The Socio-Economic Impact of Village Wells on the Villages

Transcription

1 Dr. VARDAN E. URUTYAN * Dr. DANIEL J. DUNN** *Armenian Agricultural Academy, Agribusiness Teaching Center, USDA MAP Armenia, Yerevan Armenia Now - Visiting Scholar, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada. s: vurutyan@uoguelph.ca, vardanur@yahoo.com ** Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics, International Education Coordinator, Agribusiness Teaching Center Project Coordinator. s: dunn@usda.am, danldunn@yahoo.com,

2 The Socio-Economic Impact of Village Wells on the Villages Abstract: This research study classifies and measures the benefits of the Village Well project conducted by the USDA MAP during This research project analyzes the importance of water wells to villages, and reveals the agricultural and socio-economical benefits of families it served. The study analyzes the socioeconomic situation of the village before and after the Village Well project. In order to analyze the socioeconomic impact of Village Well, an organized group visited those provinces where the wells operate, conducted surveys among the users of water, and recorded all the problems referring to the operation of water wells. Data are obtained by Stratified sampling and Proportional sampling methods in a field work from 131 well users from 7 provinces of Armenia. In this study a number of statistical tests have been implemented such as Hypothesis Testing, One-Sample Tests, Two-Sample and c-sample Tests with Categorical Data. Surveys revealed how people use wells, how water is distributed from wells, how people pay for used water, whether well water is sufficient or not, if more wells are needed for that community. The study allowed to analyze the need of continuing such projects and revealed the utility rate of water wells. Key words: Water Well, Groundwater Withdrawals, Hypothesis Testing, Socio-Economic Factors, Survey, Utility Rate, Stratified and Proportional Sampling, Categorical Data. Introduction: Agriculture remains a dominant sector in the economy of Armenia. It provides varying levels of productive employment to approximately half of the households, and contributes about 30% of GDP (Economic Statistics 2002, Armenia). In Armenia, agriculture is strongly dependent on irrigation, since the majority of crop production requires watering. Therefore, water for irrigation purposes remains the number one water demand in Armenia. Agricultural users have four sources of water: direct precipitation, stream-flow diversions, reservoir storage and releases, and groundwater withdrawals. Storage of water in reservoirs is one form of drought mitigation. When more precipitation is available, however, farmers can rely less on their stored water supplies, and withdraw less water from streams and aquifers as well. Examples of irrigated agriculture in Armenia include grapes, apples, wheat, barley, potatoes, and vegetables. Approximately 200,000 ha are at present irrigated and roughly 85,000 ha that were previously irrigated have reverted to dryland due to failure of pumping and conveyance systems (out of a total of roughly 494,000 hectares of cultivable area in the whole country). The water is supplied to most of the irrigation schemes by 14 major conveyance irrigation systems that are highly deteriorated. This irrigation delivery system is now inadequate to the new post- 2

3 socialist reality. Those on-farm systems were designed to service large farms, which may have irrigated 50 to 400 ha from a single headgate or canal outlet. Presently, the same outlet may service 300 or more farmers, given that the average size of an irrigated farm is currently 1.38 ha. Because of the serious drought in year 2000, farmers experienced losses in corn by 100,000 tons, in potato by 90,000 tons and in grass production by 225,000 tons. The loss in cattle ranching was $7.5 million. Armenian Government received financial aids from different international financial organizations to subsidize farmers losses (Harutyunyan, 2001). To solve these problems first of all it is very important to have better water management in Armenian farms in order to continue to increase agricultural production and improve incomes in the farm levels. The existing irrigation system is very inefficient. Groundwater withdrawals, particularly village wells are one of the important irrigation sources. There are many villages where water wells drilled during Soviet times are now inoperable for various reasons, such as technical problems, pumps and engines malfunctioning, deficit of pipelines etc., leaving some villages with only surface water supplies which actually disappear in late summer. The Village Well project was established by USDA Marketing Assistance Program, which aimed to rehabilitate deteriorated water wells and construct new wells for rural communities and farmers. The Village Well Project is funded by the European Command of the U.S. Dept. of Defense through their humanitarian assistance. USDA/MAP worked through Foundation of Applied Research and Agribusiness (FARA) to identify well sites and conduct competitive bidding for wells. It also contained well rehabilitation in some villages (Infanger, 2001). The first and second stages of the Village Well project are virtually complete with 48 new or rehabilitated wells making water available to 38,000 villagers. The U.S. Embassy in Armenia has allocated an additional $300,000 for a third phase of Village Wells and Pipeline Projects. A Small Farm Water Management Research Center (SFWMRC) was created in the Armenian Agricultural Academy to handle the new research, demonstration, and educational priorities in improving agricultural water use in Armenia. This center now has teams organized for monitoring the village wells, conducting on-farm field moisture monitoring and furrow evaluation, and expanding training and education with extension agents. Our team is one of the SFWMRC teams, which has objectives to analyze the importance of water wells to villages, and reveal the agricultural and socio-economical benefits of well user families. Our project has pursued the following goals: 1. To develop a methodology for conducting surveys which can be used in the future similar projects. 2. To conduct surveys in those communities which have been selected according to the abovementioned methodology. 3. To make analysis user rate and the utility of wells based on the compiled data. 4. To analyze the socio-economic condition of families in the communities of water wells. 3

4 5. To research the influence of Village Well project on the rise of efficiency of food production. Method and Description of the Project In accordance with the importance of the first goal a sampling methodology was developed to implement the Project. For the sampling plan Stratified Sampling method was used. The total number of wells at the beginning of the study was 42. The population (42 wells) was subdivided into separate subpopulations, or strata according to provinces. The wells are situated in 8 provinces. Here are the provinces and the wells: Table 1:The number of the Water Wells included in the S tudy Province Lory Gegharq Armavir Aragats Ararat Shirak V. Dzor Syuniq Total Totalnum berofwater we ls /3 ofwaterwe ls 33% Wels in the Study 14 Proportional percentage 24% 38% 12% 10% 5% 5% 5% - 100% Wels in the Study Percentages are rounded Due to budget constraint and average transportation expenses only 14 wells from 7 provinces were included in the research. This number represents 1/3 of the population. To know how many wells from each province we will select we used Proportional Sampling. In Lory province there are 10 wells. This is approximately 24% of the total population (42 wells). With proportional sampling, 24% of the first sample (14 wells) must be selected in Lory province. In Lory province we selected 3 wells. Using the same method the results will be the above captured table (Table 1.) The next stage was well selection. These wells were selected by using simple random sampling method within each of the strata. Results of the Project: The level of water wells usage was very low in 2002 which because of rainy weather. Most of the selected wells have never been used because of absence of their necessity. Nevertheless there are also other reasons. For instance, in Jrashen we found that wells hadn t been ready for use. Other reasons were both the abundant showers and delay of electronic devices. In fact, the water well Jrashen-5, which was included in the project 4

5 according to the random sampling, didn t take part in the project. For the above-mentioned reasons the water wells of Qarakert in Armavir (which had technical problems of engine and pump), 2 wells of Poqr Masrik and the well Arteni-2 were excluded from the project. During our visits those wells never operated. Table 2 presents the selected wells, the real number of users, and area irrigated, which we found during our visits. Table 2: The real number of well users and quantity of irrigated land with the wells. Lory province Users Area irrigated Lernavan 2 90 users 60 ha Saramej 1 40 users 54 ha Jrashen (All 5 wells in Jrashen during our visits were not working) * Gegharquniq province Lchashen 20 users 15 ha Khachaghbyur 1 20 users 4 ha Khachaghbyur 2 60 users 12 ha Mets Masrik 2 50 users 10 ha Poqr Masrik 1 (the wells are not working/technical problems) ** Armavir province Qarakert (This well has a problem with the pump) *** Mrgashat 40 users 30 ha Ararat province Shaghap 80 users 15 ha Shirak province Gusanagyugh (This well is used for utility needs, not for irrigation) **** Vayots Dzor province Elpin 72 users 8.5 ha Aragatsotn province Arteni 2 (The well is projected for the irrigation of 80ha of land but because of the lack of pipelines it s not working.) ***** TOTAL From the above information we can generalize that only 472 people used the 14 water wells included in our project. These people used water wells only for the irrigation matters. The 14 wells irrigated about ha of land (see Table 2.) The number of surveyed people was determined according to the proportional and stratified sampling methodology. The surveyed people were selected by the simple random sampling method. Thus: 5

6 Thirty-six surveys were conducted in Lory (the 130 users of water wells in Lory province make up 28% of total 472 users, which means that the number of people to be surveyed is 28 % of 130), 48 surveys in Gegharqunik (32%). In Armavir (Mrgashat) only 3 (8%) surveys were provided for in our plan but because another water well of Armavir province (Qarakert) didn t work we made 22 surveys. 14 surveys were done in province of Ararat (17%), 11 in Vayots Dzor (15%). Altogether 131 surveys were conducted which constitutes 28% of all water users. (Table 3.) Table 3: The number of surveyed people in each of the strata. Province Lory Gegharq Armavir Aragats Ararat Shirak V. Dzor Total Totalnumberofwe lusers Percentage from the Total 28% 32% 8% 0% 17% 0 15% 100% Quantity ofsurveyed users The percentage numbers are rounded As shown in the table, no surveys were done in Shirak province and Aragatsotn province. The water wells here were used only for domestic use. We did our surveys in areas of water wells being used only for the purpose of irrigation. Though we also conducted some surveys in the above-mentioned provinces. The surveys revealed that water well users mainly irrigate their own land area, and only 14% of all questioned people have irrigated rented lands. Land areas didn t exceed 2 hectares. Thirty-seven percent of questioned people had up to 1ha of land, and only 63 % had lands of 1-2 ha. The irrigable lands were about 0.8 kilometers from the water wells, particularly 1 km in Ararat, 0.6 km in Lori, 0.8 km in Vayots Dzor (see Appendix 1,2). In general, 55% of questioned people wholly irrigated their lands by water wells. 41% irrigated only the half of their lands (see Figure 1). Particularly, 75% of questioned people in Gegharquniq could completely irrigate their lands. In comparison 73 % of questioned people in Vayots Dzor irrigated only half their lands (see Appendix 1,2). 6

7 Generally on their land well users grow vegetables and crop. To the question: Has your land ever been irrigated before? 84% of surveyed people answered YES. In Lory, Gegharquniq and Armavir provinces respectively 89%, 94% and 100% of questioned people answered positively. Before they have used dams through irrigation net (53%), existing wells (5%) and other sources (see Figure 2). These sources of irrigation have not been so efficient for water users. Thirty five percent of surveyed people answered that the previous system of irrigation was efficient, 28% of surveyed people: satisfactory, and 37% of surveyed people: bad (see Appendix 1,2). This question we can analyze by using statistical tests such as Z test of Hypothesis for the Proportion. In terms of proportions the null and alternative hypothesis can be stated as follows: Table 4: Hypothesis Testing Null Hypothesis p= 0.4 Level of Significance 0.05 Answer: was efficient 42 Sample Size 131 Sample Proportion Standard Error Z Test Statistic Lower-Tail Test Lower Critical Value p-value Reject the null hypothesis E-05. Ho:p 0.4 H1:p < 0.4 The null hypothesis can be stated as follows: the previous system of irrigation was 40% efficient. From our surveys we know that 42 from a total of 131 users say the previous system of irrigation was efficient. If a level of significance α of 0.05 is selected, the decision rule will be Reject Ho if Z< , otherwise do not reject Ho. From hypothesis testing we know that 4.106< and we must reject Ho. Thus we may conclude that the previous system of irrigation was not even 40% efficient and the null hypothesis must be rejected (see Table 4.) Sixty nine percent of surveyed people answered that the well water is adequate during the irrigation season, but for 31% of surveyed people the well water is not adequate. Particularly, 59 % of surveyed people in Armavir province answered negatively (see Figure 2). In Armavir province surveys have been conducted in the area of Mrgashat well. Farmers in this area feel that there is a necessity for the second well. Figure 2: According to crops allocation does the well's water satisfy your needs during the season? Merely 28% Doesn't 31% Satisfies 41% 7

8 However, 90% of surveyed people in Gegharquniq province answered that the well water is adequate during the irrigation season (see Appendix 1,2). In terms of proportion the null and alternative hypothesis can be stated as follows: Ho:p 0.75 (satisfies more than 75%) H1:p < 0.75 Hypothesis testing shows that the null hypothesis must be Table 5: Hypothesis Testing accepted. That means the level of satisfaction is 75% and Null Hypothesis p= 0.75 more (see Table 5.). Level of Significance 0.05 Z test for the difference in two proportions shows that in Satisfies 96 Gegharquniq and Lory provinces there is a significant Sample Size 131 Sample Proportion Standard Error Z Test Statistic Lower-Tail Test Lower Critical Value p-value difference in water well satisfaction. Z test reveals that in Gegharquniq province the farmers are using the wells more efficiently than in Lory province (see Table 6.). In Lory, Ararat and Vayots Dzor provinces there is not a significant difference in satisfaction among the water users. That means that the water users in these provinces have almost the same Do not reject the null hypothesis level of satisfaction. Table 6: Hypothesis Testing Lory/Gegharquniq Hypothesized Difference 0 Lory/Ararat Hypothesized Difference 0 Level of Significance 0.05 Level of Significance 0.05 Lory Satisfies 26 Lory Satisfies 26 Sample Size 36 Sample Size 36 Gegharquniq Satisfies 43 Ararat Satisfies 11 Sample Size 48 Sample Size 14 Group 1 Proportion Group 1 Proportion Group 2 Proportion Group 2 Proportion Difference in Two Proportions Difference in Two Proportions Average Proportion Average Proportion 0.74 Z Test Statistic Z Test Statistic Two-Tailed Test Lower Critical Value Two-Tailed Test Lower Critical Value Upper Critical Value Upper Critical Value p-value p-value Reject the null hypothesis * Do not reject the null hypothesis ** * There is a significant difference ** There is not a significant difference 8

9 In opinion of all surveyed people the water from water wells is being distributed fairly. The water users use wells by turn. Particularly, 57 % of surveyed people use the water by turn, 33% only 1-2 times, 10% - can use whenever they want (see Appendix 1,2). To the question of Are there any cases when because of technical problems you don t irrigate the land? 46% of people answered yes, 33% -very rare, 21%-no (see Figure 3). The technical problems mostly appeared in Lory 61%, Armavir-59%, Vayots Dzor-45% (see Appendix 1,2). Figure 3. Are there any cases when because of technical problems you don t irrigate the land? 60% 40% 20% 0% 46% 33% 21% yes notoften never At the.05 level of significance, Z test for the difference in two proportions shows that there is a significant difference in cases of technical problems and malfunctioning between Lory and Gegharquniq provinces (see Table 7.). The cases of technical problems in other provinces have been repeated with equal proportions. Table 7: Hypothesis Testing Lory/Gegharquniq Hypothesized Difference 0 Level of Significance 0.05 Lory Cases of malfunctioning 22 Sample Size 36 Gegharquniq Cases of malfunctioning 15 Sample Size 48 Group 1 Proportion Group 2 Proportion Difference in Two Proportions Average Proportion Z Test Statistic Two-Tailed Test Lower Critical Value Upper Critical Value p-value Reject the null hypothesis* Armavir/Ararat Hypothesized Difference 0 Level of Significance 0.05 Armavir Cases of malfunctioning 13 Sample Size 22 Ararat Cases of malfunctioning 6 Sample Size 14 Group 1 Proportion Group 2 Proportion Difference in Two Proportions Average Proportion Z Test Statistic Two-Tailed Test Lower Critical Value Upper Critical Value p-value Do not reject the null hypothesis 9

10 * The number of cases of well technical problems and malfunctioning in Lory province is proportionally more than that is in Gegharquniq province. That means more attention must be paid to technical conditions of the wells in Lory province. Before the payments for water were done irregularly and the users paid high fees for the water used. Fees were about AMD/hectare for the entire season. (585AMD = 1USD) Now fees are paid based on hours used. Particularly, to use the water well Saramech-2 in Lori one should pay 600 AMD per hour. The fee for water well Lernavan-2 is 500 AMD per hour. Thus the average is 550AMD per hour. The fee per hour use of Lchashen water well is 600AMD, for Khachaghbyur-1 it s 1104AMD, for Khachaghbyur AMD, in Mets Masrik the fee is 650AMD. The average rate is 733.2AMD per hour in Gegharquniq (see Table 8.) The fee for Elpin water well in Vayots Dzor is 600AMD, for Shaghap water well in Ararat it is 580 AMD. The situation is somewhat different for water well of Mrgashat. To irrigate 1000 square meters one should pay 1000 AMD irrespective of used hours (see Table 8.). There are many people here who want to use water, but because of lack of water supplies most of them simply cant do that. Most of the questioned people find it necessary to build the second well, which would serve about 50 hectares. Arteni-2 well in Aragatsotn, which was chosen according the random sampling, hasn t worked because of the absence of pipes. However Arteni-1 well operated here which was entirely used for the technical and utility purposes. Here the people also were content with the wells, since before it was difficult to them to solve the problems connected with water use. Now they are exempt from that problem. Table 8: The fee per hour use of water well. (580AMD = 1 USD) Lory province Lernavan AMD For 1 hour use Saramej AMD For 1 hour use Jrashen 5 * Gegharquniq province Lchashen 600 AMD For 1 hour use Khachaghbyur AMD For 1 hour use Khachaghbyur AMD For 1 hour use Mets Masrik AMD For 1 hour use Poqr Masrik 1 ** Armavir province Qarakert *** Mrgashat 1000 AMD For 1000 sq. m. irrigation. Ararat province Shaghap 580 AMD For 1 hour use Shirak province Gusanagyugh **** Vayots Dzor province Elpin 600 AMD For 1 hour use Aragatsotn province Arteni 2 ***** 10

11 We can conclude that an average fee for water wells included in our project is AMD per hour. Half of the questioned people answered that the fee was obtainable; the other half gave opposite answer. Particularly big differences were recorded in Armavir. Here 72% of surveyed people answered that fees were expensive. Fifty two percent of surveyed people pay the fees at the end of season, 48% pays by installment (see Figure 4). Figure 4: When do you make payments? 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% At the beginning o f the season 52% A t the o f the season 48% Partialy From the first look that seems good but the rainfalls inflicted losses to village Saramej referring to the productivity of potato (see Table 9). Through surveys we have found out only the indicators of grain and potato. Table 9: The yield of grain and potato before and after the well irrigation. The Yield (Grain ha/mts) Before After % Growth Lory Gegharquniq Armavir Ararat Vayots Dzor Average The Yield (Potato ha/c) Before After % Growth Lory Gegharquniq Armavir Ararat Vayots Dzor Average The fluent rainfalls caused decrease in the productivity in province of Lory. That inflicted huge damage to the crop of potato. The best results are recorded in Vayots Dzor where the productivity of wheat 11

12 increased by 89% and potato by 49%. The productivity of wheat rose by 82% in Gegharquniq. That indicator for potato rose by 50% in Armavir (see Table 9). We can t unequivocally state that increase in productivity is only due to irrigation by water wells. Many factors had their roles in it, but water wells had a specific impact (see Appendix 1.2). All surveyed people think it s necessary to have water wells in their communities. In the result of surveys 76% of people weren t aware of the rules of operating and protecting water wells. Particularly, in Armavir, Ararat, Vayots Dzor provinces respectively 77%, 79%, 82% of surveyed people didn t know about those rules. In all provinces the users are aware of the rules of well exploitation and maintenance similarly. There is not a significant difference. As the vast majority of water users are not aware of the above-mentioned rules, therefore seminars must be organized for water well users to be competent of the rules of well exploitation and maintenance. Conclusions: From the results of implemented project it s evident that the water wells have great socio-economic influence on villages. Although this year the using rate of wells was low enough (because of rainy weather) however the wells had had great positive impact on villages, particularly in terms of increasing the productivity and solving technical and utility problems. Of course, there are some drawbacks regarding the wells technical condition. In particular we included 14 wells in our project. But 4 of them never worked because of technical problems. Such cases should receive solutions as soon as possible. If we apply hypothesis testing of the proportion the picture again is not promising. Table 10: Hypothesis Testing Suppose before during the visits 3 wells from 10 had Null Hypothesis p= 0.3 technical problems and were not working. That will be Level of Significance % or 0.3. We want to determine whether there is Wells with technical problems 4 evidence that the proportion of the wells with technical Sample Size 14 problems has improved this year (i.e., has decreased Sample Proportion below.30). The null and alternative hypothesis can be Standard Error stated as follows. Z Test Statistic Ho:p 0.3 Lower-Tail Test Lower Critical Value H1:p < 0.3 If a level of significance α of 0.05 is selected, the p-value decision rule will be Reject Ho if Z< , otherwise Do not reject the null hypothesis do not reject Ho. According to our data, during our visits 4 wells from our sample (14 wells) have not worked and have had technical problems. From hypothesis testing we know that 0.116> and Ho must be accepted. Thus in 12

13 conclusion, the number of wells with technical problems prevails 30% (see Table 10.). This fact again proves that technical conditions and problems of the wells deserve a separate mention. Based on the analysis of the results of the Project we propose: o Based on the content and real results of the project to continue the above mentioned project with the aim of revealing the socio-economic impact of water wells having more wells in the project o To conduct applicable, educational and counseling activities among the users of water wells referring to rules of operating and protecting the water wells. o To spare great consideration and attention to the technical condition of water wells. Acknowledgment: The implementing group of the project expresses its true thanks to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Marketing Assistance Project and the Foundation of Applied Research and Agribusiness (FARA), particularly to Dr. Craig Infanger (USDA MAP former Director & Coordinator), Dr. Alan Lines (USDA MAP Project Director & Coordinator), Dr. Charles Basham (USDA MAP Applied Research Coordinator), and Dr. Hrachik Javadyan (Director of FARA) for their valuable assistance. References: Alan, L. Six Month Accomplishment Report: January July Project Report, USDA MAP, Yerevan, Armenia, David M. Levine, Mark L. Berenson, David Stephan, Statistics for Managers, Fundamentals of Hypothesis Testing: One-Sample Tests, p Two-Sample and c-sample Tests with Categorical Data, p G. Eghiazaryan, Exploitation of the Agricultural Wells and Efficient Water Use - November 2001, Project Report, FARA. Harutyunyan, V. The main directions and priorities of economic development. Economic Outlook, Yerevan, September 21, Infanger, C. Six Month Accomplishment Report: January June Project Report, USDA MAP, Yerevan, Armenia, Vardan E. Urutyan, The fundamentals of socio-economic development program for the country, Journal: Information Technologies and Management n.1,

14 Appendices 14 Appendix 1. Province Lory Gegharq. Armavir Ararat Vayots Dz. TOTAL AVG. Surveyed people Is your land private or rental? Private Rental How many ha of land do you have? Up to 1ha From 1 to 2 ha From 2 to 5 ha How far is your land situated from the well? Km How much of your land is irrigated by the water well? All The half A little plot What kinds of crop do you grow? Grain Vegetables Other Has you land ever been irrigated? Yes No Which source of irrigation did you have before? Dams, through irrig. net Existing wells Other sources Was that source effective for irrigation? Please evaluate. Good Satisfactory Bad Does the well s water satisfy your needs during the season? Satisfies Does not satisfy How frequently can you use the well? Always In turn times In your opinion, is the water distributed fairly to farmers? Yes No Do you have problems with irrigating due to well malfunctioning? Yes Rarely Never How much do you pay now for using the well?

15 AMD Didn t pay When do you make payments during the season? At the beginning At the end Partially How would you estimate the payments? Acceptable Expensive How much yield did you get in the past? Grain Potato How much yield do you get now using the well? Grain Potato Do you think the wells are mandatory in your village? Yes No Are you aware of the rules of well exploitation and maintenance? Yes No Do you think you have any responsibilities to wells preservation? Yes No (In the table the number are given with percentage values) Appendix 2. Province Lory Gegharq. Armavir Ararat Vayots Dz. TOTAL Surveyed people Is your land private or rental? Private Rental How many ha of land do you have? Up to 1ha From 1 to 2 ha From 2 to 5 ha How much of your land is irrigated by the water well? All The half A little plot Has you land ever been irrigated? Yes No Which source of irrigation did you have before? Dams, through irrg. net Existing wells Other sources

16 Was that source effective for irrigation? Please evaluate. Good Satisfactory Bad Does the well s water satisfy your needs during the season? Satisfies Does not satisfy How frequently can you use the well? Always In turn times In your opinion, is the water distributed fairly to farmers? Yes No Do you have problems with irrigating due to well malfunctioning? Yes Rarely Never When do you make payments during the season? At the beginning At the end Partially How would you estimate the payments? Acceptable Expensive Do you think the wells are mandatory in your village? Yes Not so much No Are you aware of the rules of well exploitation and maintenance? Yes No Do you think you have any responsibilities to wells preservation? Yes No