Intra-urban waterscapes and household welfare in Kumasi, Ghana

Universal access to water is widely treated as a marker of development progress, yet this paper shows that formal connection can function as a welfare liability rather than an asset. Using original survey data from 1,791 households across three neighbourhoods in metropolitan Kumasi, Ghana, we compare Asawase, formally connected to the Ghana Water Company Limited (GWCL), with Ejisu and Ayuom, which rely largely on private provision. Sachet water dominates drinking water consumption across all three sites regardless of connection status, accounting for at least 74% of households – evidence that formal network access has done little to shape household water choices. More strikingly, Asawase exhibits lower service satisfaction, greater exposure to water-related income losses, persistent welfare penalties of 10–15%, and an eight-percentage-point higher incidence of water-related conflict than the unconnected sites. This is consistent with a network whose design capacity has long been outstripped by the population it now serves. Yet households in Ejisu and Ayuom, despite achieving better outcomes through self-organised provision, continue to demand formal GWCL connection, underscoring that access retains symbolic value as a development signifier even where its material benefits are unproven. Poorer households devote a disproportionately large expenditure share to water (7.6% in the poorest quintile, compared to 1.6% in the richest). Households experiencing water-related work disruptions earn approximately 28% less per working adult, with the strongest effects in Asawase. These burdens are gendered: women make up 70% of respondents, and girls bear a disproportionate share of water-fetching responsibilities. The demand for universal access is real and should not be dismissed, but our evidence indicates that reliability, affordability and service quality, not connection status alone, are what determine welfare. Urban water policy needs metrics and investment that reflect this reality: demands for formal connection remain legitimate, but where costs are prohibitive and government resources scarce, policy is better grounded in the hybrid solutions households have already organised for themselves.