14.06.2015 Views

Living Standards Measurements Study - Serbia 2002 - 2007

Living Standards Measurements Study - Serbia 2002 - 2007

Living Standards Measurements Study - Serbia 2002 - 2007

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

The improvements varied by both type of<br />

settlement and region. Generally improved pressure<br />

was given more importance in rural than in non<br />

rural areas. Highest level of satisfaction with the<br />

existing water supply was found in West <strong>Serbia</strong> and<br />

the lowest in Sumadija.<br />

Those who felt improvements were needed<br />

mentioned first the taste of the water and the<br />

pressure; almost 11 percent also asked that the<br />

safety should be improved regardless of the taste of<br />

water. Across different types of settlements and<br />

various geographical regions demand for 24 hour<br />

supply of water was not a salient issue; rather,<br />

improved quality measured in terms of taste and<br />

safety appeared to be far more important than many<br />

other features of water supply. Fewer households<br />

mentioned a second type of improvement; those<br />

focused predominantly on safety (or the enhanced<br />

quality), improved taste and a more continuous<br />

provisioning of water. The improvements varied by<br />

both type of settlement and region.<br />

Rural households underlined the importance of<br />

“improved pressure” more than urban/secondary<br />

towns. Highest level of satisfaction with the<br />

existing water supply was found in West <strong>Serbia</strong> and<br />

the lowest in Sumadija.<br />

11.9. Payments<br />

Overall 90.9 percent of those households<br />

connected to the public or local water supply paid<br />

for water. Payment rates were highest in Belgrade<br />

and lowest in West <strong>Serbia</strong>. Of the 264 households<br />

who said they did not pay, affordability was the<br />

main reason in urban areas; in rural areas, those who<br />

did not pay did so because the service was free. The<br />

average weekly payment is 114 dinars6F7 (standard<br />

deviation of 101 dinars), When asked about water<br />

payment arrears almost 10 percent of the sample<br />

(n=226) had arrears. Non payment was highest in<br />

secondary towns (12 percent), followed by the rural<br />

areas (9 percent). The average debt was 4 788<br />

dinars. There was a large standard deviation of<br />

12 763 dinars as some households were heavily in<br />

debt.<br />

11.10. Access to waste water systems<br />

Overall, the access to sewerage services is not<br />

high in <strong>Serbia</strong> with only slightly over half (55.6<br />

percent) of households are connected to a central<br />

piped sewerage system and 44.4 percent not. There<br />

is a wide discrepancy in connections depending on<br />

the type of settlement and the region of the country.<br />

The urban/rural divide is very large with great<br />

majority of the households in the Capital city being<br />

connected to the sewerage network; in the rural<br />

areas, on the other hand, only one out of 5<br />

households could dispose of their waste water<br />

through a formal system The rate of connection<br />

was lowest in Vojvodina and East <strong>Serbia</strong>.<br />

Graph 11.2. Average amount of debt with water<br />

payments by region<br />

10100<br />

2100<br />

5000<br />

6100<br />

4000<br />

2100<br />

Belgrade<br />

Vojvodina<br />

West <strong>Serbia</strong><br />

Sumadija<br />

East <strong>Serbia</strong><br />

SE <strong>Serbia</strong><br />

When asked about how the waste water was<br />

discharged, there were also large differences<br />

between type of settlement and region. In Belgrade<br />

city and the Belgrade region, as well as in secondary<br />

cities/towns over three fourths of the households<br />

stated that they were connected to a central piped<br />

system and that the water they used for bathing,<br />

washing, cooking, etc., was discharged in the piped<br />

system as well. About a fifth of the rural households<br />

stated connection to a piped sewerage system, yet<br />

when asked where the water they used was<br />

discharged, only about 14 percent of the households<br />

mentioned the central sewer system; a large<br />

majority stated that the waste water was discharged<br />

into a cesspool or septic tank and this method was<br />

most widely used in Vojvodina and East <strong>Serbia</strong>.<br />

Most of the rural areas visited use outside<br />

toilets and simple pit latrines. Wealthier households,<br />

especially those closer to urban centres, rely more<br />

on septic tanks, but these are very rarely built<br />

according to standards. Some households<br />

transformed the wells that they no longer use into de<br />

facto ready made septic tanks which is extremely<br />

dangerous for the quality of the water from the<br />

wells they extensively use. There were several<br />

158 <strong>Living</strong> <strong>Standards</strong> <strong>Measurements</strong> <strong>Study</strong> - <strong>Serbia</strong> <strong>2002</strong> - <strong>2007</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!