
17%"
2%"
0%"
0%"
0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%"
Rs."0O1"
Rs.1O500"
Rs."500O1000"
Rs."1000O2000"
Rs."2000O5000"
Rs."5000"and"above""
Monthly Payment to Community Members
N=41&

17. Water Source (Local Market)
17"
• Slum dwellers also purchase drinking water from
local shops and market while away from the
household.
• Local workers, students and visitors are the main
consumers, who purchase water bottles or small
pouches of water.
20%"
80%"
0%"
10%"
20%"
30%"
40%"
50%"
60%"
70%"
80%"
90%"
Yes" No"
Purchase of Water From Shops/Market
N=160&

18. Water Expenses (Local Market)
18"
• Out of 32 respondents who indicated purchasing
water from the local market, 94% spend less
than Rs. 1000 per month.
• The remaining 6% pay more than INR 1000
monthly basis for water from the local market.
72%"
22%"
3%"
3%"
0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%"
Rs.1O500"
Rs."500O1000"
Rs."1000O2000"
Rs."2000O5000"
Monthly Water Expenditure in Shops/ Local Market
N=32&

19. Local Water Market
Additional findings on water supplied by the local market:
• General stores keep water bottles and pouches to sell to the local
community.
• Water is sold mostly in small pouches, which cost one rupee for
normal water and two rupees for chilled water. Mostly, working
class people purchase the water pouches, followed by local
students and local community members who go out for shopping.
• The small water pouches are generally filled by BMC-supplied
water using household connections and resold on the market.
Hence, the water quality of pouches is not standard; consumers
and sellers are both aware of this, though the market still exists in
slum areas.
• Water bottles are supplied by Coca Cola, PepsiCo and local
suppliers. On average, each shopkeeper sells 20 to 30 liters of
bottled water per day, with very low margins of Rs. 1 or 2 per liter.
19"

20. Water Source (Informal Market)
20"
• In response to difficulties faced by some local
residents in obtaining legal municipal
connections, informal markets (water mafias)
provide water through illegal piped connections
or otherwise.
• 33% of respondents agreed that water mafias
should operate in the slums, as it helps with
water shortages in the area.
• On the other hand, 68% disagreed, stating that
an informal monopoly on water and interference
with government-provided water supply
impeded overall access to water.
33%"
68%"
0%"
10%"
20%"
30%"
40%"
50%"
60%"
70%"
80%"
Yes" No"
Should informal market also sell water in the community?
N=160&

21. Water Quality
Twenty water samples were taken from different areas in Dharavi to determine the level of
contamination. Samples were collected in the early morning between 6 to 8 am during the month of
May, 2015.
• Bacterial contamination was very high across the areas surveyed.
• Due to leakages in the piped water connection, turbidity, color and odour are common issues.
• In a few areas, TDS, P-Alkalinity and Mg have also been observed above the desirable limits.
• Though E-coli and fecal coliform were absent in the samples tested, the high bacterial count speaks to
structural deficiencies in the network and vulnerability to further contamination from nearby sewage
lines. During the rainy season, disease-causing contamination is much more prevalent.
The perception of water quality is another major issue, as bacterial contamination is difficult to detect.
As a result, many residents mistakenly identify their water as safe for consumption.
21"

22. Quality Testing Report
22"
Sr. No. Chemical parameters Units
Desirable limits
(IS 10500) 966 965 964 963 962
1 Turbidity N.T.U Max 1 <1 <1 22.4 4<1
2 Colour Hazen Units Max 5 <1 <1 3<1 <1
3 pH-value - 6.5-8.5 6.66 6.52 6.61 7.04 7.24
4 Odour - Agreeable Agreeable Agreeable Disagreeable Agreeable Agreeable
5 Taste - Agreeable Agreeable Agreeable - - Agreeable
6 Electrical Conductivity Micro S/ cm Not Specified 130.5 103.5 885 173.7 100.7
7 Total dissolved solids mg/l Max 500 85 67 575 113 65
8 Total Alkalinity, as CaCO3 mg/l Max 200 35 27.5 237.5 47.5 30
9 P - Alkalinity, as CaCO3 mg/l Not Specified <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
10 Total Hardness, as CaCO3 mg/l Max 200 46 44 190 53 40
11 Chlorides, as Cl mg/l Max 250 11 8.2 97 15.3 9.2
12 Calcium, as Ca mg/l Max 75 10 10 48.1 13.6 8
13 Magnesium, as Mg mg/l Max 30 5.1 4.6 76.6 4.6 4.9
14 Sulphates, as SO4 mg/l Max 200 2.5 1.9 1.1 4.2 1.6
15 Reactive Silicia, as SiO2 mg/l Not Specified 13.3 12.3 18.2 13.5 12.9
Sr. No. Microbiological Parameters Units
Desirable limits
(IS 10500)
1 Total Bacterial Count Cfu/ml Not Specified 8 31.5 * 10^3 5.5 * 10^1 4
2 Coliforms in 100 ml Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent
3 Eschelrichia Coli in 100 ml Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent

23. Quality Testing Report (cont’d)
23"
961 960 959 958 957 956 955 954 953 952 951 950 949 948 947
3.5<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2.6<1 <1 1.3 5.9<1 5.2 3.5 4.1
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <! <1 <1 <1 13 4<1 <1 4<1
6.78 7.14 7.06 7.12 7.17 7.11 6.81 7.13 6.98 7.33 6.91 7.14 6.73 6.97 6.77
Agreeable Agreeable Agreeable Agreeable Agreeable Agreeable Disagreeable Agreeable Agreeable Agreeable Agreeable Agreeable Disagreeable Disagreeable Disagreeable
- Agreeable Agreeable Agreeable Agreeable Agreeable - Agreeable Agreeable - - Agreeable - - -
110.6 102.2 103.4 102.4 107.4 92.7 123.6 102.2 99.2 1316 105.5 105.9 116.3 199.7 123.8
72 66 67 67 70 60 80 66 64 855 69 69 76 130 80
30 32.5 30 30 22.5 25 30 30 25 332.5 30 32.5 30 60 37.5
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 17.5<1 <1 <1 <! <1
48 43 46 45 40 41 44 38 37 355 46 43 43 60 47
8.2 8.2 8.4 8.2 9.2 9.2 9.7 8.7 8.2 155.7 9.7 9.4 10.7 15.8 12.8
9.6 8 9.2 8 8.8 10.4 15.2 9.6 8.8 108.2 12 12 11.6 15.2 14.4
5.8 5.6 5.6 6.1 4.4 3.7 1.5 3.4 3.7 20.7 3.9 3.2 3.4 5.4 2.7
2.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 2.4 1.2 1.6 42.3 2.5 1.9 3 5 3.1
13.5 13.3 13.3 13.4 12.7 13.4 13.7 13.6 13.3 25.5 14.1 14 14.4 16.4 14.7
4.7 * 10^2 <1 <1 5 4 73.2 * 10^2 91.1 * 10^1 2.1 * 10^2 4.2 * 10^2 3.6 * 10^2 6.3 * 10^2 1.3 * 10^3 1.9 * 10^3
Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent
Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent

24. Factors Affecting Quality
24"
According to the above table 66% responses were affirmative towards unhygienic conditions of areas surrounding the water tap
and 84% people claimed leakages in their water pipe connection as they received contaminated water every day.
66%"
34%"
0%"
10%"
20%"
30%"
40%"
50%"
60%"
70%"
Yes" NO""
N=160&
Cleanliness of Areas Surrounding Water Tap
84%"
16%"
0%"
10%"
20%"
30%"
40%"
50%"
60%"
70%"
80%"
90%"
Yes" No"
Leakage or Sewage on Water Pipe Connections
N=160&
N=160&

25. Water Quality & Connection Leakages
25"

26. Water Tap Surrounding Areas
26"
The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again.
If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again.

27. Water Quality Perceptions
27"
• 34% of respondents claim that their water is safe
for drinking, either because they perceive the
supplied water to be safe or because they are
treating their water.
• 66% of respondents perceive their water as
unsafe to drink.
• 13% of the total sample use water filters that are
sold in the market, yet they still perceive their
water as unsafe to drink.
• 53% of respondents don’t use a market filter for
water treatment despite claiming that their water
is unsafe to drink, but may use traditional
treatment methods such as boiling or straining
through cloth.
34%"
13%"
66%"
53%"
34%"
0%"
10%"
20%"
30%"
40%"
50%"
60%"
70%"
Safe"for"Drinking"" Using"Water"Filter"for"treatment"
purpose"
YES""
NO""
NA"
Access to Safe Water vs. Usage of Water Filter
N=160&

28. Water Treatment Choices
28"
• 41% of respondents use traditional water purification methods such as boiling or straining through a cloth and only 20% of
respondents use techno-purifiers that are available in the market.
• Boiling is costly and time consuming, while filtration by cloth is not effective in mitigating bacterial contamination.
• 39% of respondents do not employ any techniques for treating their water prior to consumption.
41%"
59%"
Use of Traditional Treatment Methods
1"O"Yes"
2O"No"
N=160&
20%"
80%"
Use of Techno-Purifier
1"O"Yes"
2O"No"
N=160&

29. Water Treatment Needs
29"
• 53% of respondents do not use a water filter
despite acknowledging that their water is unsafe
to drink (see Water Quality Perceptions).
• These respondents cite various reasons for not
adopting filtration technologies:
• lack of affordability (19%),
• lack of adaptation to existing water
collection and storage behaviors (8%),
• low filtration rate (3%),
• a combination of these factors (23%).
19%"
8%"
3%"
23%"
47%"
0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%"
Expensive"
Force"to"change"current"
behavior""
Low"filtera8on"rate""
All"of"above"three"
Not"Applicable""
Reason for Not Using Water Filter
N=160&

30. Improved Water Treatment
30"
• An improved water filter would fulfill the primary
unmet demands of affordability and
convenience.
• 68% of respondents said that they would like to
use an innovative water filter which is adapted to
their current behavioral practices.
• 33% of respondents, however, denied to use any
kind of new purifier.
68%"
33%"
0%"
10%"
20%"
30%"
40%"
50%"
60%"
70%"
80%"
Yes" No"
Preference for Improved Water Filter
N=160&

31. Health Related Issues
31"
• Deteriorated water supply networks are partly
responsible for common health issues faced by
residents.
• During the rainy season, illnesses are more
prevalent due to insufficient drainage facilities in
the slum and the proximity of water pipelines to
open sewage.
• Almost 1 out of every 3 households reported an
illness in the family during this season.
60%"
40%"
0%"
10%"
20%"
30%"
40%"
50%"
60%"
70%"
Yes" No"
Illness of Family Member During Rainy Season
N=160&

32. Prevalent Illnesses
32"
• The data collected from local
doctors indicates the average
number of patients visiting a single
doctor in a month, segmented by
prevalent illnesses.
• Fever, cough and cold are most
commonly diagnosed, followed by
malaria, typhoid, and dengue.
• Young children (under the age of 14)
are the most common patients.
• The frequency of illness reported in
the adolescent age group (aged 14
to 18) is comparatively higher than
adults, considering a larger sample
size in the adult category.
"O"""" "50"" "100"" "150"" "200"" "250""
Normal&Fever&
Cough&&&Cold&
Malaria&
Dengue&
Typhoid&&
Tuberculosis&
Others&Disease&&
Normal"Fever" Cough"&"Cold" Malaria" Dengue" Typhoid"" Tuberculosis" Others"Disease""
Girls"(less"than"14"years)" 208"" 197"" 11"" 2"" 6"" O"""" 17""
Boys"(less"than"14"years)"" 204"" 197"" 12"" 2"" 6"" O"""" 18""
Girls"(Between"14>18"age"group)" 15"" 15"" 14"" 1"" 4"" O"""" 8""
Boys"(Between"14>18"age"group)" 12"" 19"" 11"" 2"" 5"" O"""" 9""
Female"(>18)" 39"" 21"" 15"" 3"" 8"" 1"" 20""
Male(>18)" 41"" 18"" 16"" 2"" 6"" 1"" 20""
Average Number of Patients treated by local doctors in Dharavi (per month /Doctor)
N=20&

33. Frequency of Medical Treatment
33"
• 71% of respondents indicate that their families
visit the hospital frequently (more than once a
month).
• Regular family visits to the hospital (more than 4
times a year) are required for 88% of
respondents.
• 96% of families in the survey are required to visit
the hospital at least once a year.
25%"
11%"
35%"
9%"
9%"
8%"
2%"
2%"
0%" 5%" 10%" 15%" 20%" 25%" 30%" 35%" 40%"
Once"a"week""
More"than"once"in"a"month""
Once"in"a"month""
Once"in"3"months"
Once"in"6"months"
Once"in"a"year""
I"don’t"go"to"hospital"at"all""
Other""
Frequency of Accessing Healthcare Facilities
N=160&

34. Healthcare Facilities
34"
• 81% of respondents rely primarily on private
clinics and municipal hospitals for their
healthcare needs.
• However, 16% prefer major private hospitals or
other providers of healthcare treatment.
51%"
2%"
30%"
0%"
1%"
16%"
0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%"
Gov/Municipal"Hospital"
NGO/Trust"Hospital"
Private"Clinic""
Mobile"Clinic""
Self"Treatment""
Others""
Type of Healthcare Facilities Accessed
N=160&

35. Accessibility of Healthcare
35"
58% of respondents disagreed that government healthcare facilities were reliably accessible, while 43% agreed that they can
easily access government healthcare facilities. Moreover, 51% people claimed that the facilities were not affordable.
43%"
58%"
0%"
10%"
20%"
30%"
40%"
50%"
60%"
70%"
Yes" No"
Accessibility of Government Healthcare Facilities
N=160&
49%" 51%"
0%"
10%"
20%"
30%"
40%"
50%"
60%"
Yes" NO"
Affordability of Government Healthcare Facilities
N=160""N=160&

36. Healthcare Expenses
36"
• 66% of people pay less than Rs. 1000 per annum
for healthcare treatment.
• 91% pay less than Rs. 5000 per annum for
healthcare treatment.
• According to local or family doctors, a significant
portion of illness reported is due to consumption
of unsafe drinking water and unhygienic living
conditions.
66%"
25%"
3%"
2%"
4%"
0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%"
1O1000"
1000O5000"
5000O10000"
10000O30000"
30000"and"above"
INR"
Average Annual Expenses on Health
N=160&&

37. Sanitation
37"
• Only 5% of respondents have access to
individual toilets.
• 24% of respondents use community toilets and
pay Rs. 2 per use.
• Open defecation is a common practice.
5%"
28%"
95%"
73%"
0%"
10%"
20%"
30%"
40%"
50%"
60%"
70%"
80%"
90%"
100%"
Uses"of"Own"Toilets"" USE"OF"COMMUNITY"TOILETS"
Yes"
No"
Usage of Toilets
N=160&&

38. Hygiene
38"
• 84% of respondents confirmed regular/ daily
hand washing practices.
• However, 16% of respondents stated that they
did not wash hands on regular basis.
84%"
16%"
0%"
10%"
20%"
30%"
40%"
50%"
60%"
70%"
80%"
90%"
Yes" No"
Daily Hand Washing Practices
N=160&

39. Schools/ Anganwadi
39"
5% of school teachers stated that students get sick often, though 35% state that students do not often report illness in schools
or Anganwadi centers. 10% of teachers responded that children fall in sick especially in rainy season. 50% of teachers didn’t
respond.
80%"
10%"
0%"
10%"
0%"
10%"
20%"
30%"
40%"
50%"
60%"
70%"
80%"
90%"
Age"Bar"O"(3"to"5)" Age"Bar"O"(6"to"12)" Age"Bar"O"(13"to"19)" Above"both"O"(6"to"
19)"
Average Age Group of Students
N=30&
5%"
35%"
50%"
10%"
0%"
10%"
20%"
30%"
40%"
50%"
60%"
1."Yes" 2."No" 3."Don't"know" 4."Especially"in"
rainy"season"
Reported Illness in Schools & Anganwadi
N=30&

40. Schools/ Anganwadi
40"
• Only 25% of primary schools and Anganwadi
have installed water supply connections. The
same schools also have water treatment facilities
available.
• The 75% that do not have water supply
connections also lack purifiers or water treatment
facilities.
25%" 25%"
75%" 75%"
0%"
10%"
20%"
30%"
40%"
50%"
60%"
70%"
80%"
Water"supply"connec8on"
installed"inside"the"Schools"
"Water"treatment"installed"in"
Schools/Aganwadi"
Water Supply vs. Treatment
Yes""
No"
N=30&

41. Schools/ Anganwadi
Additional findings from surveys in Schools/ Anganwadi:
• 20% of Anganwadi teachers said that water quality gets deteriorated, especially in the rainy season,
however, 70% of Angnawadi teachers do not agree.
• In the schools, maids and helpers are responsible for filling and cleaning the water in the tank. In
Anganwadi, teachers are responsible for this and are only able to spend 10 to 15 minutes.
• In Anganwadi, teachers or their helpers collect drinking water from neighbors and pay Rs. 300 per
month. They don’t use any type of market filters for treatment, though they spend approximately Rs.
5000 to 7000 annually on water treatment, water tank cleaning and maintenance.
41"

42. Market Analysis
&
Recommendations
42"

43. Target Population Profile
43"
24&
52&
55&
9&
20&
0" 10" 20" 30" 40" 50" 60"
<50000"
50001"O"100000"
100001"O"200000"
>200001"
DIDN'T"SAY"
Annual Income
N=160&
143&
16&
1&
0&
0" 50" 100" 150" 200"
GOVT."WATER"SUPPLY"
PRIVATE"PLAYER"
WELL"AND"HANDPUMPS"
OTHERS"
Source of Water
N=160&&
20%"
80%"
Use of Techno- Purifier
1"O"Yes" 2O"No"
Use of Techno-Purifier
N=160&
11%"
19%"
42%"
21%"
7%"
4"to"10"Lts." 10"to"15"Lts." 15O25"Lts."
25"to"35"Lts." 35"and"Above"Lts"
Daily Requirement of Drinking Water
N=160&
44%"
28%"
11%"
6%"
6%"
6%"
0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%"
Rs."0O1"
Rs.1O500"
Rs."500O1000"
Rs."1000O2000"
Rs."2000O5000"
Rs."5000"and"above""
&& N=160&
Annual Expenditure for Accessing Water
26%"
74%"
0%"
10%"
20%"
30%"
40%"
50%"
60%"
70%"
80%"
Yes" No"
N=160&
Purchase of Water from Community Member
In the given 6 charts, it seems clear that target population has annual income between 50K to 200K and they access water from BMC
water tap connection. Average per day requirement for drinking lies between 10 to 35 liters. 80% of people don’t use a market based
purifier. The population largely pays up to Rs. 1000 annually for water. One third of the population get water from their neighbors.

44. Water-Health Expenditure Analysis
44"
66%&
25%&
3%&
2%&
4%&
0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%"
1O1000"
1000O5000"
5000O10000"
10000O30000"
30000"and"above"
INR&
Average Annual Expenses on Health
N=160&
51%"
2%"
30%"
0%"
1%"
16%"
0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%"
Gov/Municipal"Hospital"
NGO/Trust"Hospital"
Private"Clinic""
Mobile"Clinic""
Self"Treatment""
Others""
Type of Healthcare Facilities Accessed
N=160&
The average expense for getting water from BMC lies between Rs. 500 to 1000.
However, 20% people purchase water from local market and they pay between Rs. 500
to 1000 per month in additional cost.
Dharavi residents prefer municipal hospitals and private clinics for healthcare
treatment, for which they spend between Rs. 1000 to 5000 per year.
Around 90% of people boil their water at an estimated cost between Rs. 50 to 100 per
month.
Thus, total average expenses on water and related health problems is estimated
between Rs. 1100 to 2500 per households per month.
17%"
63%"
17%"
2%"
0%"
0%"
0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%"
Rs."0O1"
Rs.1O500"
Rs."500O1000"
Rs."1000O2000"
Rs."2000O5000"
Rs."5000"and"above""
Monthly Payment to Community Members
N=41&
72%"
22%"
3%"
3%"
0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%"
Rs.1O500"
Rs."500O1000"
Rs."1000O2000"
Rs."2000O5000"
Monthly Water Expenditure in Shops/ Local Market
N=32&

45. Water Purification Market
45"
34%"
13%"
66%"
53%"
34%"
0%"
10%"
20%"
30%"
40%"
50%"
60%"
70%"
Safe"for"Drinking"" Using"Water"Filter"for"
treatment"purpose"
YES""
NO""
NA"
Access to Safe Water vs. Usage of Water Filter
N=160&
19%"
8%"
3%"
23%"
47%"
0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%"
Expensive"
Force"to"change"current"
behavior""
Low"filtera8on"rate""
All"of"above"three"
Not"Applicable""
Reason for Not Using Water Filter
N=160&
67%"
33%"
0%"
10%"
20%"
30%"
40%"
50%"
60%"
70%"
80%"
Yes" No"
&&
N=160&
Preference for Improved Water Filter
53% of people identify their water as unsafe to drink and also do not use a water filter – these households constitute the target market for an
improved water filter. An additional 13% of people already own a water filter but still consider their water unsafe to drink, which indicates a need
for instruction on proper usage and benefits of the technology.
The primary constraints for developing an acceptable device are cost, filtration rate and adaptation to current behaviors of water collection and
storage (e.g. daily drinking water requirement, existing storage habits, limited time for procuring water, etc.). Indeed, 67% of respondents
indicated that they would purchase an improved filter that fulfills these requirements.
For 34% of the population that consider their water safe for consumption, it is unclear that this is actually the case since quality tests indicate that
the majority of water connections are vulnerable to contamination, especially during the rainy season. Therefore, education and awareness on
water quality issues are key tools for marketing the device at a community level.

46. Product Recommendation
• Bacterial contamination is very high across the different areas; however, turbidity, color and odor are
also leading factors. A satisfactory product must mitigate these contaminants.
• The following solutions related to product design were proposed by the community during several of
our interactions:
– Installed purifier valve on water supply connection tap, with a flow rate of 10-20 liters per 2-5
minutes
– Portable purifier that can be affixed to their existing water storage containers (capacity 15-20 liters)
– Installed purifier on overhead storage tank (capacity 500-1000 liters) or outside water storage
drum (200-250 liters)
• Willingness to pay is approximately Rs. 500 -1000 for six to twelve months.
46"

47. Product Recommendation
47"
The animated sketches have been designed
according to the recommendations from the
community. They expressed a preference for
a filter that could be installed at the water
tap and secondly, for a purifier which can
affix to their existing storage containers.

48. Strategy Design
48"
Consistent"
with"user"
behavior"
Bacteria,"
turbidity"&"
odor"
treatment"
High"flow"
rate"
(10O20"L"per"
5"minutes)"
Safe"Water"Educa8on"
Program"
Community"Based"
Organiza8ons"
Women’s"Networks"
Local"Entrepreneurs"
Slum"
Communi8es"
Households"
Ins8tu8ons"
Schools/"
Anganwadi"
Distribu8on"
Channels"
Direct"
Marke8ng"
Improved Water
Filtration Technology
Community
Mobilization
Market
Realization

49. Let’s connect!
WaterWalla seeks to engage students, universities, nonprofits and businesses to improve access to clean water for
underserved communities worldwide.
To learn more about us, or to collaborate on water-related projects, get in touch through our website www.waterwalla.org.
Thank you!
49"