Introduction

Interactions between aquatic ecosystems and people have inspired a growing interest in understanding the connection between people, water uses, water values, and water security (Haileslassie et al. 2020). Direct involvement of diverse social groups with stakes in the ecosystem led to the wise utilization of “community Capital” which embraces human, social, natural, cultural, and financial capital. The proposition in this regard involves different types and intensities of interactions, uses, and values attached to water. The situations in the urban and urban–rural interface can give different perspectives (Tacoli 1998). This example of the urban–rural interface illustrates the importance of recognition of the water system (the supply, sewerage) to protect water value (HLPW 2018) and how rural areas are losing water to cities and this become a common phenomenon in many large settlement centers. The exploding urban population growth creates unprecedented challenges, among which gaps in the provision of clean water and sanitation and thus loss of social and environmental values of water downstream have been the most pressing (Melaku et al. 2007).

The values expressed by diverse stakeholders are differing and understanding the different views of water value implies sustainable water management (Haileslassie et al. 2020; Felipe-Lucia et al. 2015). Values and valuation can be defined in a context-specific manner. For example, Jackson (2006) defined value as something that has merit or importance, is of worth or is cared about, whereas valuation refers to the process of estimating the value of an object, often in monetary terms.

According to Savenije and van der Zaag (2020) valuing water is critical in decision-making in the sense of value determination; as values are typically disputed, partial, incommensurable, and imperfect (Haddout et al. 2021). More importantly, valuing water offers a structured and transparent mechanism that supports inclusive multi-stakeholder management processes to tackle water insecurity. The authors emphasize that valuing water can play a key role in making trade-offs instrumental to decision-making and priority setting, especially when it is related to societal needs such as physical and social well-being and emotional stability, which have little space among policy circles. They concluded that valuing water may be a key tool in water diplomacy. According to Bauer and Smith (2007), a better water policy can be formulated with a better understanding of the non-conventional water value (e.g., cultural, spiritual). Haddout et al. (2021) also suggest that water value lies less on its numerical assessment since the process offers multiple stakeholders’ engagement with differing demands in water use and in its sustainable management options.

Against these backdrops, there are information gaps in Sub Sahara Africa (SSA) and specifically in Ethiopia on community water value perception, and plurality of water values (Geleta et al. 2023). The present study focuses on the Akaki water system in Central Ethiopia where highly dynamic community and nature interactions are observed. In the Akaki River System, there are numerous research questions to be raised to fill knowledge gaps on multiple water values. For example: What are the existing multiple water values and threats affecting the system; what needs to be done to reconcile conflicts over multiple water values and diverse interests of public, private, rural, peri-urban, urban, upstream, midstream, and downstream subsystems to ensure inclusive water security; what are the mechanisms for recognizing multiple water values, user rights and the possible trade-offs while embracing differing interests of users with diverse social, economic orientation and ethno-geographic locations; how sources of a river system like Akaki get protected in the absence of collaborative multi-institutional system governance structure to sustain multiple water values and regulate competing interests across peri-urban; upstream, urbanized midstream and rural downstream subsystems. In light of these questions, the current research applies integrated bio-physical and social methods, and its overarching objectives are to: (i) investigate community perception and articulation of diverse and priority water values in the Akaki catchment which drains the capital of Ethiopia (Addis Ababa), (ii) describe water value tradeoffs, threats to water value, and perceptual variations among multiple stakeholders across the Akaki River system.

Material and methods

Conceptual framework of the study

The proposed framework is conceived as an integrated socio-ecological system composed of water system organization and the socio-cultural system characteristics which together respond to and drive community perception of water values (Polaine et al. 2022b; Haileslassie et al. 2020; Geleta et al. 2023). The different attributes of the conceptual framework are described in the subsequent sections.

Socio-ecological systems and water values

The study of socio-ecological systems (SES) is now regarded as a mainstream area of research based on ‘interdependent linkages between social and environmental change and those interdependencies influencing different sustainability goals across different systems, levels, and scales’ (Partelow 2018; Taghilou 2022). There is considerable interest by researchers in the Socio-Ecological Systems Framework (SESF) and several useful observations are available in the literature related to the proposed water value framework, which gives an insight into the social-ecological settings as a critical element in sustainable ecosystem management (Arias-Arevalo et al. 2017) and helps to ensure water security across scale. Taghilou (2022) defined SES as (i) Social, economic, and political arrangements, (ii) Exploiters, (iii) Resource systems, and (iv) Governance systems as the main elements of SES. As key attributes of the proposed framework (Fig. 1) we are elaborating these elements of SES.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Conceptual water system (A) and socio-cultural system (B) frameworks embedded in socio-ecological framework influence how we value water. FB is for feedback loops (e.g., ESS demand) and ESS is for water ecosystem service

Full size image

In the context of water, the key questions are first, how can an application of the SESF help in the understanding of the nature of linkages and interactions between water systems (bio-physical) and socio-cultural systems? Second, how can the understanding of the characteristics and interactions between water systems and socio-cultural systems help to identify the character and development of multiple water values and threats affecting the system and actions needed to reconcile conflicts?

Figure 1 depicts the water system (Fig. 1A) and socio-cultural systems (Fig. 1B) as integral components of the overall socio-ecological system that interacts with and creates water values (Taghilou 2022). Water Ecosystem Services (WESS) provision is the result of three processes: Ecosystem (ES) supply (the potential of ecosystems to produce ESS), WESS demand (the level of WESS provision desired or required by people and its environment), and WESS flow (the connection between WESS supply and WESS demand). The link between the water and socio-cultural sub-systems could be explained through the Water Ecosystem Services (WESS) provisions flowing from the water systems to the socio-cultural system and the feedback loops (negative or positive). The section below explains the different components of the framework and how they interact with each other and influence the multiple values attached to water.

Water system

Figure 1 depicts a simplified water system organization and its interactions with a socio-cultural system in the context of SES. According to Felipe-Lucia et al. (2015) and Haileslassie et al. (2020), the delivery of WESS should go beyond a single component in the system. In the figure, three components of the water system are identified. Both the detail of each component and the interaction between components are important (Savenije and van der Zaag 2020).

The water system definition and three key system components are based on what was suggested by Haileslassie et al. (2020) and presented in the literature review part in the earlier section, where water system structure, water system function, and governance are suggested as the key constituents of a water system organization. Accordingly, the water system structures are the organisms and physical features of the system (biotic and abiotic). More generally, the structure of the water system refers to the explanation of living beings and the physical features of the environment in which the organisms sustain. In the context of this study, the structure includes natural and man-made systems such as different land use land covers, water infrastructure (e.g., rivers, lakes; wetlands), livestock, people, etc.

The components and their interactions will affect and be affected by water values. The processes of ecosystem function (productivity, energy flow, decomposition, bio-geochemical cycle, hydrological cycle), in various integrated ways in conjunction with the structure and the governance/power relations, provide WESS. A water system’s processes and structure are continuously disrupted by anthropogenic interventions (e.g., through system governance). This implies that to understand and identify multiple water values and their interactions it is important to have a clear picture of the structure, processes, governance, and the interaction of their components which function to provide WESS (note "Review of Akaki Water systems structure and function" section).

In the ecosystem services approach, the efficiency of the water system processes determines the quality and quantity of WESS delivery which also influences the access to and use of these services by the socio-cultural system. In an efficient system, the human role in governance is about improving efficiencies of the processes to achieve a higher level of WESS delivery and flow to meet human needs.

Against this backdrop, water system governance refers to the norms, institutions, and processes that determine how power and responsibilities over natural resources in the water system are exercised (Rogers and Hall 2003; note "Review of Akaki water systems structure and function" section). It also indicates how decisions are made, and how all citizens participate in and benefit from WESS services provision. The effectiveness and equity of governance processes critically determine the strength of the bond between socio-cultural and water systems and the type and extent of the feedback within each system and between the two major systems (Vialatte et al. 2019; Fig. 1).

The feedback loops (negative or positive) could be from the socio-cultural system (Bouchet et al. 2019) and from within the water system. A key question is how these linkages between social and water systems influence the water valuing methods and values we attach to water today and in the future under different spatial contexts and social settings. In the context of a water system, loops are a series or a chain of cause-and-effect relations that influence each other. One cause leads to an effect, and that effect becomes the cause to lead to another effect, leading to another effect, and so forth. Usually, there are different cause and effect’ loops at play at the same time, and influence each other in WESS provision, demand, and flow. The interaction between different loops drives system behavior (NewForesight 2019). Different loops can reinforce each other or balance each other out. For example, positive feedback is a circular link of effects that are self-reinforcing. When part of the system increases, another part of the system also changes in a way that makes the first part increase even more.

The critical point, however, is that the water governance system and the boundary of water structure and function, as defined by hydrological boundaries, do not match and this is the case in the Akaki water system. Polaine et al (2022a, b) argue that addressing this boundary difference is critical to achieving water security. But it should be underlined that defining boundaries for culture, religion, etc. which influence water values and priority is very complex. Perhaps considering the shared value domain would help to understand water values and water valuation (Geleta et al. 2023).

Socio-cultural system

The diagram of the socio-cultural system (Fig. 1B) is shown in continuous interaction with the water system (Fig. 1A). Socio-cultural systems can be understood as the building blocks of SES and society where humans share experiences and knowledge and where the learning that emerges can be used to better society (Heinrichs and Rojas 2022). The framework assumes that the values of all parts of society are important. In particular, a better understanding of indigenous cultural and spiritual values as they relate to water is essential to have a comprehensive understanding of whose (water value bearers) water values might be at risk, and what the priorities of different socio-cultural groups might be about WESS provision (Bauer and Smith 2007).

The critical component as illustrated here is recognizing the diversity of socio-cultural elements as subcomponents of a socio-ecological system (Heinrichs and Rojas 2022) and how it influences the water WESS demand, supply, and flow. Diverse communities and their socio-ecological organizations (individual, interpersonal, community, policy) are each influenced by culture, religion, norms, policies, and standards. It is essential to understand the different perspectives of water value bearers on the WESS as well as differences in demand, use, as well as any gender-specific issues (men’s and women’s roles).

In addition to a formal governance system, each social category has norms as part of its socio-cultural system. Social norms are unwritten rules that are acceptable in society. Norms can be cultural products that include values, customs, and traditions (e.g., Heinrichs and Rojas 2022; Klain et al. 2017). Socio-cultural norms influence people’s perceptions, knowledge, and commitment, therefore, affecting how they use and value water and how communities provide access to water (Heinrichs and Rojas 2022). Norms change according to the environment or situation (social organization) and continue to change over time.

Both formal and informal water governance systems concurrently influence how people use local water resources, sometimes working in a complementary way enhancing compliance established by the relevant governance institutions, and undermining it (Osei-Tutu et al. 2015). While formal state institutions may be weak or deemed illegitimate in fragile and conflict-affected contexts, there are often functioning informal water governance systems/institutions (Ibid). Where there is alignment between water governance systems these can potentially be an additional link between the water system and the socio-cultural system (in addition to the WESS and FL). Lack of alignment or competing institutional interactions and values may result in conflicts and trade-offs (positive or negative). This underlines that water valuing exercises need to consider not just relevant formal governance systems but also informal ones.

Review of Akaki water systems structure and function

Natural setting of the Akaki River System

Akaki River System is geographically bounded between 8°46´–9°14´N and 38°34´–39°04´E, covering an area of about 1500 km2 (Negash et al. 2023). The entire catchment is encircled by a range of mountains where several streams emanate (Fig. 1). The river system is bounded to the North by Mount Entoto, to the West by Mount Menagesha and Wechecha, to the Southwest by Mount Furi, to the South by Mount Bilbilo and Guji, to the Southeast by the Gara Bushu hills and to the East by Mount Yerer.

Akaki River System is one of the 21 sub-basins of Awash River (WRI 2019). It stretches from Mount Entoto in the North to the Southwest direction towards Aba Samuel reservoir which is the final stopover of the river (Fig. 2). The Akaki River System drains 11 Sub-Cities and about 116 WoredasFootnote 1 (Alehegne 2018). The western branch of the river (Tinishu Akaki) rises northwest of Addis Ababa on the flanks of Wechacha Mountain and flows for 40 km before it reaches the Aba-Samuel Reservoir (Talu et al. 2022). The eastern branch of the river (Tilku Akaki) rises North of Addis Ababa (Mount Entoto) flows 53 km and tumbles into the Aba-Samuel Reservoir (Fig. 2). Before the first confluence point of the Tinishu and Tilku Akaki, the rivers provide myriads of economic, socio-cultural, and environmental services (e.g., Yitayew et al. 2022; Opperman et al. 2018)) and water values.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Location and drainage of the Akaki River System

Full size image

The Akaki River System embraces Addis Ababa and the surrounding woredas of Oromia Regional States. The watershed is surrounded by notable volcanic buildups including Mounts Entoto (3200masl), Bereh (3228masl), Wechecha (3,385masl), Yerer (3100masl), and Furi (2839masl). Tributaries of Tiliku Akaki crossing Addis Ababa from Entoto, Kersa, and Dire Ridges flow to the middle part of the city where they meet around Saris village before entering Aba-Samuel. These tributaries are polluted by small towns, rainfed agricultural lands, livestock in and outside Addis Ababa, and hospitals, industries, and residential areas of Addis Ababa.

The lower course of Tiliku Akaki River also crosses sites allocated to future industrial expansion within Akaki Kality Sub City (Addis Ababa City Administration, Bureau of Trade, and Industry Development 2013). In the downstream course of the river, intensive horticultural production by urban farmers before the river leaves Akaki Sub City and several businesses including garages, car washing services, grass and tree growers, livestock markets, and riverside establishments characterized the midstream subsystem. Until Tiliku Akaki joins Aba Samuel Reservoir, the river provides multiple ecosystem services including watering the rural mixed crop-livestock system, and socio-cultural and spiritual services. As it crosses the city, it serves as a means for waste assimilation which is an important relational water value within ecosystem service provisions.

Little Akaki emanates from the western edge of Addis Ababa and passes across farming villages and towns including Sebeta-Hawas Woreda under the foot of Mount Wechecha watering vegetable and livestock-crop mixed systems (Fig. 2). While these WESS at the upstream, midstream, and low stream of the river system are apparent, the question remains as to how these values co-exist what the tradeoffs in water value, and what governance efforts are in place to reconcile these tradeoffs (Woldesenbet 2020; Geleta et al. 2023).

As Polaine et al (2022a) argue the water governance and the boundary of water structure and function (water system, as defined by hydrological boundaries), do not match and this is the case in the Akaki water system which is shared between Addis Ababa City Administration and Oromia Regional States. Safeguarding such multiple water utilization and associated values requires a well-coordinated governance regime (Woldesenbet 2020) to maintain equity, availability, and a fair share of the water resources along the basin including users in urban, peri-urban, and rural parts and minority water value bearers across the Akaki River System.

Manmade key water system structure in the Akaki River system

Naturally, the Akaki River System remains the sole source of water for Addis Ababa City. A conventional piped water supply system was introduced in 1901 (WRI 2019). Modern water supply started in 1924 and the water department was organized under the municipality of Addis Ababa in the 1940s. Gafersa Reservoir (Fig. 1) and the centralized water distribution network were established in 1944. As the city’s water demand increased, an additional centralized reservoir was made operational at Lagadadi in the 1970s (WRI 2019). Addis Ababa Water Supply Authority was established in 1971 to govern these water infrastructures though physically located outside the city administration’s jurisdiction in the eastern and western Akaki River catchments, respectively.

Over the last half a century with the growing population of the city, the water supply system expanded adding groundwater and surface water sources to meet increased demands and as a result, the coverage reached 76.6% of the demands of the city in 2017 (WRI 2019). Around 30,000 m3 of water per day is produced from Gafersa Dam and 195,000 m3 from Lagadadi and Dire Dams and the rest from groundwater sources including 70,000 m3 per day from Akaki aquifer.

According to the 2018 Revision of World Urbanization Prospects, Addis Ababa's 2023 population is estimated at 5,460,591 and Addis Ababa has grown by 4.45% annually. Addis Ababa Water and Sewerage Authority (AAWSA) target is to provide about 110 L per person per day, while the current supply stands at only 40 L. There are a number of pocket areas that receive water two or three days a week through the piped system. The coverage of liquid waste collection systems is around 25–30% of the city. These liquid waste collection gaps and the waste from urban dairy are some of the major sources of pollution.

According to KII respondents, the increase in the number of users in the Akaki water system is partly due to the expanding irrigation schemes in the rural parts which include Gelan Sidama Awash, Sebeta-Hawas, Lebu Ertu, Gaferessa catchment near Burayu town, etc. Most of the farmers currently run urban agriculture; including cooperatives established in the 1970s and dairy farms. Minten et al. (2020) suggest about 1.4 million heads of cattle in Addis Ababa. Chandrasekharan et al. (2021) estimated the total agricultural land of Akaki (Addis Ababa) at 25, 207 ha of which 507 ha is irrigated and the difference is the rainfed system. In recent years, urban farming where about 10,000 farmers recently added from Yeka Abado, Koye Fetch, Lemi Kura, Nifas Silk Lafto, Bole Bulbula and Lebu Ertu upon existing urban agriculture pressurized the water resource share. In addition, there are also construction projects and material producers, small and micro enterprises, and individuals competing to establish their business along the riverbanks to cater baths with hot springs, open park cafeterias, sand mining processing, brick production, and car washing services. These all put pressure on the demand side and also a stark feedback loop to the water system (for example pollution, and depletion). Then the question is as to how this impacts community perception of water value and water security.

Aba-Samuel Reservoir was built in 1939 to light Addis Ababa though ceased to provide the intended service in 1970. Afterwards partially dilapidated in the absence of energy investment. In addition, pollution, encroachment by Eichhornia crassipes (WRI 2019), flood (Bekele et al. 2022) and sedimentation threaten its multiple values though the locals still see it as a relic and seem to recognize its scenic value (Sanna and Eja 2017). In this regard Savenije and van der Zaag (2020) suggest that sources and threats to multiple water values (WESS) emerge from the different spatial contexts of catchments thus a system approach is critical. However, little is known by the locals and others that Aba Samuel is one of the wetlands registered as a Key Biodiversity Area with threatened biodiversity species (mainly birds) due to little conservation efforts to avert confrontation between farmers and the birds who feed on farmers’ crops (Key Biodiversity Area Partnership 2023).

Presently, Aba Samuel provides fishing and the value of scenic views (Sanna and Eja 2017). This invokes the spirit of a bygone era that left a heritage value to the locals (Haileslassie et al 2020; Kenter 2018; Geleta et al. 2023), and over time; water infrastructures could become a mnemonic value for past events and sustain scenic values of local, national, and global importance. In principle, infrastructural edifices can be considered an aspect of a community’s history (Wateau 2023) and remain an ecological history and the collective identity marker for the custodians of ecosystem values. Ecosystem-related investment in the form of infrastructure maintenance to enhance WESS is one of the five multiple water value principles suggested by HLPW (2018). According to Birdlife International (2023) to a lesser extent (compared to Aba Samuel) other water infrastructures (Gafersa and Legedadi reservoirs) also provide additional ESS including fishing grounds, dinking for livestock, and bird landing sites.

Generally, the Akaki River System provides multiple benefits both from its infrastructure and water and this implies the plurality of water value. It also evokes competition among users and uses and thus potential water value tradeoffs. The key question is how the community sees this and how they balance and preserve these various ecosystem values.

Recently changes in the demography of Addis Ababa due to natural growth and migration (Alehegne 2018; WRI 2019; Woldesenbet 2020), and the changing urban lifestyle in the rural and urban parts of Addis Ababa city contributed to increasing water demands beyond which existing hydrological infrastructure can accommodate. The KII and HHs indicated how opportunities and threats that emerged over the last three decades are sha** the current multiple water values. About 70% of the respondents emphasize risks related to pollution while the remaining emphasize flooding. This evokes the need to put in place an innovative inclusive governance system to manage such a complex water system.

Changing land use land cover and increasing flooding risks in the Akaki River System

Land use land cover is an important water system structure. It influences water flow and, therefore, the demand–supply of water and associated water value (Negash et al. 2023). LULC change affects the amount and distribution of surface runoff, groundwater recharge, evapotranspiration, and river flow. This can alter the availability and quality of water resources for human and ecological needs. For example, urbanization can increase impervious surfaces, which reduces infiltration and increases runoff and flooding (Negash et al. 2023). The general Land Use Land Cover (LULC) pattern of the Akaki River System embraces four features i.e., forest, urban area, agricultural or open areas, and water bodies (e.g., Negash et al. 2023; Bekele et al. 2022). In the last three decades (1990–2020), LULC has changed dramatically in the Akaki River System (Alehegne 2018; Negash et al. 2023; Deribew and Dalacho 2019). These studies have indicated that agriculture was the dominant LULC in the catchment in 1990 with 76.26% (1109 km2) of the total catchment area though it reduced to 52.98% (771.12 km2) in 2020. Similarly, open land declined from 7.57% (110.18 km2) in 1990 to 3.23% (47.01 km2) in 2020. Contrary to these, the urban space increased from 8.05% (117.16) km2) in 1990 to 29.21% (425.15 km2) in 2020. The studies further suggested that though the water body and the grassland showed no significant change, the tree planting campaign seems contributed to the increase of the land covered with trees from 4.65% (67.68 km2) in 1990 to 10.09% (146.85 km2) in 2020. These LULC changes, according to KII, have significant implications for water resources availability, use, and associated multiple values in the catchment.

The city has a conventional sewerage system that serves an extremely limited area (one-third of the city population) with water-borne systems and only limited households and institutions have access to proper sewerage systems (Deribew and Dalacho 2019). These systems are often poorly constructed, maintained, and emptied, resulting in environmental pollution and health risks. Given the expanding construction (LULC) and poorly developed sewerage systems, several sub-cities remain flood-prone (Deribew and Dalacho 2019; Bekele et al. 2022). The upstream remains low flood risk due to its high altitude and forest coverage (Bekele et al. 2022). The interaction between flood risk, water use practices, and associated water values are critical questions to explore from the context of community perception. Flooding also exacerbates the water quality problem since 20% of the city’s population defecates openly (WRI 2021). As informed by the KII, while the gatherers and sand miners value flooding, irrigation and other water users complain about the threat of flooding to multiple water values (e.g., Bekele et al. 2022).

Akaki water governance system

The Akaki River System faces complex water governance challenges due to the mismatch between the political economic dynamics of the ecosystem and natural resources management regime and the promise of ensuring fair and inclusive water use rights for all stakeholders of the water system (Woldesenbet 2020). The Federal Constitution of Ethiopia (FDRE Constitution 1995) guarantees the right of citizens to a clean and healthy environment in Article 44. Prevailing gaps in the water allocation and watershed management strategy of the Akakai water system affect the sustainability of the multiple water values that meet the diverse needs and interests of stakeholders: these involved in irrigated and commercial agriculture, industrial, livestock, and domestic and environmental water use. Overall basin management strategies have also failed to consider spiritual, cultural, and relational water values in general for decades and also failed to coordinate between key governance systems of the Akaki water system (Addis Ababa City Administration and Oromia Regional states; Polaine et al. 2022a, b). The plural nature of water use at rural, peri-urban, and urban sub-systems of the river and develo** threats to the related water value need to be reflected in the water policy and basin management strategy (Woldesenbet 2020; Geleta et al. 2023; Ministry of Water and Energy 2017)

At the micro level, informal water governance institutions such as religious, and local rural development committees with law enforcement support from formal local entities such as Woreda Administrative Offices, and Peasant Associations try to protect the river basin ecosystem. Informal institutions take a precarious position to sustain the integrity of the water values for ritual, spiritual, and customary festivities due to the lack of policy-based recognition and protections of their preferred water value entitlements. For example, KII confirms that Erecha Malka, Maskal Ritual, and holy water (Tsebel) sites are endangered by multiple threats including pollution, land grabs, government development ventures, and private investments. There are no legally binding ritual water sites' tenure and formal institutions to govern them. In the case of Orthodox Epiphany and Tesebel sites, it is the responsibility of every parish with the involvement of religious fathers, youth volunteers, and the laity to protect the sites by fencing, cleaning, tree planting, and building the water sources. According to a KII respondent, the Epiphany celebration site at Lafto Michael area has a permanent youth association that makes monthly meetings, and financial and labor contributions to keep the fenced Epiphany celebration site called Tabot Maderia. The Holy Tabot (Covenant) has a night of celebration once every year during the Ethiopian orthodox church Epiphany celebration.

In recent years, recurring conflicts have occurred among different encroaching groups on such open ritual sites and water points. The water policy focuses on instrumental values, which creates gaps that discourage formal institutions to protect the interests of competing relational water values and this is another proof of policy gaps.

In the context of urban, peri-urban and rural irrigated water user cooperatives, small and micro-enterprise women and youth-led nurseries, car washers and sand mining groups need local administrative permits to use the water resources. All industrial water users and investors in the manufacturing sector and in other sectors present environmental feasibility and impact assessment results for Addis Ababa City Administration Environmental Protection Authority (EPA 2002) for approval before the investment venture is endorsed by the Federal Investment Commission (Woldesenbet 2020). If the investment venture is located outside Addis Ababa City Administration similar procedures need to be fulfilled with the approval of Oromia Environmental Protection Authority and the region’s investment bureau. The key challenge here, as demonstrated by KII, is weak monitoring and law enforcement (Woldesenbet 2020). Among the factors mentioned, the absence of corporate environmental responsibility, lack of strict penalties from law enforcing and implementing public institutions, and lack of financial and human resources both in the private and public institutions are critical (Amare 2019; Woldesenbet 2020).

Both UN General Assembly Resolution 45/94 (1990) to strengthen the Stockholm Protocol and Article 3 (7) and 3 (8) Federal Environmental Policy reiterate urban environmental health and control of Hazardous materials and pollution from Industrial waste (FDRE 1995). The fault line of lack of technical expertise, corruption, and absence of information on corporate environmental responsibility are additional critical gaps that shape the Akaki River System water uses and associated value to its current delicate state (e.g.,Assegide et al. 2022; Woldesenbet 2020).

Despite the existence of multicultural and multi-religious and faith-based water uses, the diverse water uses right bearers remain marginal and invisible mainly because the policy and strategy follow conventional norms with little participation of “informal” institutions (Woldesenbet 2020; Bantider et al.2023) and micro-level water users including women and girls, potters and indigenous embroiders, craftsmen, Orthodox Christian and indigenous Erecha Malka ritual leaders, holy water users and hot spring water service providers across the water system. This non-inclusive policy and strategy directives keep water governance institutions sticking to singular water values and thus affect systematic water value tradeoffs (Woldesenbet 2020).

Data sources and capturing mechanisms

Household survey, community exposure survey, and field observation

Household surveys, community exposure surveys, and field observation were key data-capturing mechanisms followed in the current study. We used stratified random sampling and clustered the Akaki River System as upstream and downstream areas. Arbitrarily upstream areas are all geographical regions above the city and downstream areas are around the lower reach of the Akaki River including all the surroundings. Households in the middle part of the city were represented by stakeholder consultation as detailed below. From May 5 to June 2021, 96 households (53 upstream and 43 downstream mainly constituting: farmers, laborers, spiritual leaders, community leaders, and tenants) were randomly selected and HHs were conducted using structured and pretested questionnaires. The data collected includes, among others, water sources, water uses, and prioritized multiple water values and threats to multiple water values. For field observation, a multidisciplinary research team carried out basin-wide reconnaissance surveys to mark water sub-systems with multiple water value potentials mainly wetlands, aquifers, hot springs, holy water points, wetlands, and ritual sites including for indigenous thanksgiving (Erecha Malka), and celebration by Orthodox Christians including the finding of The True Cross (Masqal) and Epiphany (Timiket).

The team also conducted transect walks: first along all sides of the Akaki River sub-systems including major water reservoirs in the water head of Tinishu Akaki where Gafersa Reservoir, reservoir protection buffer zone, and community water supply springs are located. The second observation route was Tiliku Akaki which includes Dire Reservoir, Lagadadi Reservoir, Bilbila and Legadadi Rivers with multiple water values, users and custodians of the resources who are local farmers, and church and community leaders. Irrigated farms, ritual water points, car washing stalls, village apiary, Erecha Malka and Masqal and Epiphany celebration sites, and holy water (Tsebel) sanctuary along the riverbanks were covered by the transect walks. The third observation route was within the city (midstream) mainly Bulbula hot spring, sand mining, bricks manufacturing, a cattle market near Akaki River Bridge, Mekenisa confluence for streams from Kera and Merkato near National Alcohol Factory and Sebeta Fishery Research and BGI Brewery near to Little Akaki River in Sebeta Sub City.

The team took pictures of key ecosystem elements throughout the transect walk, documented notable community water uses (exposure) and associated water value in sub-systems, and interacted with people from diverse socio-cultural backgrounds. These pictures and pictures collected from the city tour were used for the photo exhibition organized for the stakeholder’s consultation workshop held in Addis Ababa.

Stakeholder’s score and ranking of multiple water values

Stakeholders of the Akaki River System have participated in multiple water values prioritization and score ranking sessions in a workshop held in Addis Ababa in April 2023. The workshop was attended by about 30 participants representing academia, and city dwellers, from public and private sectors. The purpose was to triangulate the field data collected through the HHS and to understand water values prioritized by stakeholders of different backgrounds, particularly those living in the middle of the Akaki water System (Addis Ababa).

The scoring was done by the stakeholders using pictures taken during the transect walk with identified water values in the upstream, middle, and downstream of the Akaki water system. Picture of multiple water values was categorized and posted for the stakeholders on the wall using markers and sticky notes for each water value. As a precursor, preliminary findings from HHs, KII, and field observation on water value priorities and governance were presented and discussed.

The participants assigned a score to each of the twenty-three water values identified through previous exercises. The scores ranged from 1 to 5; 5 being the highest priority while 1 represents the lowest priority. Following the water value scoring, participants also ranked their priorities among the five water valuing principlesFootnote 2 suggested by the UN High-Level Water Panel (HLWP 2018). Using markers and colored papers respondents posted their preferred scores of the water values along upstream, midstream, and downstream Akaki River sub-systems.

Key informant interview

In February 2023, 30 KII were conducted involving 30 respondents from public, private, and knowledge-based institutions. The information captured includes multiple water value identification, perceptions, prioritization, water security (access to quality and sufficient quantity of water), tenure rights, threats to multiple water values, change and adaptation of new water values, and the shrinkage of some of the ecosystem services, water system governance, and stakeholders’ collaborations (Bekele et al. 2022; Woldesenbet 2020).

During the process, respondents were asked to articulate the value of Akaki water for different stakeholders, and then value perception was categorized in a matrix that indicates instrumental,Footnote 3 relational, and intrinsic water values and value bearers (Davidson 2013) that help to articulate the value perception of respondents and who presumably owns each articulated water value.

A cross-section of multiple water users including car washing service providers, male and female urban agriculture operators in upstream Gafersa, Bilibila catchment, Lagadadi Reservoir, horticulture farmers, daily laborers, tsebel (holy water) users, sub-city green development project employees and leaders in Addis Ababa city were involved in giving feedback on the plural nature of water values enjoyed by diverse socio-cultural systems and water value bearers.

Multiple water values map** based on actual community water use and value perception and Cumulative Pollution Index (CPI) recommended water uses

In this study, the tributaries of Akaki were first divided into upper, middle, and lower parts based on their respective catchment characteristics, exposure, and possible pollution sources. Then, the water value map was prepared for two conditions, which are referred as: (i) actual water use-based water value, and (ii) Cumulative Pollution Index (CPI) based water use recommendation. The river’s actual water value was determined based on a field survey conducted from May 24 – 29, 2022. During the field survey, we observed the actual water uses and associated values by the local community. Residents who provided the information were engaged in animal fattening, dairy, poultry, car washing, sand mining, irrigation, etc. The coordinates for the locations of the visited and sampled sites were recorded by the authors using a Hand-Held Global Positioning System (GPS) device with a horizontal accuracy of 3 m.

The study used the Cumulative Pollution Index (CPI) to assign different potential water use types [based on water quality level (pollution level)]. CPI was first used to identify pollution levels of the rivers as suggested by Syeed et al. (2023). The CPI can be estimated using Eq. (1):

$${\text{CPI}} = \frac{1}{n}\mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1}^n \frac{{C_{a,i} }}{{C_{s,i} }}$$
(1)

where: C denotes the measured concentration of each parameter (i), the subscripts a and s indicate actual concentrations of the parameter and the corresponding maximum allowable concentration, respectively, and n is the number of water quality parameters considered. The river was considered to have a specific water use and associated value when the CPI value does not exceed 1 for the respective water quality standard [e.g. drinking, irrigation, environment, etc. (Syeed et al. 2023)].

The water quality parameters considered to estimate CPI in this study are pH, electrical conductivity, nitrate, phosphate, and ammonia. Ayers and Westcot (1985), World Health Organization (WHO 2014) regulations and standards were used for computing the CPI. FAO standard was used to evaluate the water value for irrigation. Classifications of the water quality and assigning potential uses were carried out following CPI values and categories and descriptions provided in Table 1 (Syeed et al. 2023).

Table 1 Water Quality classification for drinking, irrigation, and environment based on Cumulative Pollution Index [CPI (Syeed et al. (2023)]
Full size table

Results and discussion

Water value perception, priorities and plurality

Local community perception and priorities as demonstrated by HHS results

Table 2 depicts (frequency and percentage) HHs respondents’ perceptions and prioritized water values. It demonstrates that water for agriculture and domestic uses and associated values are critical for community well-being. As the water value perception from the household survey confirms, the economic values exceed the rest in a similar fashion to many agrarian countries in Africa (Geleta et al. 2023), Asia, and Latin America (HLWP 2018). Naturally, Akaki River system provides immense economic and environmental services to the rural parts of the river system where agricultural and domestic water value dominate and more than 70% of the respondents in upstream and downstream areas were farmers. Yet due to the higher level of dependency on agriculture and benefit from wastewater irrigation, respondents’ assertion for agricultural water value as their priority for overall human wellbeing, was stronger than the upstream areas. Resemblance of the frequency and percentage of respondents for livestock, domestic water use and associated water values in upstream and downstream confirms the certainty of shared water values among communities regardless of their geographic position.

Table 2 Perception of household survey respondents on plurality and priority water value (note midstream stakeholders are represented by Fig. 5)
Full size table

The other recognized water values, but with a smaller number of HHs participants, were cultural identity and sense of place, spiritual link, worship, and sacredness followed by life support and maintenance. From the HHs it is evident that water value for energy remains lower, regardless of the spatial location, as the source of energy in the river system such as Aba Samuel Reservoir in 1940 circumvents the rural and peri-urban communities.

The absence of sharing the resources fairly affects the behaviors, perception and practices including apathy towards the water reservoir. As water value is naturally dynamic the Aba Samuel Reservoir was falling apart but in the eyes of the locals it was even valued as a historical heritage after its dilapidation similar to Wateau’s (2023) observation in the villages of Nepal where water infrastructures hold the value of “social symbolism” and stand as a marker of social change. As Jackson (2006) suggested in the context of the Daly River system in Australia, environmental valuation in a heritage paradigm entails “relationships, processes, connections between social groups, people and place, and people and non-human entities”. This creates a strong rational to include investment as part of the valuing water principles (HLPW 2018).

In addition, Aba Samuel in the eyes of the locals is valued for its service as regulator (Bekele et al. 2022) for downstream farms and considered as fish provider though in danger of sedimentation, and upstream pollution. This is also clearly reflected on downstream household survey respondents (e.g., value of catching fish).

Tradeoffs between investments in physical and social structures and processes (Tickner et al. 2017) has a sustaining impact. Without finding a solution for river management, tradeoffs among urban ecosystem service needs, industrial and agricultural demands with the current pressure from climate change on top (Tickner et al. 2017) brought about the decline of river ecosystem services. Water infrastructure-related investment is one of the five universally endorsed water value principles (HLPW 2018).

We recall the native Daly River communities in Australia and their contribution in defining and compartmentalizing (Jackson 2006) the value of the river ecosystem as part of the cultural landscape set a clear example of negotiating and sha** the multiple values of water ecosystem services by primary stakeholders. Ecosystem scholars focused on river water’s multiple benefits propose that for sustainable management creating functioning feedback loops to enhance trade-off management is critical and these needs disentangling priority values into water values bearer.

As indicated in Fig. 3, the result of the KII on the plural valuation of water along the Akaki River System. It shows the relational water valuation takes the lead with a little less number of value bearers related to instrumental water value.

Fig. 3
figure 3

KII articulation of plural water values for Akaki River System

Full size image

The instrumental water value follows the relational water values but with a significant percentage of value bearers as it is the source of monetized value and livelihood maintenance across the river system. A significantly lower percentage of value bearers were related to the intrinsic value. In this context, the term value bearers can be defined as those water ecosystem users with a presumed inalienable entitlement with or without formally defined water use tenure rights. Substantial proportion of the value bearers in the case of relational water value composed of hitherto marginalized categories which include ritual and religious water users, women and girls using water-based resources and traditional informal institutions that stand as custodians of WESS. Crafts workers in the informal sector who craft useful paraphernalia from the waste drift by the river are the other marginalized relational water value bearers across the river system.

Although the debate among scholars with a tendency of imposing Nature’s Contribution to People (NCP) by undermining the long-established all-encompassing WESS conceptualization creates a misnomer that nature shape values unto people’s mind rather than people interact with nature and social realities and reshape their own value for nature such as water (Kenter 2018). Kenter (2018) further argued that the majority of ecosystem services are “co-produced’ by humans and also emphasized by IPBES on the reciprocity of relational values between humans and nature. Although this might remain contested (Sanna and Eja 2017; Osipova et al.2020) the ecosystem framework still embraces multiple value domains including instrumental, intrinsic, and relational and some research contributions support this (Kenter 2018; Klain et al. 2017; See et al. 2020; Osipova et al. 2020)).

Embracing river’s ‘multiple benefit” (Didiac et al. 2021) and creating an alternative for tradeoffs management remains an initial step towards water-secure governance and inclusive policy alternative (Tickner et al. 2017). For instance, in the context of the Akaki River System where water is predominantly associated with agriculture and domestic use, the local community upstream and downstream value the ecosystem such as rivers and ponds as “worship” sites for ages [Guta 2015; Table 2)].

Multiple water values and priorities as illustrated by stakeholders’ water value scoring

Akaki River System stakeholders from mainly urban and peri urban used a 1–5 range Likert Scale (Kho 2018) in a workshop organized in Addis Ababa in April 2023 to assign scores to water values as per their preference and rank values based on the sum of the score. According to Didiac et al. (2021) these value perceptions depend on attitudes directly tied to their socio-cultural, geographic, economic, and ecological backgrounds. As documented in UNESCO (2021) a shift to broaden and strengthen multi-stakeholder processes that recognize and reconcile a comprehensive mix of values benefit society at large.

As depicted in Fig. 4 a priority value for this group of stakeholders is domestic use and associated values. This is a shared priority water value with the HHs respondents (Table 2). It also confirms that water value perception in Sub-Saharan Africa would dominantly focus on domestic water use and agriculture (UNESCO 2021; Geleta et al. 2023). In the SSA context, agriculture utilizes a major share of freshwater though the impact of the misuse threatens other ecosystem values (UNESCO 2021). The impact of traditional hillside tilling threatens the Akaki River due to the siltation into water reservoirs enhancing gully erosion and chemical pollution (Mekuria et al. 2020).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Scores assigned to multiple water value by stakeholders of the Akaki River System

Full size image

The second important priority water value for these community segments was water as a means of waste assimilation and water symbol of life and power (Fig. 4). This can be explained by the fact that value reflects people’s knowledge (Haileslassie et al. 2020; Jackson 2006).

While waste assimilation of water is an important value in its own dimension it has a vital implication of water value trade-off. For example, in much of the urbanized midstream, the river system in both east–west flanks crammed with a number of industrial establishments since the 1960s which presently hosts about 60% of the manufacturing industry of the country and 90% of them discharge their waste in nearby rivers with little treatment efforts (Yohannes and Elias 2017; Amare 2019). As a result, for many decades now, the water system endures anthropogenic-driven chemical pollution from tanneries, alcohol and breweries, battery, paint, soap factories, abattoirs, referral hospitals and public health research laboratories (Yohannes and Elias 2017)) that discharge partially untreated effluent directly into the river system.

As suggested by Yohannes and Elias (2017) about 430 tons of contagious waste is generated from 29 hospitals in Addis Ababa. In addition, in the last three decades, waste from condominiums, garages, car washing stalls, and public and private service-providing establishments threaten the water value mainly at downstream sub-system (Mekuria et al. 2020). The majority of the city’s population has not been connected to the sewer system. 63% of the households use shared pit latrines, while 20% do not have access to any sanitation facility and openly defecate (WRI 2019, 2021). Downstream communities are obliged to use the polluted water resources for various purposes including laundry, bathing, swimming, irrigation, and drinking (WRI 2019). What scientific evidence and global water quality standards support the way people and water interact in urban–rural settings is a question that requires further exploration.

Apart from the complex river governance system, haphazardly planned urban growth, unregulated industrial complex, less innovative traditional agriculture, degradation of aquifers (Polaine et al 2022b) and increase in population in urban and peri-urban localities are a few of the identified threats to Akaki River System quality and associated multiple water values. For example, KII participants suggested that in downstream areas recently value for cultural/religious rituals and festivals is diminishing. Reversing the current situation is the question we need to answer (HLPW 2018).

In summary from the results demonstrated here and field visits undertaken, it can be seen that water-value means different things for different members of the community relying on the river in one way or another. For the periphery of the city, water security ranges from domestic water supply to water supply for livestock and agriculture. For the inner city, water security can be regarded as safety from flooding, provision for sand mining and also relying on it as a ‘natural sewerage’ system, by moving wastewater upstream to downstream (which then becomes someone else’s waste).

Despite its strong connectivity, the five multiple water value principles (Savenije and van der Zaag 2020) have context-specific priorities as ascertained by stakeholder’s priority scoring exercises depicted in Fig. 5 (HLPW 2018). Accordingly, educating, and empowering people are the first priority for midstream and downstream of the Akaki River. For the upstream, protecting the water sources was at the top of the rank scoring. Reconciling values and building trust between different users (e.g., urban–rural) stand as the second priority for downstream and third for midstream. Recognizing and embracing water’s multiple values becomes the fourth-ranked principle for up and downstream and equally ranked with reconciling values and building trust between different users for the midstream Akaki river system. Investment and innovation were the third priority for all three sub-systems.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Stakeholder’s prioritization and ranking of the five universal (HLWP 2018) Principles for the Akaki River System

Full size image

Map** water use and associated value with Cumulative Pollution Index (CPI) and community practice perspective

Figure 6a, b shows the actual water use and associated value distribution and CPI standard use recommendation in the Akaki Water System. A comparison of the two water value map** methods indicates that CPI methods-based water values map** for the Akaki water system was 63% less than the actual community water uses and associated values (compare Fig. 6a, b). The result illustrates a lack of information and alternatives by the local community.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Akaki water system depicting sites where water samples were collected, Cumulative Pollution Index (CPI) was computed, and actual water use value uses were documented. (Left) is the actual water use determined based on field visits and frequent observation when traveling the entire catchment, while (right) is based on the CPI method and allowable use

Full size image

Further, the result shows that Bbulbula River has the most diverse water values (including values for drinking, irrigation, and car washing) in the upstream part, but according to CPI standard it loses its value for domestic purposes in the middle part due to pollution (Fig. 6a). The downstream part of Bulbula River has lost a number of value and shrank only to sand mining, industry, and car washing.

Kebena is mostly used for irrigation in the upstream part, but is highly polluted in the downstream part and not used at all (note also CPI standard). Little Akaki is not used for drinking but for washing, spiritual, irrigation, livestock, car washing, and sand mining purposes. The water quality of all the tributaries does not meet the drinking water standard, and some of them pose health risks for people and animals as suggested by CPI results and demonstrated in Fig. 6b. The water quality is better in the upstream parts than in the downstream parts of the rivers (Fig. 6b). This suggests that water value does not flow downstream as water does (Savenije and van der Zaag 2020).

Table 3 provides a detailed description of the legend in Fig. 2.

Table 3 Description of legend for the observed (actual) and standard water (CPI) values
Full size table

Conclusion

This study explores how different water values and trade-offs are perceived and expressed by the communities in the upper Awash basin in central Ethiopia, where Addis Ababa city is located. The study integrates hydrological and socio-ecological knowledge from various stakeholders using a collaborative and systemic approach. In the context of the results this research contributed four key issues. First, it provides a unique water value research approach that combines biophysical and socio-cultural methods, which supports the global call for plural and inclusive water valuation methods (Savenije and van der Zaag 2020). Second, it reveals the multiple and pluralistic water values in the study water system, which reflect the main livelihood activities of the communities, and which can serve as a basis for water value dialogue in decision-making. Thirdly, it shows the divergency in water value preference between community segments dependent on the same river system, which may imply potential water value trade-offs. Fourth it compares the actual use-based water value and the CPI-based water use recommendation and associated water value and finds that the Akaki water system lost more than 32% of its values under CPI at its outlet. The gap between the actual and recommended water uses indicates a lack of alternatives, awareness, and policy enforcement. In view of these contributions and associated evidence, the study concludes that policy directions and decision-making need to acknowledge the multiple water values and competing uses of water, as points of departure, to reconcile water value trade-offs, conserve water and create awareness.