Water Prices in CEE and CIS Countries. Volume II: Case Studies Chapter 7.
|
![]() | Moderated by a member of the research team with consecutive translation of questions and simultaneous translation of responses (as in Poznan); |
![]() | Moderated by a local with the research team watching with consecutive translation of questions and answers (as in Kaliningrad). |
There are advantages and disadvantages in connection with each type of focus group. The former provides more control for the research team and allows issues to be probed further, if necessary, but seems to inhibit a free-flowing discussion since there are breaks during translations. The latter provides for a much more free-flowing discussion although it is recommend that the group is taped (sound only or video and sound) so that the translation does not take place in the same room. It definitely affects the group dynamics with one or more respondents talking to the translator and not the other group members. Also, it is believed that this approach works better if the moderator is experienced.
Mostly women have answered the questionnaire. The interviewed individuals are here thought of as representatives for the household rather than individuals. The relevant entity should be decided as part of the qualitative work.
If expenditure data are available on the respondents interviewed this is an easy way of expanding the information on the respondents while keeping a short questionnaire. This was possible in Kaliningrad because the respondents in the SP survey are chosen from an existing panel of households.
Water charges must be analysed jointly with charges for other municipal services. The following links need to be considered:
![]() | Affordability (household expenditures); |
![]() | Formal links (subsidy policies etc.). |
Composition of expenditure is a useful complement to measure affordability. However, it is needed to develop some rule of thumb.