Recommendations for drinking-water programing

Based on the comprehensive analyses of determinants of drinking-water program successes using qualitative and quantitative analyses, the following recommendations are made for drinking- water programming in light of the SDG target to achieve universal access to safe drinking-water. The recommendations are not listed in order of relevance.

1. National and state governments should be central to improving access to safe drinking- water: Formal rules were found to impact decision-making about drinking-water programs in all three studies conducted. Because formal rules guide the actions of organizations that aim to increase access to drinking-water and these rules are developed and enforced by

governments, as efforts to achieve SDG target 6.1, governments should be considered when programs are being carried out. Partnerships with government agencies, when possible, will facilitate the progress of programs and government agencies can be helpful in removing barriers that may occur during program implementation.

2. Develop technologies that are compatible with cultures: As efforts are being made to increase access to safe drinking-water, it is imperative that systems being put in place are compatible with the culture of the target communities. An example of this can be seen in the Thailand case in which access to sanitation increased substantially over a 30 year period due to both government involvement and building sanitation systems that were culturally specific

158

to the Thai people. By promoting culturally acceptable systems, people are more likely to use and maintain the systems which would improve sustainability of the systems.

3. Integrate climate change adaptation into policies and water supply programs: As efforts are being made to increase access to safe drinking-water, utilities and other water service providers will be well served to incorporate climate change into the construction of new systems. This maximizes the likelihood that when climate change related hazards occur, the systems are resilient enough to cope with the disasters. Incorporation of climate change into plans may be as simple as elevating boreholes on platforms to avoid flooding. By

incorporating climate change into new systems, future retro-fitting of systems to cope with climate-change related hazards will be minimal; as a result, retrofitting costs can be reduced. 4. Get to know decision makers and users: The analysis of HWTS programming and climate

change adaptation programming highlighted the importance of knowing the decisions makers, understanding their values, and identifying the rules to which they are bound. When the primary decision makers, about adopting a particular practice, are individuals informal rules play a larger role in influencing people’s decisions; however, when the decision makers are organizations, they are bound by both organizational policies and national policies. Understanding the decision-makers, their values, and their rules will aid in effective collaboration and implementation of programs.

5. Promote collaboration across state levels and among different actors: Partnerships were a recurring theme across all studies conducted and were identified as being vital to the success of drinking-water programs. The partnerships identified were partnerships across different sectors, among different actors, and across different state levels. Water resources are used by a variety of sectors so effective management of these resources will require communication among the relevant sectors. Additionally, there are lessons to be learned from actors that

159

have experience with specific drinking-water programs. For example, the private sector has had some success with promoting HWTS products in certain regions, primarily through market analysis and providing target individuals with different choices of HWTS products (PATH, 2012).

6. Document intervention and evaluation plans, successes, and failures: Sharing lessons learned can improve future programming efforts to increase access to safe drinking-water. There is limited empirical research on what factors influence drinking-water programs and how these factors influence programs. Many reports assert the importance of a number of enabling environment factors but few confirm the significance of these factors either through qualitative or quantitative research. There is need for better systematic assessment of intervention programming and documentation of these assessments.

160

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Al-Jabri, I. M. & Sohail, M. S., 2012. Mobile Banking Adoption: Application of Diffusion of Innovation Theory. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, pp. 379-391.

Barkan, S., 2013. Sociology: Uncerstanding and Changing the Social World, Brief Edition. s.l.:Flat World Knowledge.

Brown, J., Sobsey, M. & Proum, S., 2007. Improving Household Drinking Water Quality: Use of Ceramic Water Filters in Cambodia, Washington, DC: WSP.

Clasen, T. F., 2008. Scaling Up Household Water Treatment:Looking Back, Seeing Forward, Geneva: World Health organization.

de Loe, R. C., Di Giantomasso, S. & Kreutzwiser, R. D., 2002. Local capacity for groundwater protection in Ontario. Environmental Management, 29(2), pp. 217-233.

DuBois, A. E. et al., 2010. Determinants of Use of Household-level Water Chlorination Products in Rural Kenya, 2003–2005. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 7(10), pp. 3842-3852.

EPA, 2009. Gaining Operational and Managerial Efficiencies Through Water System Partnerships: Case Studies, s.l.: Office of Water.

Folifac, F., Lifongo, L., Nkeng, G. & Gaskin, S., 2009. Municipal drinking water source protection in low-income countries: Case of Buea municipality - Cameroon. Journal of Ecology and Natural Environment, 1(4), pp. 73-84.

Flanagan, Sara V., Johnston, Richard B. & Zheng, Yan., 2012. Arsenic in tube well water in

Bangladesh: health and economic impacts and implications for arsenic mitigation. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 90, pp. 839-846. doi: 10.2471/BLT.11.101253

Government of Kenya, 2015. THEME: SMART INVESTMENTS TO ACHIEVE WATER, SANITATION & HYGIENE FOR ALL, s.l.: SWA-HLM COMMITMENTS 2014-2016. Luong, T., Chanacharnmongkol, O. & Thatsanatheb, T., 2002. Universal sanitation in rural

Thailand. In: Sustainable Development: Targets,. s.l.:Waterfront: A UNICEF PUBLICATION ON WATER, ENVIRONMENT, SANITATION AND HYGIENE, pp. 8-10.

Ministry of Health and Lao Statistics Bureau, 2012. Lao Social Indicator Survey (LSIS): 2011 - 12, Vientiane: s.n.

Nichter, M., 1985. Drink boiled water: A cultural analysis of a health education message. Social Science and Medicine, 21(6), pp. 667-669.

PATH, 2012. Commercial approaches to delivering household water treatment and safe storage products and solutions to low-income households: Special Report. PERSPECTIVES, Seattle.

PMNCH, 2013. INTEGRATING WASHINTERVENTIONS ACROSS SECTORS TO IMPROVE HEALTH OUTCOMES, Beijing: Strategy Brief for the Inter Ministerial Conference on “South-South Cooperation in Post ICDP and MDGs".

161

Sentiono, I. M., Woodcock, J., Djumhana, B. & Sukarma, R., 2012. Indonesia Water Investment Roadmap: 2011-2014, s.l.: The World Bank.

Sheth, A., Russo, E., Menon, M. & Quick, R., 2010. Hygiene promotion for diarrhoeal disease prevention through the government of Malawi perinatal care system: Program evaluation report, Atlanta, GA: CDC. Timmer, D. K., de Loe, R. C. & Kreutzwiser, R. D., 2007. Source water protection in the Annapolis

Valler, Nova Scotia: Lessons for building local capacity. Land Use Policy, 24(1), pp. 187-198. UNDP, 2011. Services and supply chains: The role of the domestic private sector in water service delivery in

Tanzania, New York: UNDP.

WaterAid and Share, 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of public finance for household sanitation in rural Thailand, s.l.: WaterAid and Share.

162