Dissertation Annotated Bibliography for Kim (Due date - Sunday 11th February, 2018 DUE IN 20 HOURS FROM NOW)

Theroleofwomeninsustainabilityofdonor-fundedruraldrinkingwatersupplyprojectsindevelopingcountries.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help > Dissertation Annotated Bibliography for Kim (Due date - Sunday 11th February, 2018 DUE IN 20 HOURS FROM NOW)

THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN SUSTAINABILITY OF DONOR‐FUNDED RURAL

DRINKING WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES:

A Case Study of Tajikistan

Nargis A. Artyushevskaya

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science Degree In Environmental Studies

State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry

Syracuse, New York April 2014

Approved: Department of Environmental Studies ____________________________ ______________________________ Richard Smardon, Major Professor Shannon Farrell, Chair Examining Committee ____________________________ ______________________________ Valerie Luzadis, Department Chair S. Scott Shannon, Dean The Graduate School

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

UMI 1560727

Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.

UMI Number: 1560727

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I am sincerely thankful to my major professor, Dr. Richard Smardon, for patience and all support provided throughout all stages of IRB submissions, survey administration, review and finalization of thesis chapters. Professor Smardon, without your solid guidance this research would never have happened. I would also like to thank my Steering Committee members, Dr. David Sonnenfeld and Dr. Sharon Moran, for their valuable feedback provided throughout the thesis developments, as well as at the research proposal stage. I am also very grateful to my defense examiner, Dr. Natalie Koch, from the Department of Geography at Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, for cooperation and valuable feedback.

I am very thankful to Oxfam GB in Tajikistan for the indispensable support with the

administration of the survey, dissemination of the survey tools and collection of responses. My sincere gratitude to Mr. Davide Costa and Mrs. Nazokat Isaeva for the productive collaboration making this research possible. I am also in an eternal debt to the partnering agency, NGO Subhi Tandurusti, for assistance with the administration and dissemination of the survey and collection of responses. Zamir Sangov and Boir Shomudinov, I cannot find enough words to express my gratitude.

I am sincerely grateful to each and every participant of the survey for active

participation and valuable information provided. Without your information the conclusions reached in this research would not be complete and meaningful.

I am thankful to my family and friends, who supported and encouraged me during

this demanding and undoubtedly one of the most rewarding periods of my life. Finally, I would like to express my gratefulness to the Fulbright Program and SUNY

ESF for the financial support and the incredible opportunity granted to me to pursue Master of Science in Environmental Studies at SUNY ESF.

The ideas and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author and should not be interpreted as those of the State University of New York College of Environmental

Science and Forestry.

iii

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT .................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 JUSTIFICATION ............................................................................................................................... 4 1.5 CONCEPTUAL TERMS AND DEFINITIONS .............................................................................................. 5

CHAPTER 2: COUNTRY CONTEXT .................................................................................................... 9 2.1 COUNTRY PROFILE ......................................................................................................................... 9 2.4 GENDER EQUITY AND WOMEN’S ROLES ............................................................................................ 10 2.2 TAJIKISTAN’S WATER SECTOR ......................................................................................................... 14 2.3 DONOR COMMUNITY AND SECTOR PARTNERS .................................................................................. 17

CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................... 19 3.1 FEMINIST POLITICAL ECOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 19 3.2 AGENCY AND POWER .................................................................................................................. 21 3.3 PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY .............................................................................................................. 23 3.4 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ......................................................................................................... 25 3.5 WOMEN’S PARTICIPATION............................................................................................................. 27 3.6 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 33

CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 35 4.1 RESEARCH DESIGN ....................................................................................................................... 35

4.1.1 Research Question and Hypothesis .................................................................................. 35 4.1.2 Research Methods ............................................................................................................ 36

4.2 META‐ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 37 4.2.1 Dependent and Independent Variables ............................................................................... 37 4.2.2 Target Population and Units of Analysis .......................................................................... 38 4.2.3 Meta‐analysis procedure ................................................................................................. 40

4.3 SURVEY ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................. 41 4.3.1 Variables and Levels of Measurement ............................................................................. 41 4.3.2 Target Population and Units of Analysis .......................................................................... 42 4.3.3 Survey Design ................................................................................................................... 43 4.3.4 Planned Analysis .................................................................................................................. 44 4.3.5 Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 45 4.3.6 Survey Error and Bias ....................................................................................................... 46

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 48 5.1 META‐ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 48

5.1.1 Summarizing critical factors ................................................................................................ 48 5.1.3 Geographical and contextual disparities ............................................................................. 63 5.1.2 Narrative on meta‐analysis ................................................................................................. 65

5.2 SURVEY RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 76 5.2.2 Project Sustainability and Community Participation ........................................................... 80 5.2.3 Participatory Role of Women .............................................................................................. 85

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................................................................ 96 6.1 FORMS OF WOMEN’S PARTICIPATION FOR PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY ..................................................... 96 6.2 PERCEPTIONS OF WOMEN’S PARTICIPATION ..................................................................................... 98 6.3 WOMEN’S PARTICIPATION AND PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................... 98 6.4 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ............................................................................................ 101 6.5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 103

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................ 105 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................................... 113

Annex A. Matrix of Research Methods ....................................................................................... 113 Annex B. Relationship between research questions, methods and hypothesis .......................... 114 Annex C. Format of Literature Summary Matrix ........................................................................ 115 Annex D. TajWSS agency membership list ................................................................................. 116 Annex E. Survey Tool in English and Russian .............................................................................. 117 Annex F. Informed Consent forms in English and Russian .......................................................... 129 Annex G. Survey Recruitment Scripts in English and Russian ..................................................... 131 Annex H. Survey Pre‐test Recruitment Script ............................................................................. 132 Annex I. Survey Pre‐test Informed Consent ................................................................................ 133 Annex J. Survey Pre‐test Results ................................................................................................. 134 Annex K. Survey Piloting Recruitment Script .............................................................................. 135 Annex L. Survey Piloting Informed Consent ................................................................................ 136 Annex M. Literature Review Findings Tabulation ....................................................................... 137 Annex N. Categorization of Literature Review Findings ............................................................. 145 Annex O. Crosstab of survey results: General Information on Survey Participants .................... 151 Annex P. Survey results: agreement to country‐specific statements ......................................... 152

CURRICULUM VITAE .................................................................................................................... 153

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Labor market status of women in Tajikistan (Chapter 2, p.11)

Table 2. Distribution of responsibilities among household members (Chapter 2, p.12)

Table 3. Planned statistical analysis of survey results in SPSS (Chapter 4, p.44)

Table 4. Meta‐analysis results: publication of studies by years (Chapter 5, p.48)

Table 5. Meta‐analysis results: technical factors of project sustainability (Chapter 5, p.50)

Table 6. Meta‐analysis results: financial factors of project sustainability (Chapter 5, p.52)

Table 7. Meta‐analysis results: institutional factors of project sustainability (Chapter 5, p.53)

Table 8. Meta‐analysis results: community participation and women’s participation (Chapter 5, p.55)

Table 9. Meta‐analysis results: social factors of project sustainability (Chapter 5, p.56)

Table 10. Meta‐analysis results: social factors ‐ community participation (Chapter 5, p.58)

Table 11. Meta‐analysis results: social factors – women’s participation (Chapter 5, p.60)

Table 12. Meta‐analysis results: descriptive statistics on typology of women’s participation (Chapter 5, p.61)

Table 13. Meta‐analysis results: descriptive statistics on geographical regions (Chapter 5, p.62)

Table 14. Meta‐analysis results: list of researched countries across studies (Chapter 5, p.63)

Table 15. Survey results: general information on the survey participants (Chapter 5, p.76)

Table 16. Survey results: gender and age of the survey participants (Chapter 5, p.76)

Table 17. Survey results: professional occupation and type of agency the survey participants represent (Chapter 5, p.77)

Table 18. Survey results: years of experience of the survey participants (Chapter 5, p.78)

Table 19. Survey results: Cross‐tabulation of gender by type of agency and years of experience (Chapter 5, p.79)

Table 20. Survey results: community participation (Chapter 5, p.79)

Table 21. Survey results: relevance of potential factors of project sustainability (Chapter 5, p.80)

Table 22. Survey results: means report for GPA by gender, age, professional occupation and type of agency (Chapter 5, p.81)

Table 23. Survey results: ANOVA for GPA by gender, age, professional occupation, type of agency (Chapter 5, p.82)

Table 24. Survey results: effect size for GPA by gender, age, professional occupation, type of agency and years of experience (Chapter 5, p.83)

Table 25. Survey results: years of operation for sustainable projects (Chapter 5, p.84)

Table 26. Survey results: male and female participation for project sustainability_1 (Chapter 5, p.85)

Table 27. Survey results: male and female participation for project sustainability_2 (Chapter 5, p.86)

Table 28. Survey results: women’s participation for project sustainability (Chapter 5, p.86)

Table 29. Survey results: male and female participation for project sustainability_3 (Chapter 5, p.87)

Table 30. Survey results: hypothesis testing for RQ3_ frequencies_1 (Chapter 5, p.88)

Table 31. Survey results: Hypothesis testing for RQ3 _ chi‐square_1 (Chapter 5, p.89)

Table 32. Survey results: hypothesis testing for RQ3_ frequencies_2 (Chapter 5, p.90)

Table 33. Survey results: Hypothesis testing for RQ3 _ chi‐square_2 (Chapter 5, p.90)

Table 34. Survey results: attributes of male and female participants (Chapter 5, p.91)

Table 35. Survey results: agreements to the country‐specific statements (Chapter 5, p.92)

Table 36. Survey results: frequencies of agreements/disagreements with country‐context statements (Chapter 5, p.93)

vii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Geographical map of Tajikistan (Chapter 2, p.9)

Figure 2. Hydrological map of Tajikistan (Chapter 2, p.14)

Figure 3. Water consumption by sectors in Tajikistan (Chapter 2, p.15)

Figure 4. Projected water consumption in rural Tajikistan (Chapter 2, p.16)

Figure 5. Water and sanitation sector investments (Chapter 2, p.18)

Figure 6. Framework of Water Governance (Chapter 3, p.22)

Figure 7. Theoretical model of dependent and Independent variables (Chapter 4, p.38)

Figure 8. Meat‐analysis process (Chapter 4, p.40)

Figure 9. Meta‐analysis results: four typologies of project sustainability (Chapter 5, p.48)

Figure 10. Meta‐analysis results: years of publication (Chapter 5, p.49)

Figure 11. Meta‐analysis results: publication of studies by years (Chapter 5, p.49)

Figure 12. Meta‐analysis results: distribution of technical factors of project sustainability (Chapter 5, p.51)

Figure 13. Meta‐analysis results: distribution of financial factors of project sustainability (Chapter 5, p.52)

Figure 14. Meta‐analysis results: distribution of institutional factors of project sustainability (Chapter 5, p.54)

Figure 15. Meta‐analysis results: distribution of social factors of project sustainability (Chapter 5, p.55)

Figure 16. Meta‐analysis results: social factors: typology of community participation (Chapter 5, p.59)

Figure 17. Meta‐analysis results: distribution by typology of women’s participation (Chapter 5, p.61)

Figure 18. Meta‐analysis results: distribution of studies by geographical regions (Chapter 5, p.63)

Figure 19. Meta‐analysis results: distribution of studies on women’s participation across geographical regions (Chapter 5, p.64)

Figure 20. Survey results: age distribution of the survey participants (Chapter 5, p.77)

Figure 21. Survey results: respondents’ opinions on years of operation for sustainable projects (Chapter 5, p.83)

Figure 22. Survey results: agreements/disagreements to statements by gender_1 (Chapter 5, p.93)

Figure 23. Survey results: agreements/disagreements to statements by gender_2 (Chapter 5, p.94)

viii

LIST OF ACRONYMS USED

AKF Aga Khan Foundation

ACTED International Non‐Governmental Organization (France)

CARITAS International Non‐Governmental Organization (Switzerland)

DFID Department for International Development (UK)

EC European Commission

EU European Union

GBAO Gorno‐Badakhshan Autonomous Oblast

GoT Government of Tajikistan

HDI Human Development Index

INGO International Non‐Governmental Organization

IRB Research Integrity and Protections

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

JMP Joint Monitoring Program

MDG Millennium Development Goals

MLRWR Ministry of Land Reclamation and Water Resources

NGO Non‐Governmental Organization

OXFAM GB International Non‐Governmental Organization (Great Britain)

RDWS Rural Drinking Water Supply

REACT Rapid Emergency Assessment and Coordination Team

RT Republic of Tajikistan

SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

SUE KMK State Unitary Enterprise “Khojagii Manziliyu Kommunali”

TajWSS Tajikistan Water and Sanitation Sector

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Program

UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund

USAID United States Agency for International Development

WB World Bank

WHO World Health Organization

WUC Water Users Committee

Abstract

N. A. Artyushevskaya, The Role of Women in Sustainability of Donor‐funded Rural Drinking Water Supply Projects in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Tajikistan, 154 pages, 36 tables, 23 figures and 16 annexes. This study explores the relationship between women’s participation and sustainability of community‐managed drinking water supply projects in developing countries and answers a question ‐ Does women’s participation contribute to project sustainability? The findings of a comprehensive meta‐analysis of all studies on sustainability of drinking water projects in developing counties, published within the 2010‐2013 timeframe, are presented to generate an overall picture of the factors responsible for project sustainability and the role of women within the domain. The results of a survey conducted among the practitioners on rural drinking water supply projects in a case study country (Tajikistan) then compliment the literature meta‐analysis with a snapshot on the views of stakeholders on the role of women’s participation for project sustainability. This study contributes to the growing global body of literature on project sustainability in rural drinking water supply and produces recommendations for better effectiveness of community‐managed water projects in developing countries.

Key Words: project sustainability, drinking water supply, rural water supply, women’s participation, developing countries, community management. N. A. Artyushevskaya Candidate for the degree of Master of Science, April 2014 Richard Smardon, Ph.D., Major Professor Department of Environmental Studies State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York Signature of Major Professor:______________________________________________

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Water is central to life, key to the growth and development and the question of control and access

to water resources lies at the heart of water governance. In the present neoliberal economic era,

important water distribution decisions are made through market mechanisms in developed

countries, while water governance in the developing countries is generally characterized as

inefficient and underdeveloped. This translates into the delayed departure from the centralized

systems of management to decentralization and the lack of both governmental capacities to manage

the sector effectively, thus making the community‐management model as the only practical

alternative to the operation of water supply by a state. Meanwhile, the issues surrounding the

practiced community‐management models of drinking water supply projects in developing countries

are numerous and sustainability of such projects remains as one of the most critical issues.

The success rate of implementing drinking water projects in developing countries is quite low

and the critique surrounding the development initiatives being unsustainable remain significant

(Dunmade, 2002). As early as in 2000, a WHO/UNICEF (2000) assessment concludes that 70% of rural

water supplies in Africa remain non‐functional at any given time. The 10 th Five‐Year Plan of Nepal

states that “many projects are completely non‐operational and many are partially operational”; the

National Water Assessment for Mozambique names sustainability as “the rural water sector’s

biggest problem and reports that only 21% of projects are operating as designed” (Barnes, 2009:15).

Furthermore, Moe and Rheingans (2006:53) say that the world is “littered with failed water and

sanitation projects”. Meanwhile, the efforts and resources needed to maintain existing

infrastructure are enormous. According to some estimates “the cost of maintaining existing services

totals an additional US$322 billion 1 for water supply” or US$54 billion annual equivalent both for

water and sanitation maintenance (Hutton & Bartram, 2008).

1 The estimate was made in 2007 to calculate the total costs for the maintenance of existing infrastructure to meet MDGs in 2015

The question of ‘How to make drinking water supply projects more sustainable?’ has been

occupying minds of scientists and practitioners within the past few decades, which is translated into

the development and application of various community‐managed program strategies and

approaches to project implementation. Yet, the debate on the effectiveness of the community‐

managed model still remains acute nowadays and lacks rigorous scientific evidence. The strategies

of ‘community management’ or ‘demand‐responsiveness’ in drinking water supply first emerged in

1990s, implying the imperative of community participation practices for project effectiveness and

sustainability, that subsequently was extended to encompass the strategies of women’s

empowerment and participation (Whittington, et al. 2009). A demand‐responsive approach implied

“that sustainable water systems at community level can be only achieved if people are provided with

the level of service they want and are able to pay for” (Moriarty, Butterworth, & van Koppen,

2004:49).

Despite some criticism of these approaches (Oakley, 1991; Kleemeier, 2000; Lockwood, 2003),

the demand‐responsive model still remains a common strategy for most rural drinking water

programs that are being currently implemented in developing countries (Harvey & Reed, 2006). It is

still believed that approaches to water and sanitation projects that strengthen collective action and

involve community participation can minimize the burden on women and children and the transition

to community‐managed systems “can lower considerably the money spent on water” (Allen, Julio, &

Hofmann, 2006:349).

Meanwhile, aspects of gender appear little in water governance discourses, though water in

contemporary history has been widely recognized as a gendered phenomenon. With prevailing

number of male engineers managing the sector, the discourse on the role of women’s participation

in the effective management and implementation of drinking water projects remains a part of the

ongoing discussion on sustainable operation of drinking water supply in rural areas of developing

countries.

1.2 Problem Statement

With just a few months remaining before the achievements of the Millennium Development Goals

(MDG) are concluded in 2015, the sustainability of invested donor resources becomes one of the

most important areas of concern as it gains more and more attention (WHO/UNICEF, 2012). The

importance of effectiveness in achieving the MDG water target ,e.g. halving the proportion of people

without sustainable access to safe drinking water supply and sanitation (MDG 7), has been

reiterated in most recent high‐level events, international commitments and global United Nations

(UN) reports. For example, the outcome document of the Rio+20, the United Nations Conference on

Sustainable Development, held in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012, reaffirmed the importance of the

accountability for international commitments made in the provision of sustainable safe drinking

water supply, appealing for ensuring sustainable water supply services (UN, 2012). Years earlier, the

United Nations Human Rights Council issued the resolution on “Human Right to Safe Drinking

Water” in which the sustainability of services on safe drinking water supply has been recognized as

an international human right (UN, 2011). Lately, the global UN report on the status of access to

drinking water supply reconfirmed the importance of sustaining the achievements made during the

decade in achieving this water goal (WHO/UNICEF, 2013).

Presently, as the global water target of the MDG 7 has been officially met prior to the deadline

in 2015. The greatest tasks for the next decades are to keep constructed water supply facilities

sustainably operational. It has been told that at any given time 30‐60% of existing rural water supply

systems are inoperative (Brikke & Bredero, 2003). Project sustainability “is often compromised by

lack of technical skills, equipment or spare parts for operation and maintenance, and lack of

sustainable financing mechanisms for recurrent costs” (UNICEF, WHO 2011:47). Without

consideration of social aspects and in‐depth analysis of current community‐managed practices, such

cannot be achieved. Furthermore, it has been argued that MDG on water was gender‐insensitive and

did not work to promote gender equity. Thus, for example, Antrobus (2006:42) argues that

“women’s subordination and exploitation represents a major barrier to the achievement of most of

the goals and targets.”

1.3 Research Questions

This research attempts to answer the question: Does women’s participation in donor‐funded drinking

water supply projects in developing countries contribute to project sustainability? The research

question is inspired by an interest to document the opinions of practitioners involved in

implementation of drinking water supply projects in a case study country (Tajikistan) on women’s

participation and project sustainability, as well as produce a comprehensive overview of available

studies in developing countries. The key research question is underpinned by the following sub‐

questions:

(i) What can be generalized about the impact of women’s participation on the project’s success?

(ii) Which forms and components of women’s participation are positively (or negatively)

associated with project sustainability?

(iii) Do practitioners on rural drinking water supply believe that women’s participation

positively contributes to project sustainability?

1.4 Justification

While women’s involvement and participation is generally advisable for the effective

implementation of drinking water projects (Regmi & Fawcett 1999; Gross, van Wijk & Muckerjee,

2000), how women’s participation contributes to project sustainability remains unclear. Some

literature has been produced on aspects and constituents of project sustainability in the context of

community participation. Fewer country‐specific studies discuss exclusively the role of women in

effective project implementation and management (Bhandari, Grant, & Pokharel, 2005; Aladuwaka

& Momsen, 2010; Oluyemo, 2012). Nevertheless, available knowledge lacks a critical overview of

produced studies that generalize factors responsible for project success and particularly the role of

women. Recently Hunter, Zmirou‐Navier, and Hart (2009) states that there “there should put more

effort into auditing whether interventions are sustainable” (p. 2021), while the “audit process should

include research into the nature and causes of failure” (p. 2624).

The present research is assumed to fill the existing gap with a comprehensive and rigorous

cross‐study analysis on the critical factors of project sustainability and the impact of women’s

participation. In addition, by discussing the opinions of practitioners on rural drinking water supply

in a case study country (Tajikistan), it is expected to elucidate the components of women’s

participation that are believed to contribute to project sustainability.

The results of this study are based on the three merits of “conceptual innovation,

methodological rigor and rich substantive contents” (Pzreworski & Salomon, 1998:1). They clarify

the role of women’s participation for project success and the importance of community‐

participation in general. The research findings contribute to the global body of literature on the

sustainability of rural water supply, as well as generate practical recommendations for the

implementation of sustainable donor‐funded drinking water supply projects in the developing

countries.

1.5 Conceptual terms and definitions

The section below summarizes definitions of frequently used terms discussed in the present

research.

Developing countries as classified by the World Bank (WB) are all low‐ and middle‐income

countries, defined mainly based on the gross national income (GNI) per capita (WB, 2014). According

to the WB classification the current list of low‐ and middle‐income states with developing economies

is comprised by 139 countries of Sub‐Saharan Africa, South Asia, Middle East and North Africa, Latin

America and the Caribbean, East Asia and Pacific regions and represent the majority of countries in

the world 2 .

2 WB Country and Leading Groups: http://data.worldbank.org/about/country‐classifications/country‐and‐lending‐

groups#Low_income. Since the available studies on the sustainability of donor‐funded, community‐managed drinking water projects are limited (as community‐managed model is practiced only in some developing countries and similar

Donor‐funded projects are projects implemented with (full or partial) financial support of

local or international donor agencies. These projects generally may also include some contribution

from local or state government, or local communities, however such are usually characterized by

financial assistance provided from the donor side, without which the implementation of the projects

would not be possible.

Rural drinking water supply projects include small and medium‐scale water systems,

constructed in rural areas with the purpose of providing access to clean drinking water. The

definition of drinking water supply projects is largely based on the UNICEF/WHO classification of

improved water supply (piped water, tube‐wells or boreholes, protected dug wells and springs, and

rainwater 3 ), defined as projects “protected from outside contamination, in particular from

contamination with fecal matter 4 .”

Project sustainability encompasses a wide range of components and constituents (see section

3.3). For the purpose of this study, project sustainability is operationalized as providing

uninterrupted access to drinking water supply to consumers during the whole designed project

lifespan 5 and/or beyond. Project sustainability, project success and project effectiveness are used

interchangeably and a water supply project is considered sustainable when it remains in operation

during the whole designed project lifetime or beyond. The failure of a project would imply the

opposite to the above, i.e. inability of the project to maintain its operations as initially designed and

remain in operation during the whole designed project lifetime and beyond.

Community implies a group of people living in the same place or having a particular

characteristic in common. Community participation envisages involvement of male and female

community members in the planning, construction, and/or operation and maintenance of rural

studies have been not conducted in every developing country), the actual list of developing countries with studies included into the analysis is expected to get significantly shorter. 3 JMP Classification of types of improved/drinking water supply: http://www.wssinfo.org/definitions‐methods/watsan‐ categories/ 4 JMP definition of improved drinking water projects: http://www.wssinfo.org/definitions‐methods/

5 The lifespan of the projects is defined individually depending on the engineering solution and country context, thus cannot be defined/specified at this stage.

drinking water supply projects. Participation in projects can vary from short‐term (e.g. choosing site

for construction) to long‐term (maintenance of a system after the construction) and segregated into

two main categories, i.e. (a) before and during project construction, and (b) during project

maintenance upon completion of construction.

Community‐managed projects represent projects that are implemented (constructed) with

the direct participation of local community members and managed by the members of the local

community. Community‐management implies a bottom‐up approach, where community assumes

control (managerial, operational and maintenance responsibility). Community management has

been defined as a form of community participation, as management through democratically elected

representatives of community (Wood, 1994); and when beneficiaries of the service have

responsibility, authority and control over development of water services (McCommon, Warner, &

Yohalem, 1990).

Feminist political ecology is a study that “seeks to understand and interpret local experience

in the context of global processes of environmental and economic change… [and] deals with the

complex context in which gender interacts with class, race, culture and national identity to shape

our experience of and interests in the environment” (Rocheleau, Thomas‐Slayter, and Wangari,

1996:5).

Gender is a social construction (rather than biological necessity), which divides up objects into

masculine and feminine categories. Gender identities the intersect with other aspects of social

stratification, as class, ethnicity, age, marital status or religious beliefs, and are not simply about

women or men (Ahmed and Zwarteveen, 2012).

Woman is an adult human female, as per the definition of Oxford Dictionary. For the purpose

of this study women imply female members of rural communities with constructed drinking water

supply projects. Adulthood refers to the legal adult age, which varies among different countries, but

normally set at 18 years of age.

Women’s participation implies different activities that envisage women’s involvement and

empowerment at different project stages, such as project planning and design, implementation,

operation and maintenance, and monitoring. Key typologies are categorizations of women’s

participation can be found similar to ‘community participation’ (see above ‘community

participation’).

Figure 1. Geographical map of Tajikistan. Source: the Times of Central Asia (www.times.kg)

CHAPTER 2: COUNTRY CONTEXT

2.1 Country Profile

Tajikistan is a landlocked country, located in the

Central Asian region and borders with

Afghanistan in the south, China in the east,

Kyrgyzstan in the north and Uzbekistan in the

west (Figure 1). This developing country with the

total area of 142,600 km 2 , 93% of which is

covered with mountains, is home for 7.9 million

people 6 with over 70% living in rural areas

(UNDP 2012).

A former Soviet Union state, governed under the communist political structure, Tajikistan

emerged as one of the constituent republics of the USSR during the early Soviet period of national

delimitation (Heathershaw & Herzig, 2011). After the collapse of the Soviet Union and brutal civil

was in 1991‐92, a new state that formally gained independence continued to be subject to foreign

military intervention to interfere in domestic politics. Today, the young state with only twenty years

of independence still have much inheritance from the Soviet times, conditioned by old‐fashioned

governing practices, and social traditions, where men usually take dominant roles. The state’s

secularity affirms patriarchal character and is very much influenced by Islamic discourse and

significant attention to patriarchy in the history of this country suggests the relevance of ‘gendered

nature of statehood’ (Heathershaw & Herzig, 2011:13).

Furthermore, the recovery from the devastating civil war during 1992‐1997 still echoes with

an unstable political situation 7 in the country that impedes economic development and social

wellbeing. One of the legacies of the prolonged civil war is a deteriorating water supply

6 IndexMundi Tajikistan Demographics Profile 2013: http://www.indexmundi.com/tajikistan/demographics_profile.html

7 Military operations have been unfolded in GBAO on 24 July 2012 (http://aidnews.org/tajikistan‐statement‐of‐the‐united‐ nations‐regional‐center‐for‐preventive‐diplomacy‐in‐central‐asia‐and‐the‐united‐nations‐in‐tajikistan‐on‐the‐situation‐in‐ khorog‐tajikistan/).

infrastructure, constructed during 1960‐1980s (Rakhimov, 2011). Poor maintenance of the existing

water supply infrastructure for the last 10‐15 years causes enormous water losses (60‐70%) due to

leakages in distribution networks (MLRWR, 2006; SUE KMK, 2011). Frequent natural disasters, such

as earthquakes, flash floods, and droughts seriously disrupt the development in socially important

service sectors, such as drinking water supply. Thus, for example, the biggest outbreak of typhoid

fever in 1995‐96 evolved as a result from a natural disaster (mudflow), caused deaths of over 6,000

people, which constituted more than 10% of the civil war victims (Carius, Feil, & Tänzler , 2003).

Furthermore, one of the most devastating natural emergencies, due to exceptionally cold weather in

winter 2008‐2009, developed into a compound crisis, which further damaged the degradrd water

supply infrastructure, estimated at US$ 850 million (REACT, 2008).

The present aggravated situation in the country creates numerous gendered issues for Tajik

men and women. As a result of intensive labor migration of male population from the majority of

rural areas to the neighboring Russia and Kazakhstan due to high unemployment, more than 60% of

households are now run by women (Krylova & Safarova, 2013). Meanwhile, this does not facilitate

the disconnection from long‐practiced patriarchal practices in the country. The remaining men

usually keep leading positions in local public bodies due to their privilege of having societal

connections, better knowledge of state law and local rules (Kasymova, 2005). Women, in turn, are

more responsible for wellbeing of their families as they have to care of children, cooking, and

housekeeping, plus water delivery as well. Many women collect water from irrigation canals that are

often contaminated by fertilizers and insecticides. Lack of access to water hinders women from

being involved in governing and political activities, which in turn impacts family income, children’s

education, and women’s social position (Krylova & Safarova, 2013).

2.4 Gender equity and women’s roles

The effects of the transition period triggered by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent

civil war have been especially difficult for the female population of the country. More than 25,000

women were widowed as a consequence of war; women’s workload has intensified, and remains

high due to the transitioning economic situation in the country and seasonal migration among male

workers (ADB, 2006). The latest country gender assessment conducted in 2006 reports the

continuing vulnerability of women, compounded by exclusion of women from community‐decision

making, gender stereotypes, discrimination in the workplace, gender violence, lack of public interest

to invest in girls education (in rural areas), and higher risks for poor nutrition and maternal health.

This situation has further deteriorated with men’s migration to Russian and other neighboring

countries for seasonal jobs, as remittances remain as the most importance source of income for

many poor households. Tajikistan ranks first in the proportion of GDP earned by remittances as Tajik

GDP is the most dependent on remittances accounting for 47% of country’s GDP with an estimated

500,000 men migrating annually to the foreign labor market (Universal Newswires, 2014; WB, 2008).

This has serious demographic consequences, accounting for an increase of the divorce rate with only

22% of married women living with their spouses, and a significant surge in female‐headed

households of 17 percent, thus leaving women and children behind to carry the burden of survival

(Table 1).

Table 1. Labor market status of women in Tajikistan (aged 15+). Source: LSMS (2007), adapted from Shahriari et. al. 2009, (LSMS, 2007:19)

Employed On job search

Married 15.6% 0.3% Living together 22.4% 0.0% Divorced 26.3% 0.4% Separated 41.6% 1.3% Widow 12.2% 0.3% Single 16.7% 0.7% Women 16.1% 0.4% Men 31.7% 2.2%

Women and girls are often responsible for the burden of fetching water. The latest national

survey estimated that adult women in 72.7 percent of households bear the burden of fetching water

from public water points or unprotected water sources (LSMS, 2007). The same survey reports that

the burden of fetching water by female children expands to 8.2 percent of households with no

access to drinking water supplies (Table 2). According to some estimates in Tajikistan, women and

girls spend on average 4‐6 hours daily for water fetching, which in turn significantly impacts

availability of women for community activities and affects girl’s school attendance (Krylova &

Safarova, 2013).

Table 2. Distribution of responsibilities among household members. Source: LSMS (2007), adapted from Shahriari et. al., 2009: 60.

Woman 72.7% Man 10.0% Female child (<15 yrs) 8.2% Male child (<15 yrs) 3.5% Shared burden 3.9% Pay somebody 1.1% Other 0.5%

The latest gender assessment conducted for the Swiss Development Agency (SDC) on drinking

water programs reports that, despite the general commitment of the government to gender equity

and role of women in ensuring equal rights and opportunities, the water sector reform policies still

remain gender insensitive due to limited recognition of gender issues and limited expertise on

mainstreaming gender issues and monitoring (Krylova & Safarova, 2013). The report provides the

following important findings:

 Women in rural areas are already involved in economic activities, nevertheless they have limited control over assets and resources and their productive role is largely underestimated;

 Labor migration creates a space for the emergence of women’s activism, but still leads to an increase in drudgery of women and redistribution of traditional roles;

 Structures established in the support of gender equity policies lack adequate capacities and there is a need to pay attention to the quality of women’s engagement (Krylova & Safarova, 2013: 8‐10).

Krylova and Safarova (2013) further argue that current efforts for promoting gender equity

principles through drinking water supply projects (practiced by many international NGOs, such as

CARITAS, OXFAM, AKF, etc), are frequently limited only to the participation of women in the

projects, which does not necessarily lead to their empowerment and decision‐making capacity. They

report, that the

… perspectives for transformation of gender roles are bleak if water and sanitation interventions emphasize women’s participation… Women’s work increases as they

acquire more roles (productive and community role on the top of reproductive role), while men’s roles and responsibilities are being bypassed (Krylova and Safarova, 2013: 15).

Although the assessment does not shed light on the role of participation of women for

effectiveness of drinking water supply projects, it suggests that community and women’s

empowerment should not be limited to the ‘instrumentalized participation’ in those projects, but

rather should be implemented through integrated participatory approaches.

2.2 Tajikistan’s water sector

Tajikistan has abundant water resources: thousands of rivers extending over 28,500 km (Figure 2);

glaciers and lakes occupying over 9% of the total territory; and underground resources estimated at

18.7 km 3 of water flow per year (MLRWR, 2010). Named as a home of water resources for the region,

the country’s rich water reserves play an important role for the development of the region as a

whole (MLRWR, 2010:3). For example, 60% of the total water yield from Amudarya (the largest

Central Asian river) to the shrinking Aral Sea originates in Tajikistan (CAWater, 2012). However,

extensive irrigation practices and aridity of the region, as well as conflicting needs between

upstream and downstream countries, makes water one of the most precious resources in the

Central Asia (EU, 2010).

Both underground and surface water resources are used for drinking purposes in the country

(Bukhoriev, 2010). Actual water withdrawal of the country’s water resources amounts to only 17‐

20% of the total available water storage with the major portion supplied to the downstream

countries (MLRWR, 2010). The largest domestic water consumer of local water resources remains

agriculture (93.9%), with only 2.4% allocated for drinking water supply (Figure 3).

Figure 2. Hydrological map of Tajikistan. Source: MLRWR (2010)

Meanwhile, drinking water supply coverage remains the lowest in the region. The latest JMP

report indicates 92% for the total improved drinking water supply coverage, whereas in rural areas

this constitutes 57%, including only 34% for piped connections (WHO/UNICEF, 2013). The latest

national survey on the improved drinking water supply coverage indicates even less coverage –

48.6% of nationwide with only 43.4% of households in rural areas having access to household water

taps, concluding that around 60% of the existing water supply schemes are non‐functional (SUE

KMK, 2011). The same survey indicates that drinking water supply facilities in rural areas are

predominantly gravity operated, whereas 26.4% of rural water schemes are partially or fully

electricity dependent. Meanwhile, it has been projected that the national drinking water supply

consumption is going to increase almost three‐fold by 2025 due to unsustainable agriculture

practices, growing population, and continuous degradation of the existing water supply

infrastructure (Figure 4).

Current management mechanisms in the water sector in Tajikistan are known as complicated

and outdated (Bukhoriev, 2010). The actual management methods often include a mixture of the

approaches retained from the Soviet times with a flavor of more recent modern reforms. Inoyatov

(2011:7) argues that “de jure a number of provisions of soviet era are still in effect, de facto there

are other relations established, as well as other mechanisms operating within the sector”. Its

complexity is explained by the involvement of multiple actors and existing overlaps in sector

Agriculture

Drinking water supply

Industry

Fishery

Other

Figure 3. Water consumption by sectors in Tajikistan. Source: MLRWR (2010)

Total

Drinking only

Other household water needs

m ln m

regulation. Ziganshin (2007) counts more than a dozen regulators with limited linkages and

coordination established between the stakeholders (Ziganshin, 2007).

Figure 4. Projected water consumption in rural Tajikistan. Source: MLRWR (2010)

Nevertheless, with the primary responsibilities for the management of the rural drinking

water supply being distributed (until recently) among two state entities, so called ‘Khojagii Manzili

Kommunali’ (KMK) and ‘TojikObdekhot’ (TOD), and numerous community‐based type of

organizations or water users committees (WUCs); this arrangement has undergone additional

changes recently that is discussed in more detail below (Lloyd‐Williams, 2012). The state entities

were mainly distinguished by geographical distribution, with SUE KMK being responsible for semi‐

urban areas and small towns and TOD for selected rural areas. In January 2012, SUE KMK became

the main regulator of the drinking water supply, and thus is overseeing the duties previously

performed by the TOD 8 . The overall picture is obscured by the lack of a well‐defined implementation

strategy. Lloyd‐Williams (2012:5) points out, that “this decision may lead to serious conflict of

interests […] where historically the provision of rural drinking water was coming under the remit of

TOD”. Furthermore, with more recent reforms at the end of 2013, the Ministry of Energy and Trade

8 Government of Tajikistan Resolution #679 (31 December, 2011)

was reformed into the Ministry of Energy and Water Resources and now is considered the key

agency responsible for the policy side 9 , which does not exclude further reforms in the sector.

In the meantime, operation of small and medium‐scale water supply schemes by WUCs still

remains a general practice in the country, which lacks clarity regarding issues of ownership and

accountability (Lloyd‐Williams, 2012). This is particularly relevant to the donor‐funded schemes,

which are largely implemented based on the community‐management model. Despite the

availability of some legislative basis that should regulate the activities of WUCs, the distribution of

roles and responsibilities in management of the constructed schemes remains largely obscure.

Bukhoriev (2010:32) points out “when the external funding is over and the project is completed,

local communities lack sufficient resources and are unable to effectively manage the system”.

However, despite these institutional arrangements only 22% of rural drinking water schemes have

management structures in place, as the latest available national survey revealed (SUE KMK, 2011).

2.3 Donor Community and Sector Partners

Limited state budgets for water and sanitation make the role of donor investments very crucial for

sector financing. The national Water Sector Strategy (2006‐2015), for example, estimated in 2006

that the investments required for the rehabilitation of all water supply and sanitation facilities in the

country to achieve the MDG goals by 2015 were equivalent to over US$ 998 million (MLRWR, 2006),

whereas only US$ 33 million were ready to be allocated from the governmental budget and the rest

was expected to be externally financed (Rakhimov, 2011).

Meanwhile, the donors’ enthusiasm for financing rural water supply seems to wane gradually

too, as “donors are cautious when it comes to the rural water supply financing” (Bukhoriev,

2010:16). Lloyd‐Williams (2012:6) points out that “increasingly international non‐governmental

organizations (INGOs), such as Oxfam, are being asked to repair water systems constructed only five

years earlier”, which has had an adverse impact on the readiness of the international donors to

invest in rural drinking water supply (RDWS) projects. Donor assistance for the water sector seems

9 Asia Plus press release, dated on 11/19/2013: http://news.tj/ru/node/177401

to decline gradually, while the loans decreased since its peak in 2008 (Figure 5). Presently, not more

than a dozen international donor agencies stay active in the country’s water sector (TajWSS 2012).

In ve st m en ts in U S$

Box xx. Water and sanitation sector investments. Source: GoT/UNDP (2011). Figure 5. Water and sanitation sector investments. Source: SCISPM (2013:64)

CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This section proposes a theoretical framework building on feminist theories and introducing

concepts of ‘power’ and ‘agency’ in water governance. It provides an overview of literature on

sustainability of drinking water supply in developing countries, introducing concepts and principles

of project sustainability and project approaches of community participation. It further provides a

comprehensive discussion on the theoretical knowledge and past research, providing a contentious

discourse on participation of women in rural drinking water projects. The summary section attempts

to integrate the discussed theories and concepts in a succinct analysis.

3.1 Feminist Political Ecology

An emerging field of scholarship in gender and water, generally embedded in a broader nature‐

society interaction, looks at the questions of “gender division in labor, ownership and control of

productive assets”, “roles, rights and norms that constitute the relations that men and women have

to natural resources” (Sultana, 2009(a):427). The 1990s wave of women’s involvement in collective

issues of environmental character has brought women to the forefront of issues related to control

over environmental resources. Largely based on the feminist standpoint theory, implying that men

and women perceive and understand society differently (Hartsock, 1983), Nancy Hartsock argued

that “different kinds of women (varying by wealth, ethnicity, or age, for example) have very different

experiences of life on society, all the while sharing some things in common because of their gender”

(Babbie, 2013:39).

The feminist theory and research drawing attention to the oppression of women in many

societies, focused on the sex‐role differences of powers and agency and how those relate to the rest

of social organizations (Babbie, 2013). The sensitivity in variations of female experiences became a

main element of the third‐wave feminism in 1990s, which further contributed to the feminist theory

and an establishment of a new field of environmental scholarship – ‘feminist political ecology’. The

study of women’s activism in environmental arena encompassing gendered power relations and

gendered control over quality of environment has now become a legitimate area of research in

water management. Rocheleau, Thomas‐Slayter, and Wangari (1996:5) define feminist political

ecology as a study that “seeks to understand and interpret local experience in the context of global

processes of environmental and economic change”. They further explain that the feminist political

ecology framework “deals with the complex context in which gender interacts with class, race,

culture and national identity to shape our experience of and interests in the environment”

(Rocheleau, Thomas‐Slayter & Wangari, 1996:5).

The new gendered discourse is constructed based on two fields of studies of ‘ecofeminism’

and ‘political ecology’. While the latter “treats gender as a critical variable in shaping resource access

and control, interacting with class, caste, race, cultural, and ethnicity”, ecofeminism posits a “close

relationship between women and nature based on a shared history of oppression by patriarchal

institutions” (Rocheleau, Thomas‐Slayter, & Wangari, 1996:1‐2). As initially ecofeminism encouraged

“an examination of the ‘closeness’ of women and nature […] and the consequences of this”

(Hawkins, et al., 2011:238), the analysis has been further expanded as a result of socially constructed

gendered power relations in environment.

Rocheleau, Thomas‐Slayter, and Wangari (1996) conceptualize the framework of feminist

political ecology in three broad themes of ‘gendered knowledge’, ‘gendered environmental rights

and responsibilities’ and ‘gendered environmental politics and grassroots activism’. All three themes

clearly provide an appropriate analytical framework in discussing participation of women in drinking

water project sustainability (Rocheleau, Thomas‐Slayter, & Wangari, 1996:4‐14):

 Gendered knowledge “encompasses the creation, maintenance and protection of healthy environments at home, at work and at regional ecosystems” (p.4);

 Gendered environmental rights and responsibilities attempts to answer a question of “who controls and determines rights over resources, quality of environment” (p.10) ;

 Gender environmental politics encompass issues of women’s activism in environmental issues and “women’s involvement in collective action of environmental change” (p.14), looking at the issues of social movement, local political organizations and engagement in environmental, political and socioeconomic struggles.

Furthermore, Sultana (2009(a):440) points out that the “conceptualization of gender as a

socio‐spatial‐ecological process enables greater clarity in understanding how gender‐nature

relations evolve in any given context” , as the issues of gender, cultural and social variables should

be understood through the lens of gendered power and agency (Sultana, 2009(a):440).

3.2 Agency and Power

Ahmed and Zwarteveen (2012:26) suggest that in order to understand gendered behavior in water,

we should attempt to understand human behavior, moving beyond simple mapping of gendered

responsibilities in answering the question of why men and women behave in certain ways and what

can change the existing practices and behaviour. They assert that the concept of agency is critical in

understanding water governance, and define agency as “the capacity, or power of people to act,

which recognises people’s room for maneuver without denying that this room is limited” (Ahmed &

Zwarteveen, 2012:31).

The concept of agency helps to understand forces that are beyond people’s influence and is

critical in understanding actors as gendered beings in gendered social relations. In social theory

agency is seen as a capacity or power to act, comprised of self‐consciousness, reflection, intention,

purpose and meaning (Rapport & Overing, 2000). Thus, agency, the ability of individuals to affect

their lives, can be shaped through the power of plural institutional settings, which can be exercised

both consciously and unconsciously (Kesby, 2005; Cleaver, 2012). As argued by Cleaver, agency is

seen as “the capability, or power, to be the originator of acts and comprises self‐consciousness,

reflection, intention, purpose and meaning”, as exercised in a social world in which “structure

shapes the opportunities and resources available to individuals” (Cleaver 2012: 42‐43). Furthermore,

Kabeer (2000) points out that exercising agency means not only ability to exercise choice, but is

about the real effects of the choices for well‐being. Thus, cultural dimensions, uneven exercise of

power and effect of agency on different people is the key in understanding why management of

water facilities is experienced differently across different communities.

The analytical framework proposed by Franks and Cleaver (2007) perhaps explains in the

simplest way that the constituents of water governance are linked to the concept of ‘agency’. This

framework consists of five key concepts: resources, actors, mechanisms, processes and outcomes.

The framework demonstrates, that resources ‐ the materials from which social structures and human

interactions are constructed, are drawn upon by different actors (state, institutions, groups,

individuals), constructing mechanisms of water governance, for organizing access to water; and

different outcomes or long‐term changes and trends received from those resources represent the

processes of water governance (Figure 6). In other words, in this framework, resources for water

governance are transferred into different outcomes, through specific mechanisms of access and a

series of processes of management and practice (Cleaver, 2012).

Figure 6. Framework of Water Governance (adapted from Franks and Cleaver, 2007 in Cleaver, 2012:36).

As mechanisms of access are gender‐sensitive and do not exist in a social vacuum, gendered

dimensions are important for the analysis of the framework. The gender‐differentiated outcomes

are explained by the variable gendered capacity to exercise agency in accessing these mechanisms

(Cleaver, 2012). Referring to the Giddens’ theory of structuration in understanding interactions

between social structure and human agency, the concept of agency becomes central to

Resources for water governance

Mechanisms of Water Governance

Gendered outcomes (positive or negative)

Ecosystem Outcomes

Actors/agents

Processes of management and practice

understanding collective action, gendered participation and empowerment in answering questions

such as why some people (men or women) are better placed to shape public decision‐making.

Giddens argues that individuals are motivated by three levels of consciousness: the practical as habit

and routine of doing things in a certain way, unconscious as underlying psychological and emotional

motivators, and discursive, where “individual reflect upon and explain their actions” (Giddens,

1984:27).

Cleaver (2012:57) invites us to analyze the participatory initiatives, such as community‐

managed drinking water projects, through the dimensions of individual agency and the existing

societal and institutional rules of water governance, however she cautions that “the complex

dimensions of agency and the variable ways in which people are placed to exercise it mean that

generalized assumptions about the outcomes of water governance processes are unlikely to always

hold true”.

3.3 Project Sustainability

As “sustainability is in many ways the ultimate test of development efforts” (Hoque, Juncker, Sack,

Ali, & Aziz, 1996:431), so, too, the sustainability of drinking water supply projects may be said to be

the ultimate test of development assistance in providing access to drinking water. The issue of

project unsustainability is not novel and indeed, there have been a number of studies that attempt

to explain the principles of project sustainability. Interest in the issues of sustainability of water

supply schemes in developing countries has been growing due to the increasing number of degraded

water supply schemes, constructed with the financial support of donor agencies since the UN Water

Decade of 1981‐1990 (Briscoe and de Ferranti, 1988). As early as in 1988, Briscoe and de Ferranti

(1988) argued that one out of four water schemes constructed in the developing countries was non‐

functional. Tremendous effort was made during the decade and the conceptualization of access to

water within the basic human needs strategy, found little effectiveness of such projects, leading to

fundamental change of the fundraising roles of donors and governments (WB, 1990). The new role

implied creation of appropriate environments for communities to take part in the management of

water supply schemes that opened a new horizon for demand‐responsive, community‐managed

model of rural drinking water supply projects (Briscoe and de Ferranti, 1988).

The scholarly literature provides a variety of definitions on the sustainability of water services

or water projects. Bamberger and Cheema, for example, define project sustainability as the

“capacity of a project to continue to deliver its intended benefits over long term” (1990:34). Abrams

(1996:51) suggests that sustainability is “whether or not something continues to work over time”;

Carter et al. (1999:7) define sustainability as “whether water continues to be abstracted at the same

rate and quality as when the system was designed”. Hodgkin (1994:5) provides a narrower definition

of sustainability by arguing that a sustainable project is the one that “maintains or expands a flow of

benefits at a specified level for a long period after external funding has been withdrawn”. More

recent definitions frame sustainability as “the continued service of water supply projects over time

to serve their own purposes” (Admassu, Kumie, & Fantahun, 2003:223), whereas “water schemes

are sustainable when they meet performance requirements in the long run” (Binder, 2008:4).

Lockwood, Bakalean and Wakeman (2005:6) point out that across different definitions of project

sustainability, the fundamental aspect of sustainability of water projects in the developing countries

is “the ability to manage on its own without the aid of external support”. Esposto says:

Sustainability is defined as a long‐term duration without external support for the project implemented. Achieving this is possible if consideration is given to the costs of running and maintaining the project, and how the solution or technology proposed will match with the local environment. The ultimate goal is to make the project and its beneficiaries independent of the need for further external help (Esposto, 2009: 258)

Dimensions of sustainability can be broadly categorized into five major areas: (i) technical,

(ii) financial, (iii) institutional, (iv) social, and (v) environmental (WELL, 1998). Across different studies

the first three dimensions of sustainability are viewed as the most relevant to project sustainability

for rural drinking water supply. Components that comprise sustainable water services as defined by

Carter et al. (1999) are termed as a sustainability chain. He argues that four essential components

form the chain that includes motivation, maintenance, cost recovery and continuing support, which

are closely interlinked. According to Carter, weaknesses in any one of them can lead to a failure of a

scheme in continuing the provision of drinking water supply services.

A substantive body of literature discusses the issues of sustainability of the ‘community‐

managed, demand‐responsive’ model of implementing water supply projects, however, just a few

studies explore rigorous methods of evaluating sustainability (Stirman, et al., 2012). Some argue that

there is little solid evidence on positive correlations between sustainability and community

participation (Prokopy, 2005; D. Whittington, et al., 2009). While early studies have demonstrated

positive effects from community contribution of cash for project capital costs (Rowland, 1978),

subsequent studies argued that participation in decision‐making processes have more positive

attributes to project success (Narayan, 1995; Sara & Katz, 1998). Nevertheless, some studies

precaution that the involvement of community members does not guarantee, by itself, project

success or sustainability (Kleemeier, 2000; Prokopy, 2005; Whittington, et al., 2009).

3.4 Community Participation

Community participation in drinking water supply projects became a common strategy with the

International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade in the 1990s, which drew attention of

large‐scale technocratic water systems to the construction of small‐scale and community‐based

solutions. This was a big paradigm shift, as participatory management became the policy mantra in

water projects and so and many methodologies and guidelines were developed promoting

participatory strategies in water projects (Cleaver, 1999). This new approach implied recognition of

agency of community members – users of drinking water schemes, as well as implied better design

for local needs and circumstances, limiting the role of government to regulating and enabling, rather

than directly providing water. Policy attention became focused on ways of including women in

planning, design and management of water projects, based on the spirit of equity and democracy,

shifting from technocratic to a more neoliberal policy climate in the 1990s (Wijk, 2001). The new

paradigm shift was also underpinned by the idea of making water projects more efficient and

sustainable and quickly became a part of a broader agency or water sector privatization (Zwarteveen

& Ahmed, 2012).

The approach of community participation as sometimes called a ‘demand‐responsive

approach’ to water project development and emerged as a concept after the UN Water Decade and

promoted greater participation of beneficiaries, including women, in project activities (WB, 1990). It

remains a common strategy for most donor‐funded project interventions in rural areas of

developing countries (Harvey & Reed, 2006). This approach suggests management at the lowest

appropriate level, where community participation is imperative. In other words, community

participation has become a prerequisite of the demand‐responsive model and has been considered

essential for the success or sustainability of drinking water supply projects in developing countries

(Narayan, 1995).

Participation involves different processes and may be comprised of various activities. Narayan

(1995) proposes levels of community participation segregated into seven groups, ranging from

information sharing to community control in decision‐making. Prokopy (2005) separates community

participation into three broad levels. The (i) low level includes different forms of contribution (labor,

cash, materials), (ii) the middle level assumes participants are involved in decision‐making, and (ii)

the upper level is achieved when communities undertake their own initiatives and are in full control

of the project. Schouten and Moriarty (2003) argue that achieving successful participation assumes

involvement in higher levels of decision‐making and should not be limited to the participation in

construction works. Admassu, Kumie, and Fantahun (2003:227) highlight that “community

participation in its various forms consisting mainly of labor, cash, service, kind and advice

contribution is crucial and decisive for developing and using water supply projects”.

Despite some encouraging examples, when participatory management of water resources was

effective, there have always been critiques and counterpoints. It has ben argued that “increasing the

number of women involved in participatory projects cannot […] be seen as a soft alternative to

specific attention to change gender inequality” (Mayoux, 1995:235). Approaches to the participatory

management of water resources tend to overlook the complexities of individual identities or agency

of individuals, and fail to categorize people in their taxonomic groups. Cleaver (2012:48) says that “it

is difficult to anticipate which aspects of people’s identities will be prominent in particular

mechanisms for water governance”. She points out that the tendency to assume that people

following similar practices will be equally placed to shape their practices is not the case in water

management. The decision‐making power and the ability to mobilize and allocate resources is

different for men and women, who perform similar tasks in the household (and community) and

have similar interests in the resource.

3.5 Women’s participation

Dominant water discourses continued to frame water problems in isolation from gender, and

attention to gender issues and gendered differentiations in governance is relatively recent

(Zwarteveen & Ahmed, 2012). Prior to the 1980s, the focus of global development effort has been

concentrated on strengthening the centralized, government‐run public sector. The sector,

dominated largely by male engineers is lacking the recognition of the importance of both male and

female participation in water projects, and thus women’s participation was often overlooked in

water policies of the 1960‐70 decade (Coles & Wallace, 2005). The importance of looking at water

problems through the lenses of gender is gaining ground, and the incorporation of gender

considerations became an integral part of water policies and project design relatively recently. For

example, gender‐differentiated needs are commonly recognized in UN policies and statements, as

“countries must ensure that policies and institutions for water supply and sanitation service delivery,

as well as for water resources management and development respond equally to the different

needs, and priorities, of men and women” (United Nations, 2005:18). Contemporary recognition of

women’s role(s) has been largely expressed in numerous women’s organizations established

predominantly due to the pressure from donor agencies over the last thirty years.

The marginalized role of women historically have been conditioned by little formal control

over water resources, as allocation of water (and land rights) often tend to favour men (Ahmed &

Zwarteveen, 2012). Thus, though women have important water responsibilities (collecting water,

watering cattle or managing water facilities), their lack of formal rights to water becomes a serious

obstacle to effective water management (Ahmed & Zwarteveen, 2012). Access to control and

management of water resources may be shaped by local cultural beliefs, when the latter influences

the individual willingness to abide by collective decisions and norms on resource use. For example,

in some villages of Zimbabwe, women’s non‐participation in local water committees was explained

by belief that local witch‐crafting shaped the women’s unwillingness to speak out (Dikito‐

Wachmeister, 2000). Makoni, Manase, and Ndamba (2004:1291) in studying patterns for domestic

water use in rural Zimbabwe conclude the different roles and incentives in water use of women and

men was demonstrated in how they ranked the benefits:

The apparent universal responsibility by women in water management at the domestic level is pointer to water and sanitation practitioners that future programs need to target women as one of the strategies for improving livelihoods and sustainability of water resources management. The reality is that women has an active role in management of water resources but surprisingly they have no much say in public decision making for implementing water supply and sanitation programs. (Makoni, Manase, and Ndamba, 2004:1294)

A first impetus to incorporating gender in water management was gained with the UN

announcing Decade for International Drinking Water and Sanitation in 1981, with the subsequent

international conferences acknowledging the role of women in water management, particularly in

household and community (Ahmed, 2005). In 1992, the UN Conference on Environment and

Development produced a comprehensive action plan (Agenda 21) that explicitly emphasized the

need for women’s participation in water projects and dedicated a whole chapter to women titled

“Global Action for Women towards Sustainable and Equitable Development” (UN‐ECOSOC, 1992).

The same year, the Dublin Conference on Water and Sustainable Development developed four

principles (known as Dublin Principles) that became cornerstones of international water policy, and

included:

 Water development and management should be based on a participatory approach, involving users, planners and policy makers at all levels;

 Women play a central part in the provision, management and safeguarding of water (WMO, 2014).

Gender issues and particularly the importance of women’s participation started to gain

legitimacy and became explicitly discussed within major global water policy documents and at

international water meetings. It has been widely recognized that the provision of water and

maintenance of family well‐being relate closely to gender issues in many developing regions, such as

South Africa, where over 75 percent of the very poor households are headed by women

(Hermanowicz, 2008). The major global water conferences, such as World Water Forums or

Stockholm Water Week are devoted, for the first time in history, to special sessions on the issues of

gender and women in water. Likewise, many developing countries (with the guidance of donor

agencies), for example in South Asia and South Africa regions, have adopted gender aspects in

national water policy documents. However, the importance of participation of women in water

projects gained more visibility in water policies, primarily as an “underutilized resource”

(Zwarteveen & Ahmed, 2012). Such is now seen as a valuable resource, “an important ingredient of

social capital that could be mobilized to render (water) operations more effective and efficient”

(Molyneux, 2002:235).

Since the mid‐1990s, project strategies on lending a greater role to women or women’s

empowerment have become an important part of the ‘demand‐responsive, community‐managed

model’, and gender issues continue to be incorporated in water policies across different regions and

nations, with most of them including statements about gender (Ahmed & Zwarteveen, 2012). This

new gender‐sensitized water agendas look for new ways of managing water resources through

decentralized institutions of governance, such as community‐based organizations. Women, as the

representatives of marginalized groups of communities, get representative quotas in such

committees. The latter is made with an intention to improve water governance through better

democracy and equity mechanisms, as there is a dominant assumption that participation of women

in water resource management is empowering for them, and thus leads to gender‐equitable

outcomes (Cleaver, 2012). The tendency of incorporating gender perspectives into regional, national

and local water resource management strategies has been underpinned by evidence discussed in

emerging studies on the positive effect of women’s participation, that was generally seen as a step

towards equity and democracy. For example, Hoque, Juncker, Sack, Ali, and Aziz (1996:435) argued

that “women’s participation with the support from the community contributed towards the

sustained impact”, and “involvement of women with the support of men and the community

probably generate a positive attitude among the whole community towards improving water and

sanitation”.

Over the past decades, numerous gender analysis tools and strategies have been developed

to design and evaluate projects in an effort to improve project sustainability. One such example is

the SEAGA tools (Social‐Economic and Gender Analysis tools), developed by the United Nations Food

and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO) in 1990s (Ahmed & Zwarteveen, 2012). Tools, like SEAGA

were designed to understand gender relations for better planning and management of projects. The

general strategies to involve and empower women in water delivery and management, that were

incorporated in many program strategies, have been clearly summarized by Duncker:

 Women should be more involved in planning and operations as part of a strategy to build a more equitable society;

 Their involvement should be more than labour, and include access to resources, decision‐making and management;

 Care should be taken not to overburden women and to automatically perpetuate and reinforce the traditional roles of women; and

 Gender approach to development needs to be worked out (Duncker, 1998:37)

Gender analyses tools and strategies have attempted to show that women have a special

relation to water, as they have primary responsibility for domestic work (Ahmed & Zwarteveen,

2012). Along with other household work, such as cooking, washing and cleaning, women in poor

rural communities of developing countries remain primary responsible for water delivery. Evidence

suggest that women and girls spend seven hours per week in India; five hours a week in Nepal; and

two to five hours daily in Bangladesh for water fetching (Crow & Sultana, 2002; Ahmed &

Zwarteveen, 2012). Marobhe, Renman, and Jacks (2007:118) in their study of water supply in rural

Tanzania found that “women spend more energy and time in water collection activities than men”

and are obliged to walk a distance of 2 to more than 7 km to different water sources within a day.

This is reported to be a main reason of severe back problems for women who happen to be the main

water collectors in many communities (Howard & Bartram, 2003).

Nevertheless, mainstreaming gender in water resource management while implementing

gender‐sensitive strategies remains a challenge. Achieving real gender equity in control and access

of water is extremely difficult due to cultural, religious or traditional considerations. Thus, in

practice, women mainstreaming is often limited to the question of number of participating women

or quotas, which does not de facto mean better gender equity or greater women’s participation in

the actual decision‐making processes (Ahmed & Zwarteveen, 2012). In other words, project

implementation tends to complete a certain checklist (e.g. invite more women, organize gender‐

sensitive training, etc), rather then striving to improve gender relations in water, which requires

enormous efforts (Mukhopadhyay, 2007; Walby, 2005). The recognition of gender issues on the

‘paper’ in policies and in the actual projects has been argued to remain disintegrated, as “gender

remains very much a side issue […] and is not yet seen as belonging to the core of water

management” (Ahmed & Zwarteveen, 2012:21). Thus, participation of women is sometimes argued

to be ‘reservation policy’ in many communities, limited to a number of women participating in a

project, taken as a ‘proxy presence’ (Arya, 2007:199). Arya argues, by taking a normative stance, that

instead women’s participation should “make them an integral part in the decision‐making process

and sense of belongingness to the development programs” (Arya, 2007: 199). Furthermore, barriers

associated with women’s participation in project implementation are often surrounded by socio‐

economic and cultural barriers as distinctly summarized by Murphy, McBean, and Farahbakhsh may

include (2009, pp 161‐62) (i) women may be prevented from using certain types of machinery, (ii)

women may not be able to leave their homes without their husbands, (iii) women may not be

permitted to get training without permissions of their husbands, (iv) women may have limited

access to funds, (v) women may not be regarded as equal to men in many cultures, and (vi) women

may be generally less educated than men as they are often removed from school at a young age.

Gender and women’s participation continue to be a side issue and Gender and Water Alliance

(GWA) reports that still “few policies to date adequately address gender issues” (GWA 2003:11). It

has been pointed out that “most water supply projects have drawn on women’s labour without

enhancing their technical and managerial skills” (Green, Joekes and Leach, 1998:265). Additionally,

some other evidence is added to the criticism of inappropriate women’s involvement. Thus for

example, Narayan (1995) in an analysis of 121 water supply projects found that only 17% achieved

high levels of women’s participation, which however did not imply that women were active

participants. Jones (2011:63) importantly points out that “women’s ability to participate is severely

reduced even when NGO or local government considers them as officially included”. According to

him this is created by participatory exclusions “because it is a job of men (and the committee) to

bring water ‘to the village’, but the task of women is to bring it ‘to the home’” (p.63). Kendie (1996),

in linking gender issues and utilization of water supply source with sustainability, argued that

instituting the utilization of water supply source has to do with the economic status of women, by

pointing out “poverty consigns women to long periods of work in activities or jobs that bring little

reward. This […] limits the extent of usage of the safe water facilities” (p.11).

Thus, women’s participation in drinking water projects became a highly contested issue, as the

literature provides a dual evidence base of positive effect of women’s participation, which however

does not necessarily lead to project improvements (Prokopy, 2004; Sultana, 2009). The fundamental

critiques of the participatory bottom‐up approaches and women’s participation sometimes termed

as tokenism (Prokopy, 2004; Sultana, 2009; Singh, 2006) as “the myths of communities as coherent

and cohesive bodies, the fundamental lack of resources and the often critical lack of knowledge

about the actual process and how to successfully facilitate” (Smith, 2008:353‐54).

3.6 Summary

In addressing the issues of gender and environment, the discourse of gendered power relations

come at the forefront of resource use as “inspired by an interest in environmental issues and an

understanding that these issues are gendered in complicated and important ways” (Hawkins, et al.,

2011:237). The field of feminist political ecology, power and agency provide a conceptual and

theoretical umbrella calling for understanding gendered rights and responsibilities, knowledge

production and politics, as well as gendered power dynamics in everyday lives (Hawkins, et al.,

2011:238). Inequalities in gender relations in managing drinking water supply schemes in rural areas

involves understanding of local power relations, and agency of individual actors.

Women’s participation in drinking water projects present an example of gendered inequalities

in water management, control and access, when the “participation in water projects holds the

promise of being meaningful only if it involves awareness about and commitment to reducing the

inequality of socially allocated roles and responsibilities for water” (Joshi & Zwarteveen, 2012:162).

Assessing participation of women via gendered power relations lens requires understanding of

gendered knowledge, gendered environmental rights and responsibilities, and gendered

environmental politics, as discussed by Rocheleau, Thomas‐Slayter, and Wangari (1996).

Furthermore, the analysis of gender in local water governance should not be limited to

understanding women’s participation as a homogeneous phenomenon, thus, considerations of class,

race, culture and ethnicity are often desired.

Thus, the proposed theoretical framework of gender‐environmental relations and gendered

exercised power and agency, that are often shaped by plural institutions, have material and symbolic

effects on understanding “how environmental resources and responsibilities are managed and

distributed” and “how gendered power dynamics […] play out in the day‐to‐day lives of people”

(Hawkins, et al., 2011:237). The analytical framework of ‘resources, actors, mechanisms, processes

and outcome’, as discussed by Franks and Cleaver (2007) may facilitate the discussion of findings of

the present study, as well as future gendered discourse in environmental management. In the

meantime, while some evidence suggests that the participation of women tend to produce more

positive outcomes, the involvement of women in community water governance remains a challenge

and the discourse is surrounded by a magnitude of controversies. Thus, the link between

participation of women and sustainability of the projects of drinking water supply is not yet well‐

established in the existing research that demands seeking a greater understanding of the

phenomenon.

CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY

4.1 Research Design

4.1.1 Research Question and Hypothesis

This descriptive and explanatory research aims at analyzing the effects of women’s participation to

the sustainability of community‐managed drinking water supply projects and explaining why

participation of women is considered to be associated with a success/sustainability of drinking water

projects. The key research question “Does women’s participation in donor‐funded drinking water

supply projects in developing countries contribute to the project sustainability?” is underpinned by

the following three research sub‐questions:

(i) What can be generalized on the impact of women’s participation to project success?

(ii) Which forms and components of women’s participation are positively (or negatively)

associated with project sustainability?

(iii) Do practitioners on rural drinking water supply believe that women’s participation positively

contributes to project sustainability?

Based on the deductive reasoning perspective of theoretical knowledge and past research on

participation of women in drinking water supply projects, it is hypothesized that participation of

women in projects positively contributes to project sustainability. Thus, each research sub‐question

is hypothesized by the following sub‐hypothesis:

(i) Participation of women positively contributes to project success, however this depends on

women’s agency and power;

(ii) Women’s participation in the post‐project construction phase (maintenance) has stronger

association with project sustainability than other forms of women’s participation;

(iii) Practitioners believe that women’s participation positively contributes to project

sustainability, but their opinions vary with respondents’ gender.

The latter is hypothesized based on the assumption that gender of the survey respondents

influences the opinions on the positive or negative impact of women’s participation to project

success, thus accepting an assumption that female respondents would tend to give more responses

in favor of women’s participation than male respondents.

4.1.2 Research Methods

The research methodology employs qualitative and quantitative methods of: i) meta‐analysis of

available studies on sustainability of drinking water projects in developing countries, and ii) online

surveys among practitioners on rural drinking water supply projects in a case study country (Annex A

– Matrix of Research Methods).

The first part is designed to conduct a meta‐analysis of available studies conducted within

the 2000‐2013 timeframe, on the sustainability of donor‐funded drinking water supply projects in

developing countries. The analysis of existing literature is designed to bring a contemporary

discussion on the critical components constituting sustainability of drinking water projects in

developing countries. It is planned to identify if any forms of women’s participation have been

argued across different studies for being critical to project success or sustainability. An overall

picture on the existing knowledge of the research topic will specifically contribute to answering the

research sub‐question (i) ‐ What can be generalized on the impact of women’s participation to

project success?; and the research sub‐question (ii) ‐ Which forms and components of women’s

participation are positively (or negatively) associated with project sustainability?

The second part of the research methodology is comprised of online survey among water

sector stakeholders of the case study country (Tajikistan). This survey is designed to provide a

snapshot on the contemporary opinions of practitioners on rural drinking water supply on the

research question. An institutional analysis on stakeholders from government, international

implementing agencies and donors is designed to answer sub‐question three ‐ Do practitioners on

rural drinking water supply believe that women’s participation positively contributes to project

sustainability? The survey is also assumed to partly contribute to research sub‐question two, in

relation to better understand the opinions of practitioners on forms of women’s participation that

are associated with project sustainability. The Annex B illustrates the links between the research

questions and their hypotheses, and the methods employed to answer the research questions.

4.2 Meta‐analysis

The qualitative and quantitative analysis of the available literature includes all studies on the

sustainability of drinking water projects in developing countries, published in scholarly journals

within the 2000‐2013 timeframe. This timeframe is designed for the purpose of generating

contemporary discussion on the research topic, as well as to contribute to the forthcoming analysis

of MDG water target achievements in 2015. The focus to scholarly literature and exclusion of

possible ‘grey’ literature studies on the sustainability of rural water supply is rationalized by the

intent to make the analysis more rigorous, thus building the findings of the analysis only based on

the robust data from peer reviewed articles. Furthermore, it worth mentioning that much of the

grey literature is created by donors and implementing agencies, which in turn are considered as one

of groups interested in avoiding the critiques on sustainable rural water supply operations funded by

donors, while academic community is believed to more unbiased. The process of conducting the

meta‐analysis was based on the approaches discussed in Popay et al. (2006) and includes various

techniques of literature synthesis, such as conceptual mapping, groupings and clustering (see below

Section 4.2.3).

4.2.1 Dependent and Independent Variables

The primary explanatory variables are women’s participation (independent variable) and project

sustainability (dependent variable). Referring to the existing literature on community participation

and water supply project sustainability, it has been hypothesized that the dependent variable on

project sustainability is a presumed effect of the independent variable of women’s participation

(Figure 7). The nominal definitions of the dependent and independent variables are formulated as

follows: (i) project sustainability as an effective and uninterrupted functionality of a project within

an entire designed project lifetime, (ii) women’s participation includes all forms of participation,

including community mobilization for construction, education and awareness campaigns, collection

of fees and maintenance, monitoring and data collection. These forms of women’s participation can

be further grouped into (a) participation in pre‐ and during project construction, and (b)

participation in post‐project operation.

Figure 7. Theoretical model of dependent and Independent variables

Projects are defined as donor‐funded and community‐managed rural drinking water supply

systems that include (i) any type of small to medium‐scale schemes, (ii) constructed in rural area, (iii)

with the financial (and technical support) from donor agencies, (iv) operated and maintained by the

members of local community, and (iv) used predominantly for drinking or as a primary source of

drinking water within the community. The operationalization of such small and medium‐scale

projects is based on the Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) classification of improved drinking water

projects 10 , which include (i) piped systems with treated surface water (from river, lake, etc.), (ii)

piped systems with subsurface water (boreholes with electric pumps), (iii) hand pumps, (iv)

rainwater harvesting schemes, (v) spring catchment projects, or any combination with other possible

variation of drinking water supply.

4.2.2 Target Population and Units of Analysis

The units of analysis are individual studies, identified through the literature search process as

meeting the criteria of (a) research thematic area, (b) selected timeframe, and (c) geographical

scope (all developing countries). The population of interest to which the results are to be

generalized to are all developing countries.

10 JMP classification of drinking water projects: http://www.wssinfo.org/definitions‐methods/watsan‐categories/

Women’s participation Project sustainability +

Independent variable Dependent variable

Due to the limited research on the topic, no sampling methodology was employed in

selecting studies. Using multiple search methods in popular social science journal databases – JSTOR,

SCOPUS, as well as Google Scholar, all studies that discuss sustainability of rural drinking water

supply projects and comprise population of interest were included into the analysis. Different

combinations of word strings were applied twice: (i) first, applying a full word combination of

[Drinking water [And] project success [or] project sustainability [or] project effectiveness [or] project

failure [or] sustainable [And/or] developing country [or] developing countries]; and (ii) second

applying a shorter version of [Drinking [And] project success [or] sustainability [or] effectiveness [or]

failure]. . This was done to avoid excluding any scholarly articles that might potentially comprise a

population of interest.

The initial search of literature was focused in the English language, whoever additional

attempts were made to search for respective studies potentially published in the Russian language.

The latter was initiated to identify any possible scholarly publications in Russian language,

nevertheless, no studies were found that would discuss sustainability of donor‐funded drinking

water, particularly in the post‐soviet union countries. This is further discussed in the limitations

section (see Section 6.4).

After the primary screening of articles, the researcher pre‐selected 156 scholarly articles

comprising the potential population of interest. The key information from each article (e.g. title,

authors, year, country, key findings, etc.) was tabulated into the literature review matrix (Annex C –

Format of Literature Summary Matrix). Pre‐selected studies were carefully examined for their (i)

relevance to the topic, and (ii) applicability to the designed timeframe and (iii) developing country

context, with 39 different studies identified as meeting these criteria.

4.2.3 Meta‐analysis procedure

The meta‐analysis process is based on the approaches discussed in Popay et al. (2006) and includes

various techniques of literature synthesis, such as conceptual mapping, groupings and clustering.

Figure 8 illustrates a step‐by‐step process of literature synthesis process for meta‐analysis.

Figure 8. Meat‐analysis process (adapted from Popay et al, 2006)

39 papers on sustainability of drinking water projects in developing countries

Step 1. Developing a preliminary synthesis

 Tabulation  Groupings and clustering  Thematic analysis

Step 2. Exploring relationships within and between studies

 Conceptual mapping  Visual representation of relationship

between study characteristics and results

 Qualitative case descriptions

Step 3. Assessing the robustness of the synthesis

 Reflecting critically on the synthesis process

Conclusions and recommendations

Relevant tools and techniques

BEGINNING OF META‐ANALYSIS

END OF META‐ANALYSIS

The key findings in relation to the key factors identified as critical for project sustainability in

the selected studies, that comprise the population of interest were tabulated, grouped and clustered

thematically. The findings identified across different studies as critical for project sustainability were

coded and analyzed for descriptive statistics using Microsoft Excel and Statistical Package for Social

Sciences (SPSS, version 21). The discussion of the meta‐analysis results is provided in the order of

supporting and opposing the research hypothesis, when the relationship between women’s

participation (independent variable) and project sustainability (dependent variable) were explored in

more detail.

4.3 Survey Administration

4.3.1 Variables and Levels of Measurement

The survey primarily attempts to define if respondents believe that participation of women

positively contributes to project success. As has been hypothesized that respondents would have

positive opinions on women’s participation, however their gender would strongly influence the

latter. Female respondents are assumed to have greater positive perception on women’s

participation as they contribute to project sustainability, than male respondents.

To test the second part of the hypothesis, the independent variable (gender) is

operationalized by a dichotomous level of measurement – male and female. The operational

definition of the dependent variable (women’s participation) is measured by five types of

participation in: (a) project planning and design, (b) community mobilization for construction, (c)

education and awareness campaigns before and during construction, (d) collection of fees from

community members for maintenance and repair, (e) organization of repairs or mobilization of

community members for repair, (f) regular monitoring and data collection, organized into

continuous level of measurement, based on a Likert five‐point scale. The levels of measurement for

the analysis of survey questions are presented in the Table 3, Section 4.3.4.

4.3.2 Target Population and Units of Analysis

The target population, to which the results of the survey attempt to generalize, constitute the

sample frame. Thus, no sampling technique was employed, as the whole population of interest was

included into the survey administration.

The units of analysis are individuals, the practitioners on rural drinking water supply in the

case study country (Tajikistan). These units of analysis further represent five major categories of (a)

international donor agencies, (b) international NGOs and local NGOs (implementing agencies), (c)

government agencies (policy and regulation), (d) community‐based organizations and (e) other types

of agencies (private sector, education institution, research agency, etc.). The email list of the survey

population was generated through the membership in the Tajikistan Water and Sanitation (TajWSS)

network that represents thirty different agencies involved in water projects (Annex D –TajWSS

membership list). The TajWSS network was established in 2009 with the support of international

donor agencies that presently count 52 members with experience in rural drinking water supply,

representing government, donor, implementing NGOs and the private sector. It should be

mentioned, that the researcher participated in the network with her previous experience on water

and sanitation in the country, however the exposure to the network was limited to several

participations at quarterly network meetings only during 2009‐2010. Nevertheless, considering this

fact, the researcher was not involved in the actual administration of the survey. Furthermore, the

composition of the network has been changed significantly, due to high rotation of specialists in the

country, within the water and sanitation sector. The membership list of the network is updated

regularly by the coordinating agencies and is intended to include all specialists and practitioners

involved in the implementation of drinking water supply projects in rural Tajikistan.

The rationale for the selection of Tajikistan as a case study country is conditioned by the

following key arguments:

(i) Tajikistan is a developing country with over twenty years of experience on donor‐funded

drinking water supply projects and issues of lack of sustainable projects;

(ii) The researcher’s past professional experience provides a substantive advantage for

administration due to established professional contacts;

(iii) The results of this case study might be applicable to the context of other Central Asian

countries, as well as other post‐socialist developing countries with similar social, economic and

cultural backgrounds;

(iv) Tajikistan is one of the least researched countries within the scholarly community and has

very limited published information. The study of this case study country will contribute to increasing

research knowledge for this country.

4.3.3 Survey Design

The survey tool and method was designed based on the techniques discussed in Dillman, Smyth, and

Christian (2009), Floyd (2009) and Vaske (2008). Mixed‐mode survey, comprised of electronic (email)

and paper (drop‐off) survey methods, was selected as the most appropriate, compared with other

existing types of survey (mail, telephone, on‐site). The appropriateness of the selected method is

rationalized based on the (a) simplicity of the method, (b) availability of access to the updated email

list, and (c) practical considerations. The mixed‐mode method with email surveys were followed by

paper questionnaires disseminated among non‐respondents, and was designed to compensate the

weaknesses of each method. The latter was initiated to provide the non‐respondents who simply did

not have access to email to participate in the survey so to ensure a higher response rate.

The finalized survey questionnaire was comprised of 24 fixed‐scale, close‐ended and semi

close‐ended questions. The questions were designed based on the principles of writing good survey

questions as discussed in Vaske (2008), such as choosing simple words and phrases, avoiding bias

from unequal comparisons, using response categories that are mutually exclusive, as well as

ensuring sufficient white‐spacing and appropriate formatting. The seven‐page survey opened with a

brief introductory paragraph on the research topic and key definitions used in the questionnaire.

The finalized survey tool was disseminated among the practitioners on rural drinking water

supply projects in Tajikistan (Annex E – Survey Tool in English and Russian), along with informed

consent forms prepared in two languages (Annex F – Informed Consent forms in English and

Russian). The dissemination of email survey was administered by the partnering institution Oxfam

GB in Tajikistan (Annex G – Survey Recruitment Scripts in English and Russian), and paper survey by

the partnering NGO “Subhi Tandurusti”. The latter was undertaken via participation of the NGO

representatives at a stakeholder network meeting on February 12, 2014. Responses were collected

with the help of the partnering institutions, and coded in the Statistical Package for Social Sciences

(SPSS, version 21).

4.3.4 Planned Analysis

To respond to the research sub‐question (2) on the effective components of women’s participation,

the responses of the survey participants were compared for means, and the analyses of n‐way

ANOVA and effect size (analysis of association) was undertaken to establish if the relationship exists

between perception of respondents and demographic information.

To test the given hypothesis to the second part of the research sub‐question (3), the

hypothesis statement was rephrased in statistical form of null and alternative hypothesis,

formulated as follow:

H0: The respondents do not believe that women’s participation is important for project

sustainability and their opinions are not influenced by respondents’ gender

H1: The respondents believe that women’s participation is important for project

sustainability and their opinions vary with the respondents’ gender

For the level of significance, the p‐value of <0.05, was selected as the cut‐off acceptance of

result significance in test statistics. The results of the survey were coded in SPSS and analyzed using

frequencies and descriptive statistics, cross‐tabulations, analysis of variance (n‐way ANOVA) and chi‐

square (Table 3).

Table 3. Planned statistical analysis of survey results in SPSS

Purpose of Analysis Survey questions

Type of SPSS Analysis

Dependent and Independent Variables

Demographics and background information on survey participants

1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7

Frequencies Cross‐tabulation

n/a

Perception of respondents on years of operation for sustainable projects

2.1 Frequencies Cross‐tabulation

n/a

Perception of respondents on community participation, and factors that affect project sustainability

3.1, 3.2 Frequencies Cross‐tabulation Means n‐way ANOVA and effect size

Gender, age, professional occupation, type of agency, years of experience (independent variables); and factors of sustainability (dependent variable)

Perception of respondents on women’s participation

3.3, 3.4, 4.3, 5.4, 5.5

Frequencies Cross‐tabulation Means Chi‐square

Gender (independent variable); perception on women’s participation (dependent variable)

Additional analysis: ‐ attributes of men and women ‐ agreement/ disagreement to country‐specific questions

4.2, 4.4 5.1 – 5.7

Frequencies Mean

n/a

4.3.5 Validity and Reliability

To ensure measurement validity and reliability of the concepts and indicators presented in the

survey, certain measures were undertaken in consideration of survey content and construct. For the

construct and content validity the draft survey tool was reviewed by a mixed group of competent

professional experts and professors, as well as pretested among a group of ESF graduate students

with some skills on survey questions. The survey tool was disseminated along with an informed

consent form (Annex H – Survey Pre‐test Recruitment Script; Annex I – Survey Pre‐test Informed

Consent) in English language among an interested group of students via email. Responses to the

survey pre‐testing were collected via e‐mail personally by the investigator. Recommendations from

nine participants of survey pre‐testing were directed towards making the questions technically

correct and for improved design (Annex J – Survey Pre‐test Results).

Following pre‐testing, the survey tool was translated into Russian, and was disseminated in

two languages (Russian and English) for the survey piloting among the selected units of analysis, the

members of the TajWSS network (Annex K – Survey Piloting Recruitment Script; Annex L – Survey

Piloting Informed Consent). The participants for the piloting were selected with the help of

partnering institutions with the criteria that the participants (i) have 10‐25 years of experience in

rural water supply in the country, (ii) are willing and participate in the pretest, and (iii) represent a

group diversity in consideration of linguistic capacities (i.e. non‐English speaker vs. English‐speaker).

Six responses (completed questionnaires), collected from the piloting stage were followed by Skype

interviews to get detailed feedback and recommendations to improve measurement validity, ensure

that the concepts and response tasks are understandable, language is easy and appropriate, and the

respondents have similar understanding on the type of answers each survey question asks. In

addition to test for the measurement reliability or the consistency in the pattern of respondents’

answers, a test for international consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was applied for multiple item

indicator questions (Vaske, 2008).

4.3.6 Survey Error and Bias

The described survey procedure and instrument are designed in such a way, as to avoid all four

possible types of survey error: coverage, sampling, non‐response and measurement error. The

possibility of coverage and sampling errors is eliminated by the fact the whole population of interest

had a known, non‐zero chance of being included. As no ‘sampling procedure’ was applied, no one

from the population was excluded from participation in the survey census.

To minimize the chance of non‐response error or non‐response bias, which occur when

“people who do not respond are different from those who do respond in a way that is important to

the survey” (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009:17), it was ensured that the response rate is high

enough to be representative via:

(a) The invitation for participation was sent from the authoritative source (TajWSS

Secretariat);

(b) Reminder messages were sent two and one weeks prior to the initial deadline from the

authoritative source;

importance of the results to be used for the benefits of the respondents;

(d) It has been made sure that the selected survey mode was the most convenient for the

respondents and participation was easy;

(e) The layout of the survey was designed in such a way as to enhance visibility and minimize

respondent burden.

To minimize the potential risk of measurement error or bias, each respondent’s answers

were checked for accuracy. When required the partnering institution (NGO Subhi Tandurusti)

contacted the respondents to clarify the answers (for handwritten responses). As the measurement

error is “often the result of poor question wording or design” (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009:18),

it has been ensured that all aspects of questionnaire construction are effective and clearly

understandable for the survey respondents.

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS

5.1 Meta‐analysis

This section provides a comprehensive overview of the literature meta‐analysis process. All studies

that discuss factors responsible for the sustainability of community‐managed drinking water projects

in developing countries and published within the set timeframe (2000‐2013) were included into the

meta‐analysis of literature. In preparing the analysis, findings of all 39 identified studies were first

tabulated within the literature review matrix (Annex M – Literature Review Findings Tabulation). The

findings were grouped and clustered into the key typologies of project sustainability (technical,

financial, institutional and social), and the results were mapped spatially and temporally to identify

conceptual patterns. Then, the results were discussed in chronological order highlighting a wide

spectrum of factors that have been argued by different authors as critical for project success.

Further discussion on the findings on meta‐analysis, as well critical reflections on the meta‐analysis

process is presented in Chapter 6 – Discussion and Conclusion.

5.1.1 Summarizing critical factors

The findings of the 39 selected studies, as discussed in the previous section were summarized in the

literature review matrix (Annex M) and further grouped into categories. Key typologies of factors

responsible for the sustainability of community‐managed water supply projects were identified and

grouped into four areas of sustainability following WELL’s dimensions of sustainability, as discussed

in Chapter 3 (WELL, 1998). Thus the findings on the project sustainability factors include (i) technical,

(ii) financial, (iii) institutional and (iv) social aspects (Annex N – Categorization of Literature Review

Findings).

Mapping the factors into a typology of project sustainability shows that most of the studies

(77%) suggest that the social aspects of sustainability are important for sustainable projects. A

combination of technical, financial and institutional factors has been defined across 15 studies (38%)

as critical for project success. Thus, though the literature findings confirm that sustainable project

approaches should incorporate principles of all four typologies of project sustainability. Social

sustainability, such as importance of community participation or women’s involvement are seen

across the studies as the most prevailing pre‐requisite for project success (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Meta‐analysis results: four typologies of project sustainability

The distribution of studies into three equal periods of the targeted timeframe of (i) 2000‐

2004, (ii) 2005‐2009 and (iii) 2010‐2013, shows that the publication of studies prevails during the

period of 2005‐2009. Over 50% of studies on sustainability of drinking water projects include

arguments for social factors of sustainability published during that period (Table 4). The histogram

presents the distribution of the study periods with the majority of studies falling into the period of

(2) of 2005‐2009 and the curve demonstrating the normality (Figure 10).

Table 4. Meta‐analysis results: publication of studies by years

Year of the study Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

2000‐2004 9 23.1 23.1 23.1

2005‐2009 20 51.3 51.3 74.4

2010‐2013 10 25.6 25.6 100.0

Total 39 100.0 100.0

38%

31%

77%

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36

Technical

Financial

Institutional

Social

number of studies

Typologies of sustainability factors

Figure 10. Meta‐analysis results: years of publication

Meanwhile, the distribution of studies by year demonstrates that the salience of the topic peaked in

2004 and 2006, and more significantly in years of 2009 and 2010 (Figure 11).

Figure 11. Meta‐analysis results: publication of studies by years

This can be attributed to the fact that UN has recognized the right of every human being to

have access to sufficient water in 2010 11 , which I assume contributed to the salience of the topic.

The preceding peaks in 2004 and 2006 of increased attention to the topic can be possibly be linked

to the announced UN International Decade for Action 2005‐2015 and to a series of international

11 Human Right to Water: https://www.un.org/en/globalissues/water/

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

n u m b e r o f st u d ie s

Distribution of studies over years

conferences organized in the prior years 12 . In constructing the subsequent analysis, I discuss the key

factors identified across different studies in the order of (i) technical, (ii) financial, (iii) institutional

and (iv) social aspects of project sustainability.

Technical factors

The technical aspects of project sustainability identified across selected studies constitute the

narrowest spectrum of factors, grouped only in three major categories: (i) appropriate technological

choice, (ii) availability of technical skills, and (iii) availability of spare parts (Table 5). In total, only 15

studies (38%) highlighted the importance of technical aspects for project success and sustainability.

Table 5. Meta‐analysis results: technical factors of project sustainability

# Author(s) Country Appropriate technological choice (simple and low‐ tech)

Technical skills (to construct, repair and maintain

Availability of spare parts

1 Kleemeier, 2000 Malawi ✓ 2 Jakariya et al., 2003 Bangladesh ✓ ✓ 3 Musonda, 2004 Zambia ✓ 4 Magrath, 2006 Sierra Leone ✓ ✓ ✓ 5 Gleitsmann et al., 2007 Mali ✓ 6 deWilde et al., 2008 Mexico ✓ 7 Gine & Perez‐Foguet, 2008 Tanzania ✓ ✓ 8 Esposto, 2009 Darfur

Iraq ✓

9 Smith, 2009 Pakistan ✓ 10 Montgomery et al., 2009 Sub‐Saharan

Africa ✓

11 Whittington et al., 2009 Bolivia Peru Ghana

✓

12 Aladuwaka & Momsen, 2010 Sri Lanka ✓ 13 Masduqi et al., 2010 Indonesia ✓ ✓ 14 Massoud et al., 2010 Lebanon ✓ 15 Opare, 2012 Ghana ✓

7/15 9/15 4/15

12 Water for Life: http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/eventsarchive_2010.shtml

Among 15 studies discussing technical aspects, the technical skills of communities to

construct, repair and maintain the projects of drinking water supply were denoted in 9 studies as

critical for project success. A correct choice of technological solution, basically implying simple and

low‐cost solutions, and availability of spare parts for community water projects were argued across

7 and 4 studies respectively, as imperative for project effectiveness (see Figure 12).

Figure 12. Meta‐analysis results: distribution of technical factors of project sustainability

Financial factors

The financial aspects of project sustainability were denoted as critical in 15 studies (similarly to

technical), where most of the studies recognized the importance of technical aspects

simultaneously. Identified factors were grouped into four categories of (i) post‐project support, (ii)

adequate water pricing, (iii) ability to pay, and (iv) co‐financing of capital costs (Table 6).

As seen from the Figure 13 adequate water tariffs that are affordable for communities but

also designed in such a way as to ensure full‐cost recovery of the project, along with the

community’s ability to pay for access to water have been specified across 10 studies as being of

critical importance for project sustainability. External post‐project support and community co‐

financing of capital costs are argued as critical for sustainability in 8 cases only.

0 2 4 6 8 10

Availability of spare parts

Appropriate technological choice

Technical skills to repair and maintain

Technical factors

Table 6. Meta‐analysis results: financial factors of project sustainability

# Author(s) Country External post‐ project (donors or authorities)

Adequate water tariffs (affordable, full cost‐recovery)

Community’s ability to pay

Communit y’s co‐ financing of capital costs

1 Kleemeier, 2000 Malawi ✓ 2 Admassu et al., 2003 Ethiopia ✓ 3 Musonda, 2004 Zambia ✓ ✓ 4 Prokopy, 2005 India ✓ 5 Haysom, 2006 Tanzania ✓ 6 Acharya et al, 2007 Nepal ✓ 7 Gine & Perez‐Foguet,

2008 Tanzania ✓

8 Prokopy et al., 2008 Peru ✓ 9 Montgomery et al.,

2009 Sub‐Saharan Africa

✓

10 Whittington et al., 2009 Bolivia Peru Ghana

✓

11 Aladuwaka & Momsen, 2010

Sri Lanka ✓

12 Armanios, 2010 Egypt ✓ 13 Jiméneza & Pérez‐

Foguetb, 2010 Tanzania ✓

14 Masduqi et al., 2010 Indonesia ✓ 15 Opare, 2012 Ghana ✓

5/15 7/15 3/15 1/15

Figure 13. Meta‐analysis results: distribution of financial factors of project sustainability

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

External post‐project support

Adequate water tariffs

Community's ability to pay

Community's co‐financing

Financial factors

Institutional factors

The institutional factors of project sustainability in drinking water supply have found to be the least

frequently discussed as critical. Only 12 studies (31%) have highlighted the role of institutional setup

as important for community‐managed projects. The key typology of institutional factors includes (i)

management capacity, (ii) exit strategy, (iii) government support, and (iv) partnerships and

coordination (Table 7).

The management capacity of local communities to manage the project, including the presence

of adequate and simple mechanisms for project management, after the project is constructed, has

been discussed most frequently across the whole spectrum of institutional factors. Over 58% of

studies (7 studies) that discuss institutional sustainability as important highlighted the need for

adequate mechanisms of community water management, that implied the appropriate set up of

committees and the management capacities of committee members (Figure 14).

Table 7. Meta‐analysis results: institutional factors of project sustainability

# Author(s) Country Management capacity of committees

Adequate exit strategy/hand over mechanism

Government oversight and support

Coordinatio n and partnership

1 Kleemeier, 2000 Malawi ✓ 2 Bhandari et al., 2005 Nepal ✓ ✓ ✓ 3 Hoko & Hertle, 2006 Zimbabwe ✓ 4 Haysom, 2006 Tanzania ✓ 5 Gine & Perez‐

Foguet, 2008 Tanzania ✓

6 Busari, 2009

Swaziland ✓

7 Aladuwaka & Momsen, 2010

Sri Lanka ✓

8 Jiméneza & Pérez‐ Foguetb, 2010

Tanzania ✓ ✓

9 Masduqi et al., 2010 Indonesia ✓ 10 Massoud et al., 2010 Lebanon ✓ 11 Padawangi, 2010 Pakistan ✓ 12 Holm, 2012 Malawi ✓

7/12 2/12 3/12 3/12

In addition, close coordination of community members of the local water committees with

local authorities and external support agencies (3 studies), strengthened government’s role to

oversee community‐managed operation and provide adequate support (3 studies), as well as

presence of adequate exit strategy (2 studies) have been also argued as important for project

success.

It is worth noting that most of the studies that highlighted the importance of institutional

factors for sustainability of community‐managed drinking water projects were often argued in

combination with the earlier discussed technical and financial components of sustainable water

projects in most of the studies.

Figure 14. Meta‐analysis results: distribution of institutional factors of project sustainability

Social factors

Social sustainability pertaining to all socially related factors of community participation were

discussed in great detail within the majority of the sampled studies. A total of 30 studies or 77%

(n=39 studies) argued for a certain type of social factor that was critical for sustainability. This

includes 16 studies (41% of n=39) within which are arguments for different forms of community

participation, without specifying any particular role of men or women as critical for the project

success. Interestingly, the same number of studies (n = 16 studies) argued for a critical role of

women’s participation (Table 8), with two studies arguing for the importance of both.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Management capacity of committees

Adequate exit strategy/handover mechanism

Government oversight and support

Coordination and partnership

Institutional factors

Table 8. Meta‐analysis results: community participation and women’s participation

Community participation in study Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid no 23 59.0 59.0 59.0 yes 16 41.0 41.0 100.0 Total 39 100.0 100.0

Women's participation in study Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid no 23 59.0 59.0 59.0 yes 16 41.0 41.0 100.0 Total 39 100.0 100.0

Identified social factors were sorted into two major categories: (i) community participation,

and (ii) women’s participation. Some other factors – such as ‘sense of ownership’ and ‘group

homogeneity’, which were mentioned across just a few studies as important, but could not be

identified as pertaining exclusively to either of the two categories, and so were placed in a separate

category of ‘other’ (Table 9). Thus, the total number of studies that argued for the importance of

social factors of sustainability are divided almost into equal shares for women’s participation (16

studies) and community participation factors (16 studies), including 7 studies citing other social

forms of sustainability factors (Figure 15).

Figure 15. Meta‐analysis results: distribution of social factors of project sustainability

It is worth mentioning that women’s participation has been recognized across different

studies either in the form of presenting a case as a good example, where women’s participation was

0 5 10 15 20

Community's participation

Women's participation

Other

Social factors

successful, or an unfortunate example, where the participation of women was critical, but for

various reasons was not organized appropriately. Thus, despite the criticism of poorly implemented

approaches of women’s involvement into projects, the authors of those studies did not reject the

idea that the role of women in drinking water projects is important, but attempted to provide

underlying reasons for ineffective women’s participation strategies. The details on the criticism of

women’s participation will be discussed in the Chapter 6.

Table 9. Meta‐analysis results: social factors of project sustainability

# Author(s) Country Community participation

Women’s participation

Other

1 James et al., 2002 India ✓ 2 Jakariya et al., 2003 Bangladesh ✓ 3 Admassu et al., 2003 Ethiopia ✓ ✓ 4 Doe & Khan, 2004 Ghana ✓ Sense of ownership 5 FonJong et al., 2004 Cameroon ✓ ✓ 6 Musonda, 2004 Zambia ✓ 7 O'Reilly, 2004 India ✓ 8 Prokopy, 2004 India ✓ 9 Prokopy, 2005 India ✓ 10 Bhandari et al., 2005 Nepal ✓ 11 Garande & Dagg, 2005 Chile ✓ 12 Singh, 2006 India ✓ 13 Magrath, 2006 Sierra Leone ✓ 14 Cleaver & Toner, 2006 Tanzania Sense of ownership 15 Hoko & Hertle, 2006 Zimbabwe ✓ 16 Acharya et al, 2007 Nepal ✓ Group homogeneity 17 Gleitsmann et al., 2007 Mali ✓ 18 deWilde et al., 2008 Mexico ✓ 19 Gine & Perez‐Foguet, 2008 Tanzania ✓ ✓ Inclusion of poor 20 Smith, 2009 Pakistan ✓ 21 Montgomery et al., 2009 Sub‐Saharan

Africa Community demand for water

22 Prokopy, 2009 India ✓ 23 Sultana, 2009 Bangladesh ✓ Group homogeneity 24 Whittington et al., 2009 Bolivia

Peru Ghana

✓

25 Aladuwaka & Momsen, 2010

Sri Lanka ✓

26 Barnes & Ashbolt, 2010 Philippines ✓ 27 Masduqi et al., 2010 Indonesia ✓ 28 Padawangi, 2010 Pakistan ✓ 29 Madrial et al., 2011 Costa Rica ✓ Sense of ownership 30 Holm, 2012 Malawi ✓ 31 Opare, 2012 Ghana ✓

16/31 16/31 7/31

Further analysis focused on different forms of (i) community participation and (ii) women’s

participation that have been discussed across 30 studies as critical for project success. Thus, the

forms of community or women’s participation were categorized into six main categories, as

identified across the studies, which included participation in (i) decision‐making for planning and

project design, (ii) construction, (iii) community education and awareness campaigns, (iv) system

management and collection of fees for repair, (v) organization and performance of repairs, and (vi)

monitoring and data collection (Table 10). Unspecified or ambiguous types of participation have

been placed into a separate ‘unspecified/general’ category.

Two forms of community participation (a) participation in decision‐making for project

planning and design, and (b) participation in collection of fees for system repair and maintenance

prevail (46%) among other forms of participation as the most critical for project sustainability (Figure

16). Community participation in the construction and repair of systems, as well as data collection

and monitoring have been mentioned in just a few studies as important (2 studies or 12%).

Meanwhile, community participation in general, denoting any form of community participation in

project planning, implementation and management have been argued as important across 9 studies

or 56% of the studies with social factors of sustainability as a highly positive impact.

Table 10. Meta‐analysis results: social factors ‐ community participation

# Author(s) Country Planning & Design / Decision‐ making

Construction Education and awareness

Collection of fees for repair / Management & decision‐making

Organization of repairs (inc. performing repairs)

Monitoring and data collection

Unspecified / general

1 Admassu et al., 2003 Ethiopia ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2 Doe & Khan , 2004 Ghana ✓ ✓ 3 FonJong et al., 2004 Cameroon ✓ ✓ 4 Musonda, 2004 Zambia ✓ 5 Prokopy, 2005 India ✓ ✓ 6 Garande & Dagg, 2005 Chile ✓ ✓ 7 Magrath, 2006 Sierra Leone ✓ 8 Hoko & Hertle, 2006 Zimbabwe ✓ ✓ 9 Gine & Perez‐Foguet, 2008 Tanzania ✓ 10 Smith, 2009 Pakistan ✓ 11 Prokopy, 2009 India ✓ 12 Whittington et al., 2009 Bolivia, Peru, Ghana ✓ 13 Barnes & Ashbolt, 2010 Philippines ✓ 14 Masduqi et al., 2010 Indonesia ✓ 15 Holm, 2012 Malawi ✓ 16 Opare, 2012 Ghana ✓

6/16 1/16 2/16 6/16 1/16 1/16 9/16

Figure 16. Meta‐analysis results: social factors: typology of community participation

It is worth noting that several studies have argued that community cohesion and project

initiatives arising from within the communities are important for project success (Barnes & Ashbolt,

2010; Doe & Khan, 2004). While the latter refers to a community’s effort to initiate a project with or

without external support, the former implies strong and positive relationships among the

community members and a sense of common vision and belonging for all communities.

Women’s participation has been argued to be critical across 16 studies that discuss social

factors of sustainability as critical for project success. The key typologies of women’s participation

have been disaggregated into six forms, similarly for community participation (Table 11). Certain

forms of women’s participation have been argued as more important for project sustainability than

the other forms. For example, women’s participation in the decision‐making for project planning and

design (x=̅.26), and participation in collection of fees for repair (x ̅=.15) were found more critical

across studies, than the other forms of women’s participation (Table 12). Participation of female

community members during project construction, community education and awareness campaigns,

actual organization of repairs for system maintenance, as well as participation in data collection for

monitoring, have found less evidence of support across identified studies. Figure 17 illustrates

graphic distribution of forms of women’s participation indicating superior importance of the

mentioned two forms.

0 2 4 6 8 10

Planning & Design / Decision‐making

Construction

Education and awareness

Collection of fees for repair /…

Organization of repairs (inc.…

Monitoring and data collection

Unspecified / general

number of studies

Community participation in

Table 11. Meta‐analysis results: social factors – women’s participation

# Author(s) Country Planning & Design / Decision‐making

Construction Education and awareness

Collection of fees for repair / Management & decision‐making

Organization of repairs (inc. performing repairs)

Monitoring and data collection

Unspecified / general

1 James et al., 2002 India ✓ ✓ 2 Jakariya et al., 2003 Bangladesh ✓ 3 Admassu et al., 2003 Ethiopia ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 4 FonJong et al., 2004 Cameroon ✓ 5 O'Reilly, 2004 India ✓ ✓ 6 Prokopy, 2004 India ✓ ✓ 7 Bhandari et al., 2005 Nepal ✓ 8 Singh, 2006 India ✓ 9 Acharya et al., (2007) Nepal ✓ 10 Gleitsmann et al., 2007 Mali ✓ 11 Gine & Perez‐Foguet, 2008 Tanzania ✓ 12 Sultana, 2009 Bangladesh ✓ ✓ 13 Aladuwaka & Momsen, 2010 Sri Lanka ✓ ✓ 14 Padawangi, 2010 Pakistan ✓ 15 Madrial et al., 2011 Costa Rica ✓

10/15 1/15 1/15 6/15 1/15 1/15 5/15

Figure 17. Meta‐analysis results: distribution by typology of women’s participation

Interestingly, the discussion on the importance of women’s involvement in the selected

studies goes even beyond just simply identifying which forms of participation matter for project

success. For example, women’s agency and control over water access, as well as recognition of

women as key players in water management and support from male community members toward

women’s leadership have been argued, across several studies, as key for sustainable projects

(Aladuwaka & Momsen, 2010; Gine & Perez‐Foguet, 2008; O'Reilly, 2004; Prokopy, 2004).

Furthermore, several authors have argued that the composition of women’s water committee

groups also matters: while greater heterogeneity in women’s group for social, economic and even

Table 12. Meta‐analysis results: descriptive statistics on typology of women’s participation

Planning and design

Construction Education and awareness

Collection of fees

Organization of repairs

Monitoring

N Valid 39 39 39 39 39 39

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean .26 .03 .03 .15 .03 .03

Std. Deviation .442 .160 .160 .366 .160 .160

Variance .196 .026 .026 .134 .026 .026

Range 1 1 1 1 1 1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Planning & Design / Decision‐making

Construction

Education and awareness

Collection of fees for repair /…

Organization of repairs (inc.…

Monitoring and data collection

Unspecified / general

number of studies

Women's participation in

biological characteristics of its members does not necessarily produce positive impact for projects,

whereas the homogeneity in women’s groups have found to be positively correlated with successful

project development (Singh, 2006; Acharya et al., 2007; Sultana, 2009). Furthermore, some other

aspects of women’s participation, such as when participation of women is against social norms and

local community customs (O'Reilly, 2004; Prokopy, 2004). When the willingness to participate comes

from women and whereas women have sufficient training and commitment to manage projects

(Aladuwaka & Momsen, 2010; Madrial, Alpizar, & Schlute, 2011; Prokopy, 2004; Singh, 2006;

Sultana, 2009), as well as no geographical restrictions for women to practice participation (Sultana,

2009), all have been outlined across several studies as critical for women’s active involvement in

drinking water supply projects.

5.1.3 Geographical and contextual disparities

Studies on the sustainability of community‐managed drinking water supply projects are seen as the

most salient in the regions of Asia and Africa with 29 studies (86%) identified in 21 countries, and a

few more studies (9%) have been identified in North America and South America regions (Table 13).

Table 13. Meta‐analysis results: descriptive statistics on geographical regions

Geographical region Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Africa 17 43.6 43.6 43.6 Asia 17 43.6 43.6 87.2 South America 3 7.7 7.7 94.9 North America 2 5.1 5.1 100.0 Total 39 100.0 100.0

N Valid 39 Missing 0

Mean 1.74 Median 2.00 Mode 1

Std. Deviation .818 Variance .669 Range 3

Representing 26 countries overall, the issues of project sustainability in drinking water supply

can be argued as more frequently occurring in the countries of Africa (12 countries) and Asia (9),

than in North (2) and South America (3) (Figure 18).

Figure 18. Meta‐analysis results: distribution of studies by geographical regions

Table 14 lists all countries discussed in the sampled studies. Several countries stand out

among other countries, where the research topic has been studied more frequently, such as in India

(6 studies), Tanzania (4 studies) and Ghana (3 studies). For the rest of the countries, the topic on the

sustainability of rural water supply has only been studied once or twice. This latter point can be

explained by the earlier assumption that the whole thematic area on sustainability of donor‐funded

projects is a sensitive area, as well as the novel, and not researched in great detail.

Table 14. Meta‐analysis results: list of researched countries across studies

Africa Asia South America North America

Cameroon (1) Bangladesh (2) Bolivia (1) Costa Rica (1)

Egypt (1) India (6) Chile (1) Mexico (1)

Ethiopia (1) Indonesia (1) Peru (2)

Ghana (3) Iraq (1)

Malawi (2) Lebanon (1)

Mali (1) Nepal (2)

Sierra Leone (1) Pakistan (2)

Sudan (1) Philippines (1)

Swaziland (1) Sri Lanka (1)

Tanzania (4)

Zambia (1)

Zimbabwe (1) 1

Sub‐Saharan Africa region (1)

43%

Africa

Asia

South America

North America

Distribution of studies by regions

percent of studies number of countries

The geographical mapping on the discussion of women’s participation for sustainability of

drinking water projects further narrows down the list of countries. Thus, countries that recognize

the special role of women in water projects (either by presenting successful or unsuccessful case

examples) include the countries of India (4), Bangladesh (2), Nepal (2), Sri Lanka (1) and Pakistan (1),

as well as Ethiopia (1), Cameroon (1), Mali (1), Tanzania, and Costa Rica (1). Countries of South Asia

are the most researched regarding effectiveness of women’s participation, and so advise that

women’s participation is widely used as a project strategy in those countries (Figure 19).

Figure 19. Meta‐analysis results: distribution of studies on women’s participation across geographical regions

5.1.2 Narrative on meta‐analysis

In one of the early studies in the 2000s, the evaluation of 17 drinking water projects in Malawi,

Kleemeier found that half of the assessed schemes performed poorly at the time of monitoring. She

found that a community’s capacity to manage the project and external agency support to the

management committees was crucial for the sustainability of constructed systems. She concluded

that “community groups turn out to be good at making the small repairs necessary to keep water

flowing, but poor at preventative maintenance and repairs”, thus if “external agency is weak, the

schemes will eventually perform poorly” (Kleemeier, 2000:941‐42).

Asia 67%

Africa 27%

North America

A similar study conducted two years later in two villages of India supported Kleemeier’s

conclusion on the importance of community‐management, but also highlighted the role of women in

the installation of drinking water supply projects (James et al., 2002). They argued that projects

combined with the provision of earning opportunities for women enhance their potential for

decision‐making and thus contribute to the effectiveness of water projects:

Investment in rural water supply will then provide dual benefits: the social benefits of an improved water supply and the economic benefits from the time saved. Further, involving empowered and earning women in decision‐making of decentralized community infrastructure projects can improve the effectiveness of community infrastructure projects involving water distribution and management (James et al., 2002: 216.)

Furthermore, an evaluation of 51,685 tubewells in Bangladesh supported the previous

findings by concluding that the key to project success was “a combination of close integration with

the community at all stages and appropriate technical solutions”, whereas the critical point is the

provision of training opportunities for female volunteers (Jakariya, et al., 2003:141‐45). Another

study of 2003 by Admassu, Kumie, & Fantahun on the evaluation of 114 water projects in rural

Ethiopia found that the assessed projects lacked sustainability due to (i) insufficient community

partnerships, (ii) lack of skills for financial management, and (iii) absence of gender sensitivity.

Though, in this study, gender sensitivity has been found to be critical for project success, the authors

do not assess this factor in detail. Although they mention that better coordination at all levels of

management and community participation is crucial for project sustainability, they point out that

community participation in water projects is not work for females.

Studies in 2004 further contributed to the discourse on the effectiveness of community‐

management model and women’s participation. Thus, Doe and Khan (2004) argued that community

participation in decision‐making, planning and service provision, as well as sense of ownership

among community members positively affect sustainability of constructed rural drinking water

projects, by pointing out that “community management is useful for community development but

one size does not fit all” (Doe & Khan, 2004:369). They found that the size of the communities where

projects are introduced matters and larger communities have less potential for project success.

Meanwhile, FonJong, Nebasina and Fonchingong in their case study of Cameroon rural water project

argued that “because women are faced more directly than men with the problem of water supply

and sanitation, they can be a substantial driving force behind the installation and maintenance of

facilities” (FonJong, Nebasina , & Fonchingong, 2004:438). They pointed put that while community

participation is a prerequisite of project success, involvement of women in project planning and

especially management is imperative for sustainability of the projects. Musonda (2004) in a study of

Zambia on the contrary did not find women’s participation as imperative for successful project

development and suggested that four factors were crucial for project sustainability: (a) effective

community organization, (b) communities have the ability to operate and maintain, (c) communities

are able to raise adequate user fees for purchasing spare parts, and (d) there is a strong backup

support at the district level to carry out major repairs.

The last two studies of 2004, both case studies of India, brought lots of controversy to the

topic of women’s participation and project effectiveness. O'Reilly (2004) argues that gendered

dynamics are complex and women’s lack of agency and power in certain spheres, such as inability to

contribute to implementation of program strategies does not make women’s participation

important for the long‐term sustainability of the project. She says that women’s participation is

“nothing but a great joke and it is a decorative item” and the project’s goal of “women’s

participation is nothing but to manage the financial aid from [the German bank] and a little bit of

show off” (O'Reilly, 2004:180). O’Reilly remarks that “women’s incorporation into development

projects, instead of being a straightforward process, has generated conflicts and paradoxes”, when

the underlying reason for that is that the strategy of women’s participation is not taken seriously

(O'Reilly, 2004:175). In the second study in India, Prokopy (2004:114) concludes that “women’s

participation does not lead to project improvements”. Prokopy argues that while overall community‐

participation has a positive effect to project sustainability, women’s participation has no relationship

with project success or sustainability. She further explains that the participation of women in water

committees is nominal or token, as “their seat is merely a reservation seat and they know nothing

about water project” and in most cases women’s husbands and sons attend the committee meetings

(Prokopy, 2004:109). As the underlying reasons of this ‘token participation’ of women Prokopy finds

the following:

 Issues pertaining village government are traditionally the responsibility of men. Participation of women is against general custom;

 Men object to women’s involvement;  Women’s hesitation and fear;  Women are not interested;  Women are not allowed to speak in front of elderly and women were not

consulted during planning and implementation stage (Prokopy, 2004:112).

Clearly, Prokopy’s comprehensive analysis on women’s role in water projects brings to the

discussion many flaws that exist in the process of women’s involvement. Lastly, the author adds that

though this analysis has treated women as a homogeneous group, and suggests that women should

be studied as heterogeneous societal groups via “the nexus between gender, class and caste”

(Prokopy, 2004:115).

In another study on India’s water projects, Prokopy found that community contribution to

capital costs and household involvement in decision‐making are significant contributors to the

project success by arguing that “the higher the percentage of households in a village contributing to

capital costs, the better for the project” (Prokopy, 2005:1817). In a case study of drinking water

project in Chile, Garande and Dagg (2005) found that failure to fully integrate community into the

processes of project planning and management was the key reason for project unsustainability. They

argued “if people actively participate in the project planning and implementation stages, then they

are more committed to the project’s success” and highlighted (i) comprehensive consultation with

community and transparency, (ii) high levels of community participation, (iii) ‘participation should be

inclusive and communicative’ among the critical factors of project success (Garande & Dagg,

2005:417‐420). Meanwhile, Bhandari, Grant, and Pokharel (2005) in a case study in Nepal found that

lack of involvement of women during the planning stages is one of the key reasons for unsuccessful

projects and argued that government supervision, adequate mechanisms for the handover of

constructed schemes, and coordination among local water committees and local government are all

essential for sustainable projects.

Another study from India criticized the ineffectiveness of women’s participation in drinking

water projects (Singh, 2006). Similarly to Prokopy’s arguments, Singh criticized that women’s

participation as being largely token and says:

the involvement of women by itself does not guarantee communities equitable benefits from water‐related infrastructure and new distribution schemes. Social differences among women along the lines of age, caste and religion may in fact reinforce social and economic imbalances rather than transform them (Singh, 2006:74).

Singh suggests that “women’s leadership did not make any real difference with regard to the rate of

collection of use fees from water users” and “women’s membership is actually considered a proxy as

in reality their husbands or sons attended the meetings and made decisions” (Singh, 2006:70). Thus

he argued that women’s representation in decision‐making positions does not necessarily ensure

that all women’s interests will be safeguarded (Singh, 2006:70‐71). Singh suggests that when

applying project approaches of women’s participation, the considerations of heterogeneity among

women or admitting the existence of social and economical differences in women’s groups, arguably

will give a better understanding of “the factors that thwart women’s participation from being

meaningful and less token” (Singh, 2006:74).

Furthermore, the 2006 studies did not add much to the discourse of women’s participation,

but produced more or less similar conclusions. Cleaver and Toner, on community water governance,

in Tanzania found that “community management element of the project is perhaps the least

successful aspect” due to the lack of community ownership (Cleaver & Toner, 2006:213). Hoko and

Hertle in a case study of rural Zimbabwe concluded that for a project to be sustainable it should

incorporate ‘active community involvement’, ‘strengthened capacity of water committees’, ‘easiness

of operation of facility’, as well as ‘improved awareness of local communities on the project’ (Hoko

& Hertle, 2006:699). Meanwhile, Magrath (2006) in a Sierra Leone study argued that the capacity of

communities to maintain, poverty and lack of community cohesion, women’s workload and the

position in society, lack of tools and spare parts all are the key impediments to the successfulness of

the projects. Furthermore, Haysom in a study on rural Tanzania concluded that the “financial

management was the primary correlation of non‐functionality” (Haysom, 2006:1). She found that

only 45% of assessed water points were functioning, thus attributing this to ‘pricing based on

achieving full cost‐recovery’ and ‘simplicity in management structures’ are all crucial for project

sustainability, whereas she argued that the ongoing use of alternative sources can undermine cost

recovery (Haysom, 2006:1). Haysom challenged the orthodoxy surrounding concepts of community

ownership and participation by concluding that “there is a danger that participation in its current

orthodoxy is an inferior substitute for sound local government or ongoing support from the

implementing agency”, and invited re‐examination of the responsibilities of implementing agencies

and donors (Haysom, 2006:21).

The subsequent studies added to the discussion presented earlier by Singh (2006) on the

negative impact of heterogeneity of community management groups. Acharya, Yoshino, Jimba, and

Wakai in investigating how community development programs can empower rural women in rural

Nepal, found that “homogeneity in group formation could be a crucial factor in the success of many

community‐based organizations, whereas heterogeneity could jeopardize the success of the

program” (Acharya, Yoshino, Jimba, & Wakai, 2007:44). The authors claim that this argument

expands to all community‐based projects, not only for drinking water supply. According to them, any

kind of heterogeneity in the management of community‐based organizations can pose risk to project

sustainability and exemplify this by a bitter experience of mixing married women and unmarried

women in projects. They also suggest that “if community development programs lack dynamism, but

merely provide financial support, program efforts may weaken disadvantaged people by increasing

their dependencies on programs rather [than] empowering them” (Acharya, Yoshino, Jimba, &

Wakai, 2007:45). Another study in 2007 which assesses the drinking water projects in rural Mali

suggests that “the projects have for the most part neglected the concept of social learning and the

perspectives and knowledge of local stakeholders” (Gleitsmann, Kroma & Tammo, 2007:149) and

concludes that three factors played a critical role in project unsustainability: (a) lack of commitment

to maintain, (b) use of inappropriate technology and (c) a failure of involving the main providers of

water (women and herders) in project management. On the latter they state: “women and herders,

the main providers of household water and water for livestock respectively, were not found to be

involved in the official management of pumps”, which consequently led to project failure

(Gleitsmann, Kroma & Tammo, 2007:149).

The 2008 studies mostly highlight the importance of institutional and technical factors for

project sustainability. Thus, a study in rural Mexico found that technical functionality is consistently

difficult to sustain, and careful consideration of user convenience (especially among women) during

the planning stage significantly affects project success (deWilde, Milman, Flores, Salmeron, & Ray,

2008). A study from Tanzania determined seven key factors were responsible for the long‐term

functionality of water supply systems: (i) management at the lowest appropriate level, (ii)

communities owning and managing their water schemes, (iii) availability of spare parts and know‐

how, (iv) full cost recovery for operation and maintenance of the scheme, (v) the protection of water

sources, (vi) balancing between technology, service level and the capacity of the beneficiaries, and

(vii) the recognition of women as key players and the inclusion of the poor (Gine & Perez‐Foguet,

2008:335‐39). Though the authors recognize that gender and participation of women is important

for project sustainability, they limit their analysis to the assertion that the “consideration of gender

and poverty should be a prerequisite linked to project sustainability” (Gine & Perez‐Foguet,

2008:340) and do not provide any further details on the latter. Meanwhile, Prokopy, Thorsten,

Bakalian, and Wakeman (2008) in evaluating drinking water projects in 99 villages in Peru found that

post‐construction support is very critical for project sustainability and suggested that “projects can

be made more efficient by building post‐construction support into system design, as systems will

operate more continuously, break downs for shorter time, and can be fixed without bringing in

outsiders” (Prokopy, Thorsten, Bakalian, & Wakeman, 2008:295). A study from Pakistan criticized the

community‐participation approach as often passive and tokenistic and found that “local level

capacity constrains and critical lack of facilitator knowledge” (Smith, 2008:364) within the

community do not make the participatory approach meaningful.

A study from Darfur in Iraq supported the primacy of technical sustainability by suggesting

that the choice of technology should not be on “the most economical and/or efficient solution, but

to the one that emerges as having the best relationship with the local, social and cultural

framework” (Esposto, 2009:262). Meanwhile, a case study from Sub‐Saharan Africa in an attempt to

identify key universal sustainability factors affecting functionality of rural water supply, suggests that

(i) effective community demand, (ii) local financing and cost recovery, and (iii) dynamic operation

and maintenance are equally crucial for project sustainability (Montgomery, Bartram, & Elimelech,

2009:1017). Meanwhile, Whittington et al. (2009) in a study of projects in Bolivia, Peru and Ghana

argue that project success depends on two most critical factors: (i) access to spare parts, and (ii)

community participation, and suggest that the post‐construction support has some positive

associations with project sustainability too. Furthermore, Prokopy (2009) concludes that community

participation in India leads to sustainable projects by arguing that “the benefits of participation were

highest in the regions where more people participated” (Prokopy, 2009:492). Prokopy also argues

that wealth (higher asset levels), higher literacy rate, smaller household and village size (as a

measure of social cohesion) are the determinants for community participation in rural India. The last

two 2009 studies further contribute to the controversy of community‐management and women’s

participation. A case from rural Swaziland argues that while close coordination with community

members is a decisive factor for project success and neither community contribution and

participation, nor women’s presence in the local water committee did not save the assessed projects

from failure (Busari, 2009). Meanwhile, a study from rural Bangladesh reveals that women’s

participation “does not necessarily address power issues between men and women, and among

different women” (Sultana, 2009:349). Sultana points out that community participation and

particularly women’s participation strategy is problematic due to gendered exclusions that pertain in

many communities: while women’s participation may be formalized in a project, women can be

socially excluded from participation, for example because of discouragement of speaking in public,

or a specific place. Thus, Sultana suggests considering ‘agency of heterogeneous nature’ and

‘importance of geographical locations’ in implementing the participatory approach (Sultana

2009:346), and concludes that “public space and decision‐making in participatory development

projects in many places also exclude women largely due to notions of appropriate feminine

behaviour” (Sultana 2009:350).

Conversely to Sultana’s findings, Aladuwaka and Momsen (2010) found for projects in Sri

Lanka, that were initiated and managed by local women were very successful. They point out that it

is due to effective women’s leadership, that women’s empowerment contributed to “getting

increased respect from men in the community” (Aladuwaka & Momsen, 2010:45) and strengthened

women’s agency to make the decisions on behalf of the community. Thus, they conclude among the

key factors that contributed to the sustainability of the project, the (i) women’s participation and

leadership, (ii) women’s agency, power and skills, (iii) women’s solidarity and employment

opportunities. They also suggest that sense of ownership, knowledge of the technology, as well as

support of male population to women’s leadership also contributed to the project success. Similarly,

Padawangi in a case study of Pakistan concludes that along with ‘community participation’ and

‘women’s active involvement’, factors such as ‘support of community‐management model by the

government’, ‘community ownership and appreciation of the project’, ‘public sector provides

continuous monitoring and guidance’ equally contributed to project sustainability (Padawangi, 2010:

117‐18). He says that “the project was effective in promoting local participation and ownership,

particularly by women’s groups, and is therefore likely to have sustainable operation and

maintenance” (Padawangi, 2010:104).

The remaining 2010 studies discuss a mix of technical, institutional and social factors

responsible for project success, however none of them argues for the special role of women in

project sustainability. Armanios (2010), on projects in rural Egypt, approached the question of

project sustainability through a holistic view and proposed that a new dimension of sustainability be

‘engineering sustainability’. He argues that a combination of factors that previously connected the

ideas of economic and environmental sustainability should comprise engineering sustainability,

implying to sustain “the skills and learning processes for the user community to self‐maintain the

water supply system once the system is constructed” (Armanios, 2010:46). Barnes and Ashbolt

(2010) in exploring the link between planning and implementation of water projects in Phillipines,

argued that to reduce early project failure, that project planning processes should be improved. In

an attempt to identify preconditions to project sustainability, they suggest that the consideration of

the following five pre‐conditions are important in the Filipino context: (i) strong community

involvement, (ii) project initiation by users, (iii) commitment by beneficiaries, (iv) genuine need for

water, (v) trust and transparency between community members and development workers.

Jiméneza and Pérez‐Foguetb (2010) in evaluating water governance in rural Tanzania, challenged the

community‐management model and suggested that the responsibility for management should be

redefined by strengthening the role of local government. They concluded:

… sustainability is threatened by the limitations of community management funds, the difficult relationship between water user entities and elected village representatives, the low professionalism in the management of services, and the very limited role that decentralized government plays with regard to monitoring, regulation, and technical support (Jiméneza and Pérez‐Foguetb (2010:243)

Furthermore, a study from Indonesia produced nine variables as significant to project

sustainability when (i) selection of technology, (ii) water sources, (iii) investment cost, (iv) capability

of operator, (v) availability of spare parts, (vi) operation cost, (vii) technical operation, (viii)

community participation, and (ix) institutional management are appropriately designed and

implemented (Masduqi, Endah, Soedjono, & Hadi, 2010). Massoud, Al‐Abady, Jurdi, and Nuwayhid

(2010) in assessing the challenges of sustainable drinking water supply in Lebanon argued that

contamination of the source, poor maintenance operations, and aging of the networks are

significant factors responsible for project failures. They suggest that the integration of quality of

water supply management and educational programs ensures safety and sustainability of water

supplies.

The most recent studies did not produce any new arguments with regard to women’s roles.

Thus, Madrial, Alpizar, and Schlute in a case study of Costa Rica found that ‘high sense of ownership’

and ‘desire to assume the costs necessary to run the system properly’ are linked to high project

performance (Madrial, Alpizar, & Schlute, 2011:1672). They highlight that women’s position in a

society is important and suggest that “permanent and accessible training programs that include

young people and women are [also] key elements” (Madrial, Alpizar, & Schlute, 2011:1673). They

say:

the human capital (expertise, education, leadership, participation by women) of the members of the water committees plays a key role because they are directly responsible for devising and enforcing the different rules that affect performance of the organization (Madrial, Alpizar, & Schlute, 2011:1670)

A study on Malawi revealed three factors critical for project success: (i) local identification of needs,

(ii) partnerships, and (iii) an exit strategy (Holm, 2012). Holm elaborates as the mentioned is critical:

[First,] identification of the need by the indigenous community providers ownership in the project. [Second,] a partnership between key individuals in the indigenous community with the donor provides for ambassadors on both sides of the project. [Finally,] an exit strategy by the donors for the indigenous communities ensures local sustainability for the future (Holm, 2012:808)

Finally, the latest study on sustainability of community‐managed water projects, in a case study in

Ghana suggests that the choice of a certain technology for drinking water supply is critical as a

sustainability strategy (Opare, 2012). He suggests rainwater harvesting technology is an example of

sustainable water supply solutions for its (i) ‘affordability’, (ii) ‘ease of operations’, (iii) ‘user

ownership’ and (iv) ‘user management’, and asserts that the incorporation of these four variables

into any type community‐managed water supply projects would ensure project success (Opare,

2012:702).

5.2 Survey Results

This section discusses the results of the online survey, administered in February 2014 among 52 the

members of the TajWSS network in Tajikistan. In presenting the results, I first provide an overview

on the demographic/background information on the participants (gender, age, years of experience,

etc.) by analyzing descriptive statistics. Then, I discuss the opinions of the survey participants on the

role of community participation and women’s participation in the projects in relation to project

sustainability. By doing so, I analyze descriptive statistics attempting to answer the research sub‐

question (2) ‐ Which forms and components of women’s participation are positively (or negatively)

associated with project sustainability?; and sub‐question (3) – Do practitioners on rural drinking

water supply believe that women’s participation positively contributes to project sustainability? For

the second part of the latter, I perform hypothesis testing (chi‐square) to test if gender of

respondents influenced their opinions. Finally, additional information from the survey analysis is

presented, that will prove useful for the synthesis of results in the discussion section (Chapter 6 –

Discussion and Conclusion).

5.2.1 General information on Survey Participants Overall, 49 out of 52 survey participants provided responses to the survey. Three responses have

been excluded from the analysis due to significant missing data. Thus, the responses presenting

opinions of 46 survey participants are presented in this section. The high response rate for the

survey (94%) eliminates the potential for coverage error and non‐response bias. Please see Table 15

with the summary statistics on the respondents’ background information.

The responses include 31 male (67%) and 15 female (33%) survey respondents (Table 16). The

age data shows that the majority of the survey participants are middle‐career and senior‐career

professionals (89%), with just 11% of respondents representing 0‐30 age group (Table 16).

Table 15. Survey results: general information on the survey participants

Statistics Gender Age

Professional occupation

Type of agency a respondent works for

Years of experience

Years of Int’l

experien ce

N Valid 46 44 46 46 46 46 Missing 0 2 0 0 0 0

Mean ‐ 3.05 ‐ ‐ 2.28 ‐ Minimum 1 1 1 1 1 0 Maximum 2 5 6 7 5 1

Note on Coding: 1=male 2=female

1=0‐30 2=31‐40 3=41‐50 4=51‐60 5=60+

1=project manager/team leader 2=engineer/technical 3=trainer/educator 4=monitoring/eval.

5=community mobilizer 6=other

1=international or local donor agency

2= international /local NGO 3=governmental agency

4= community‐based org. 5= education institution

6= consulting or research 7= private sector

0=other

1=0‐5 years 2=6‐10 years 3=11‐20 years 4=21‐30 years 5=30+ years

0=no 1=yes

Table 16. Survey results: gender and age of the survey participants

Gender Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

male 31 67.4 67.4 67.4

female 15 32.6 32.6 100.0

Total 46 100.0 100.0

Age Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

0‐30 5 10.9 11.4 11.4

31‐40 10 21.7 22.7 34.1

41‐50 13 28.3 29.5 63.6

51‐60 10 21.7 22.7 86.4

60+ 6 13.0 13.6 100.0

Total 44 95.7 100.0

Missing 9 2 4.3

Total 46 100.0

Figure 20 illustrates the distribution of the survey participants by the main age categories:

30% of respondents fall into the 41‐50 years category, while 22% in each fall into the age categories

of 31‐40 and 51‐60 years 13 .

13 The official retiring age in Tajikistan is 58 for women and 63 for men. Source World Bank (WB):

http://wbl.worldbank.org/data/exploreeconomies/tajikistan/2011?topic=getting‐a‐job

Figure 20. Survey results: age distribution of the survey participants

The frequencies on the professional occupation illustrate that the dominant group of

respondents occupy managerial positions (50%) and are responsible for the management of the

water related projects (Table 17). Meanwhile, the dominant group for the type of agency the

respondents worked for at the time of the survey represents international and local donor and

implementing agencies (52%) (Table 17).

Table 17. Survey results: professional occupation and type of agency the survey participants represent

Professional occupation Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

project manager/team leader 23 50.0 50.0 50.0 engineer/technical worker 6 13.0 13.0 63.0 trainer/educator 4 8.7 8.7 71.7 monitoring/evaluation 4 8.7 8.7 80.4 community mobilizer 1 2.2 2.2 82.6 other 8 17.4 17.4 100.0 Total 46 100.0 100.0

Type of agency a respondent works for

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

international or local donor agency

9 19.6 19.6 19.6

international or local NGO 15 32.6 32.6 52.2 governmental agency 9 19.6 19.6 71.7 community‐based organization

7 15.2 15.2 87.0

consulting or research institution

4 8.7 8.7 95.7

private sector 2 4.3 4.3 100.0 Total 46 100.0 100.0

The frequency distribution for years of experience in rural drinking water supply project

demonstrates that the population represents a group of highly experienced professionals in drinking

water supply. Thus 72% of respondents indicated having over five years of experience, while only

28% with less than five years (Table 18). Meanwhile, few respondents have indicated having any

international experience (20%) and a vast majority having experience with drinking water supply

projects exclusively at the local level (see Table 18).

Table 18. Survey results: years of experience of the survey participants

Years of experience

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

0‐5 years 13 28.3 28.3 28.3 6‐10 years 14 30.4 30.4 58.7 11‐20 years 14 30.4 30.4 89.1 21‐30 years 3 6.5 6.5 95.7 30+ years 2 4.3 4.3 100.0 Total 46 100.0 100.0

The same demographics for the survey participants were cross‐tabulated to see if any

variability exists across the gender of respondents (Table 19). The cross‐tabulation shows that

females tend to occupy positions within governmental type of agencies least likely than in any other

type of agencies, while male respondents dominate in all categories of the listed categories of

agencies. In addition, female respondents tend to have less years of professional experience, than

male respondents, which can be attributed to the historical fact of the water sector being dominated

in general by male survey respondents (Table 19). For more information on survey participants

please see Annex O – Crosstab of survey results: General Information on Survey Participants.

Years of International experience

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

No 37 80.4 80.4 80.4 Yes 9 19.6 19.6 100.0 Total 46 100.0 100.0

Table 19. Survey results: Cross‐tabulation of gender by type of agency and years of experience

Type of agency a respondent works for donor agency

local NGO

government al agency

community‐ based

organization

consulting or research institution

private sector

total

Gender male 8 9 8 3 2 1 31 female 1 6 1 4 2 1 15

Total 9 15 9 7 4 2 46

Years of experience (n)

Total0‐5 years 6‐10 years 11‐20 years 21‐30 years 30+ years

Gender male 6 9 11 3 2 31 female 7 5 3 0 0 15

Total 13 14 14 3 2 46

5.2.2 Project Sustainability and Community Participation

Community participation in drinking water supply projects has been unanimously agreed, by all

survey participants, as imperative for project sustainability. None of 46 survey respondents indicated

that community participation is unimportant for project sustainability: while 20% indicated that

community participation is ‘important’, 80% of the respondents agreed that community

participation is ‘very important’ for project success (Table 20).

Table 20. Survey results: community participation

Importance of community involvement for sustainable projects Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

very unimportant 0 0 0 0

unimportant 0 0 0 0

neutral 0 0 0 0

important 9 19.6 19.6 19.6 very important 37 80.4 80.4 100.0 Total 46 100.0 100.0

For nine predefined project sustainability factors, the respondents indicated three factors as

the most relevant for project success: (i) availability of community’s financial resources to maintain

projects (M=4.04), (ii) technical and institutional support of local authorities (M=4.22), and (iii)

training and knowledge of community members who maintain projects (M=4.15) (Table 22).

Community’s spare time, physical health, formal education, as well as post‐construction donor

support have been rated as ‘moderately relevant’ factors for project sustainability. Interestingly,

‘gender of community members’ who maintain projects was also found ‘moderately relevant’,

similar to the factor of ‘age of community members’ (Table 21).

Table 21. Survey results: relevance of potential factors of project sustainability

Factors

Mean N Std. Deviation

Technical and institutional support of local authorities 4.22 46 1.191 Training and knowledge of community members 4.15 46 1.414 Community's financial resources to maintain projects 4.04 46 1.173 Physical health of community members who maintain projects 3.70 46 1.245 Community's spare time to maintain projects 3.57 46 1.241 Post‐construction donor support and monitoring 3.30 46 1.590 Formal education of community's members 3.24 46 1.214 Gender of community members who maintain projects 2.93 46 1.373 Age of community's members who maintain projects 2.78 46 1.031 Note on coding: 1=least relevant, 2=less relevant, 3=moderately relevant, 4=relevant, 5=most relevant

To generate further analysis, the same nine predefined factors of project sustainability were

computed into ‘summated index’. In SPSS the summated index function allows one to compute

several variables into one new variable. For that, the means for the factors were summed into grand

point average scale (GPA) and a new variable label was added (GPAPRACT). By doing so, I am

interested if the respondents’ demographic/background information (gender, age, years of

experience, type of agencies the respondents work for) influenced the perception of the

respondents on the factors of sustainability, and if any strength of association can be identified. This

analysis demonstrates that the middle and senior career specialists of age 31‐50 gave higher GPA

score (M=3.74, M=3.62) to the listed factors of sustainability overall (Table 22b). Moreover, female

respondents graded the sustainability factors higher than male respondents (Table 22a). As for the

type of agencies the respondents represented, the first four categories of agencies (i.e. donor

agencies, local NGOs, governmental agencies and community‐based organizations) produced similar

GPA (M=3.40‐3.59) equivalent to ‘moderately relevant’ (Table 22d). Years of experience GPA

demonstrates an interesting case, with the mean tending to decrease with increasing years of

experience of the respondents (Table 22e). The latter allows assuming that the more experience the

respondents gained in implementing drinking water supply projects, the greater effort was taken to

assess the survey questions. In other words, respondents with more experience seem to be more

critical in considering the proposed project sustainability factors.

Table 22. Survey results: means report for GPA by gender, age, professional occupation and type of agency

a. Gender Mean N Std. Deviation

b. Age Mean N Std. Deviation

male 3.4982 31 .60510 0‐30 3.5333 5 .30832 female 3.6519 15 .48408 31‐40 3.7444 10 .27242 Total 3.5483 46 .56772 41‐50 3.6239 13 .51826

51‐60 3.4778 10 .52653 60+ 3.2037 6 1.12747 Total 3.5505 44 .57758

c. Professional occupation

Mean N Std. Deviation

project manager/team leader 3.5556 23 .60950 engineer/technical worker 3.1481 6 .63893 trainer/educator 3.6944 4 .24637 monitoring/evaluation 3.7778 4 .39545 community mobilizer 3.6667 1 . other 3.6250 8 .57563 Total 3.5483 46 .56772

d. Type of agency a respondent works for

Mean N Std. Deviation

international or local donor agency 3.4074 9 .60858 international or local NGO 3.5778 15 .61607 governmental agency 3.5679 9 .56230 community‐based organization 3.5873 7 .32530 consulting or research institution 3.9722 4 .46592 private sector 2.8889 2 .78567 Total 3.5483 46 .56772

e. Years of experience

Mean N Std. Deviation

0‐5 years 3.7521 13 .35762 6‐10 years 3.6825 14 .54582 11‐20 years 3.4365 14 .58057 21‐30 years 3.4074 3 .39021 30+ years 2.2778 2 .39284 Total 3.5483 46 .56772 Note on coding: 1=least relevant, 2=less relevant, 3=moderately relevant, 4=relevant, 5=most relevant

The ANOVA tables and effect size 14 statistics generated from the above data demonstrate

that the statistical difference is only between the means for ‘years of experience’ and summated

index on project sustainability factors 15 : F=4.255 and p< .05 (Table 23).

Table 23. Survey results: ANOVA for GPA by gender, age, professional occupation, type of agency ANOVA Table

Sum of Squares

df Mean Square

F Sig.

GPAPRACT * Gender

Between Groups (Combined) .239 1 .239 .736 .396 Within Groups 14.265 44 .324 Total 14.504 45

GPAPRACT * Age

Between Groups

(Combined) 1.222 4 .306 .908 4.69 Linearity .693 1 .693 2.061 1.59 Deviation from Linearity

.529 3 .176 .524 .668

Within Groups 13.122 39 .336 Total 14.345 43

GPAPRACT * Professional occupation

Between Groups

(Combined) 1.319 5 .264 .800 .556 Linearity .153 1 .153 .464 .500 Deviation from Linearity

1.166 4 .292 .884 .482

Within Groups 13.185 40 .330 Total 14.504 45

GPAPRACT * Type of agency a respondent works for

Between Groups

(Combined) 1.794 5 .359 1.129 .361 Linearity .038 1 .038 .119 .732 Deviation from Linearity

1.756 4 .439 1.382 .257

Within Groups 12.709 40 .318 Total 14.504 45

GPAPRACT * Years of experience

Between Groups

(Combined) 4.255 4 1.064 4.256 .006 Linearity 3.017 1 3.017 12.069 .001 Deviation from Linearity

1.239 3 .413 1.652 .192

Within Groups 10.248 41 .250 Total 14.504 45

Note on coding: 1=least relevant, 2=less relevant, 3=moderately relevant, 4=relevant, 5=most relevant

The results on eta or the effect size, that provides a measure of association between

variables, suggests that only one variable ‐ ‘years of experience’ with eta of .542 has a ‘substantial’

influence on respondents’ reported grand point average, while the rest of the variables demonstrate

‘typical’ strength of relationship 16 (Table 24).

14 Measures the strength of association between variables

15 Anova analysis says that the statistical difference of at least of one means exists

16 Eta: minimal relationship = .10, typical relationship = .243, substantial relationship = .371 (Source: Vaske, 2008: p.108)

Table 24. Survey results: effect size for GPA by gender, age, professional occupation, type of agency and years of experience

Measures of Association (eta)

R R Squared Eta Eta Squared

GPAPRACT * Gender .128 .016

GPAPRACT * Age ‐.220 .048 .292 .085

GPAPRACT * Professional occupation .103 .011 .302 .091

GPAPRACT * Type of agency a respondent works for .051 .003 .352 .124

GPAPRACT * Years of experience ‐.456 .208 .542 .293

As for the years of sustainable project operation, the majority of the respondents (44%)

agreed that projects should operate for the ‘entire designed lifetime’, so as to be considered

sustainable (Figure 21). Others opted for the option of indicating years of operation: 17% for 0‐10

years of operation, 22% for 11‐20 years of operation, and 11% for 21‐30 years of operation (Table

22e). The cross‐tabulation of the same variable across gender shows that while the frequency of

female respondents tend to be almost equally distributed among all response categories, the

majority of the male respondents voted for the ‘entire lifespan’ category (Table 25).

Figure 21. Survey results: respondents’ opinions on years of operation for sustainable projects

Table 25. Survey results: years of operation for sustainable projects

Years of operation for sustainable projects Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

0‐10 years 8 17.4 17.4 17.4

11‐20 years 10 21.7 21.7 39.1

21‐30 years 5 10.9 10.9 50.0

more than 30 years 3 6.5 6.5 56.5

for the entire lifespan 20 43.5 43.5 100.0

Total 46 100.0 100.0

5.2.3 Participatory Role of Women

Several survey questions have asked survey respondents, the practitioners of rural drinking water

supply projects in Tajikistan, to reveal the opinions on the perception of women’s role for project

sustainability and thus attempting to respond to research question (2) ‐ Which forms and

components of women’s participation are positively (or negatively) associated with project

sustainability? and to research question (3) – Do practitioners believe that women’s participation

positively contributes to project success?

First, to get a broader picture on the perceptions of survey participants on women’s

participation and project sustainability, survey questions were designed in such a way as to see if the

participatory role of women was seen in any way different from the participatory role of men in

drinking water supply projects (see Annex E – Survey tool). Thus, the survey participants were first

asked to measure the level of the importance of both male and female participation during and after

project implementation (construction) activities. The results show that in general both male and

female community participation during and after project implementation are perceived as important

for project sustainability, and were ranked quite similar (Table 26).

Gender * Years of operation for sustainable projects Crosstabulation Years of operation for sustainable projects Total

0‐10 years 11‐20 years 21‐30 years more than 30 years

for the entire lifespan

Gender male 5 6 2 1 17 31

female 3 4 3 2 3 15

Total 8 10 5 3 20 46

Table 26. Survey results: male and female participation for project sustainability (1)

Statistics_ Importance of participation of

males during the

construction

females during the

construction

males in operation and

maintenance

females operation and

maintenance

N Valid 46 46 46 46

Missing 0 0 0 0

Mean 4.80 4.54 4.78 4.76

Median 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Mode 5 5 5 5

Std. Deviation .453 .585 .417 .524

Variance .205 .343 .174 .275

Minimum 3 3 4 3

Maximum 5 5 5 5

Note on Coding: 1 = very unimportant, 2 = unimportant, 3 = neither important nor unimportant, 4 = important, 5 = very important

A closer look indicates that male participation scores a slightly higher importance rank than

female participation: with women’s participation means of 4.54 and 4.76 (‘important’ to ‘very

important’) during and after project implementation, and men’s participation with the respective

means of 4.80 and 4.78 (‘important’ to ‘very important’) (Table 26). The latter has confirmed the

pervious results on the importance of overall community’s participation for project success (see

section 5.2.2) and that the respondents do not assign any significant differentiation in the

participatory role of men or women in the projects. This has also been strengthened by the fact that

none of the respondents believed that participation of either men or women was ‘unimportant’ for

project success.

A closer comparative analysis on frequencies shows that male participation is generally placed

at a higher importance rank than female participation for each type of participatory activities (Table

27). While men’s participation during the project construction scored 83% of responses as ‘very

important’, women’s participation was only 59% (Table 27). Furthermore, female participation after

the project completion scored 80% and male participation slightly less of 78% of ‘very important’

(Table 27). Thus, this shows that while participation of men is perceived as more important during

project construction, the participation of women is seen as more valuable in the phase of project

operation and maintenance (post‐construction).

Table 27. Survey results: male and female participation for project sustainability (2)

Importance of male and female participation during the construction of the project Men Women Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

neutral 1 2.2 2 4.3 important 7 15.2 17 37.0 very important 38 82.6 27 58.7 Total 46 100.0 46 100.0

Importance of male and female participation in the project operation and maintenance, once a project is constructed

Men Women Frequency Percent Frequency Percent neutral 0 0 2 4.3

important 10 21.7 7 15.2 very important 36 78.3 37 80.4 Total 46 100.0 46 100.0

It is worth noting that although none of the respondents indicate that any (male or female)

participation is unimportant for project success, the presence of ‘neutral’ responses for women’s

participation from male survey respondents assumes that there is some sort of skepticism about the

effectiveness of women’s participation still exists (Table 28). To contribute further to the research

question (2), six pre‐defined types of project activities in which participation of women could be

beneficial were analyzed (Table 28). As can be seen from the Table 28, community mobilization for

construction (M=4.46), organization of education and awareness campaigns (M=4.13) and collection

of fees for repair (M=4.20) have scored higher mean values than other types of community activities.

Table 28. Survey results: women’s participation for project sustainability

Statistics planning

and design community mobilization

for construction

education and

awareness campaigns

Collection of fees for

maintenance and repair

organizatio n of repairs

regular monitoring and data collection

N Valid 46 46 46 46 46 46 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 4.04 4.46 4.13 4.20 3.98 3.96 Std. Deviation .729 .622 .957 .749 .802 .893 Variance .531 .387 .916 .561 .644 .798 Note on Coding: 1 = very unimportant, 2 = unimportant, 3 = neither important nor unimportant, 4 = important, 5 = very important

The comparison of the means for these project activities both for male and female

participation shows that women’s participation in two post‐project activities, i.e. ‘education and

awareness campaigns before and during construction’ (M=4.13) and ‘collection of fees of project

maintenance and repair’ (M=4.20) have been found as more important for project sustainability,

compared to similar for male participation, i.e. M=4.00 and M=4.15 respectively (Table 29). As for

the rest of the activities, the participation of men is considered as slightly more important than

participation of women.

Table 29. Survey results: male and female participation for project sustainability (3)

Type of project activity Male participation (mean)

Female participation (mean)

Planning and design 4.41 4.04 Community mobilization for construction 4.63 4.46 Education and awareness campaigns before and during construction 4.00 4.13 Collection of fees for maintenance and repair 4.15 4.20 Organization of repairs or mobilization of community members for repair 4.37 3.98 Regular monitoring and data collection 3.78 3.96 Note on Coding: 1 = very unimportant, 2 = unimportant, 3 = neither important nor unimportant, 4 = important, 5 = very important

Hypothesis testing

To respond to the second part of the research sub‐question 3 (Do practitioners believe that women’s

participation positively contributes to project sustainability?), the chi‐square analysis was performed

through cross‐tabulation. That the hypothesis to the research sub‐question has been restated into a

statistical form:

H0: Respondents do not believe that women’s participation is important for project

sustainability and their opinions are not influenced by respondents’ gender

H1: Respondents believe that women’s participation is important for project

sustainability and their opinions vary across gender

First, the responses to two survey sub‐questions (3.3b 17 and 3.4b

18 ) were used to test the

hypothesis. For that, the five‐level response categories for both questions were recoded into

dichotomous response categories (0=neutral/unimportant and 1=important or very important). The

frequency statistics from the cross‐tabulation on the dependent variable (importance of women

participation) and independent variable (gender) are presented in Table 30.

Table 30. Survey results: hypothesis testing for RQ3_ frequencies (1)

Crosstab_importance of women’s participation by gender Gender Total

male female

Q3.3b: Importance of participation of female community members during the construction of the project for project sustainability

neutral/ unimportant

Count 2 0 2

% within Gender 6.5% 0.0% 4.3%

Important/ very important

Count 29 15 44

% within Gender 93.5% 100.0% 95.7%

Total Count 31 15 46 % within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Q. 3.4b: Importance of participation of female community members in the project operation and maintenance, once the project is constructed

neutral/unimporta nt

Count 2 0 2

% within Gender 6.5% 0.0% 4.3%

important Count 29 15 44

% within Gender 93.5% 100.0% 95.7%

Total Count 31 15 46 % within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

For both of the survey questions, 95.7% of respondents (n=44) believed that women’s

participation is important for project sustainability, while the remaining 4.3% of the respondents

(n=2) reported women’s participation as neutral/unimportant for project sustainability. To test if the

responses of the male and female respondents were influenced by gender, the chi‐square statistics

is presented in Table 31. The high probability level of .314 (p>.05) associated with Pearson X 2 (1.012)

indicates that it is unlikely that two variables are dependent on the population, implying that there is

no statistical relationship between the gender of respondents and the perception of the

17 For a project to be sustainable how important is participation community members (female) in activities

during the construction of the project? 18 For a project to be sustainable, how important is the participation of community members (female) in the

project operation and maintenance, once the project is constructed?

respondents on importance of women’s participation for project sustainability during and after

project implementation (Table 31). The Likelihood Ratio (LR) confirms the latter with the high

probability value of p>.05. Thus, I report a fail‐to‐reject the null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no

statistical difference between the perception of male and female respondents on the importance of

women’s participation for project sustainability.

Table 31. Survey results: Hypothesis testing for RQ3 _ chi‐square (1)

Chi‐Square Tests Q 3.3b Value df Asymp. Sig. (2‐sided)

Pearson Chi‐Square 1.012 a

1 .314 Continuity Correction

b .055 1 .814

Likelihood Ratio 1.622 1 .203 Fisher's Exact Test

Linear‐by‐Linear Association .990 1 .320

N of Valid Cases 46

Q 3.4b Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2‐sided)

Pearson Chi‐Square 1.012 a

1 .314 Continuity Correction

b .055 1 .814

Likelihood Ratio 1.622 1 .203

Fisher's Exact Test

Linear‐by‐Linear Association .990 1 .320

N of Valid Cases 46 a. 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .65. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

For triangulation purposes the same hypotheses has been tested on the additional survey sub‐

questions (statements 5.4 19 and 5.5

20 ). The Table 32 shows case frequencies, indicting the

percentage of disagreement with each statement by gender. The chi‐square analysis on the data

shown in the Table 32, provides the same results: the high probability level (p>.05) associated with

Pearson X 2 (3.277 and 1.553) indicates that it is unlikely that two variables are dependent on the

19 Participation of women during the project construction does not contribute to the project success and

sustainability 20 Participation of women in the project operation and maintenance (post‐construction phase) does not

contribute to the project success and sustainability

population, thus it is confirmed that the respondents were consistent on their responses and the

Null Hypothesis is fail‐to‐reject (see Table 33).

Table 32. Survey results: hypothesis testing for RQ3_ frequencies (2)

Crosstab Gender Total

male female

Q.5.4 Participation of women during the project construction does not contribute to the project sustainability

disagree Count 28 12 40 % within Gender 96.6% 80.0% 90.9%

agree Count 1 3 4

% within Gender 3.4% 20.0% 9.1%

Total Count 29

15 44 % within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Gender

Totalmale female

Q.5.5 Participation of women in the project operation and maintenance does not contribute to the project sustainability

disagree Count 28 15 43 % within Gender 90.3% 100.0% 93.5%

agree Count 3 0 3

% within Gender 9.7% 0.0% 6.5%

Total Count 31

15 46 % within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 33. Survey results: Hypothesis testing for RQ3 _ chi‐square (2)

Chi‐Square Tests Q.5.4 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2‐sided)

Pearson Chi‐Square 3.277 a

1 .070 Continuity Correction

b 1.580 1 .209

Likelihood Ratio 3.096 1 .078 Fisher's Exact Test Linear‐by‐Linear Association 3.203 1 .074 N of Valid Cases 44 a. 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.36. b. Computed only for 2x2 table

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2‐sided)

Pearson Chi‐Square 1.553 a

1 .213 Continuity Correction

b .371 1 .542

Likelihood Ratio 2.468 1 .116 Fisher's Exact Test Linear‐by‐Linear Association 1.519 1 .218 N of Valid Cases 46 a. 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .98. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

These findings also compliment the findings to Research Question 2 (Which forms of women’s

participation are positively associated with project sustainability?). Data presented in Table 32

demonstrates that 90.9% of respondents disagree that ‘participation of women during the project

construction does not contribute to the project success’, while 93.5% disagree that ‘participation of

women in the project operation and maintenance does not contribute to the project success’. This

confirms the previous finding that the form of women’s participation related to post‐project

construction activities (project maintenance) is seen as more valuable than women’s participation in

before and during construction.

5.2.4 Additional analysis Additional analysis has been explored to reveal the opinions of practitioners on the specific country‐

context statements on women’s participation and the importance of various attributes of men and

women in relation to project sustainability. Thus, results show that most of the male and female

attributes are assigned at a generally same level, except for ‘religion’ attribute, which resulted in the

least means both for male and female respondents (equivalent to ‘unimportant’) (Table 34).

Table 34. Survey results: attributes of male and female participants

Attribute Men (mean) Female (mean)

Age 3.41 .350 Marital status 3.09 3.28 Physical health 3.65 3.72 Religion 2.83 2.63 Employment status 3.13 3.13 Reputation/ trust of community

4.41 4.43

Knowledge/skills 4.39 4.39 Note on Coding: 1 = very unimportant, 2 = unimportant, 3 = neither important nor unimportant, 4 = important, 5 = very important

Two attributes, ‘reputation’ and ‘knowledge and skills’ of both male and female community

members who manage projects, stand out from the rest and are believed to have a greater

relevance to project success (M=4.41 and 4.43; M=4.39 and 4.39).

Meanwhile, the opinions of practitioners on the surveyed country‐specific statements

demonstrate some variation. The statistics on the means for the seven statements show that

respondents tend to disagree more with the assumption that ‘women in Tajikistan have equal rights

to participate’ (st.dev = .482), ‘women are given more opportunities to participate’ (st.dev = .505),

‘women are capable of implementing role of project operation’ (st.dev = .387), that ‘women’s

participation in project is symbolic’ (st dev = .315) (Table 35). Furthermore, the opinions of male and

female respondents to the country‐specific statements in general seem to follow the same trend of

peaks and downs (in percentages) with no significant differences between male and female

responses (Figure 22).

Table 35. Survey results: agreements to the country‐specific statements

Statement N Mean response

Std. Deviation

5.1 Women in Tajikistan presently have equal rights (to men) to participate in the implementation and maintenance of projects

46 .65 .482

5.2 It is important for the sustainability of the project that women have equal rights (to men) to participate in projects

46 .95 .206

5.3 Women are given more opportunities (by donors, implementing agencies and/or local authorities) to participate in projects

46 .48 .505

5.4 Participation of women during the project construction does not contribute to the project sustainability

44 .09 .291

5.5 Participation of women in the project operation and maintenance does not contribute to the project sustainability

46 .07 .250

5.6 Women are capable of implementing the role of project operation and maintenance effectively

45 .82 .387

5.7 Women's participation in projects is symbolic and have no positive effects on project success and sustainability

46 .11 .315

Note on coding: 1=agree, 0=disagree

Meanwhile, while most of the male (97%) and female (93%) respondents agree that it is

important for the sustainability of the project that ‘women have equal rights to men to participate’

(Q.5.2), 32% of male and 40% of female responses indicated that ‘women in Tajikistan presently do

not have equal rights to men to participate’ (Q.5.1). Meanwhile, 52% of male and 40% of female

respondents believe that ‘women are given more opportunities by donors and implementing

agencies to participate’ (Q.5.3) (Table 36).

Figure 22. Survey results: agreements/disagreements to statements by gender (1) Table 36. Survey results: frequencies of agreements/disagreements with country‐context statements

Statements Gender Total male female

5.1 Women in Tajikistan presently have equal rights (to men) to participate in the implementation and maintenance of projects

disagree 10

32.3% 6

40.0% 16

43.8%

agree 21

67.7% 9

60.0% 30

65.2%

5.2 It is important for the sustainability of the project that women have equal rights (to men) to participate in projects

disagree 1

3.2% 1

6.7% 2

4.3%

agree 30

96.8% 14

93.3% 44

95.7%

5.3 Women are given more opportunities (by donors, implementing agencies and/or local authorities) to participate in projects

disagree 15

48.4% 9

60.0% 24

52.2%

agree 16

51.6% 6

40.0% 22

47.8%

5.4 Participation of women during the project construction does not contribute to the project sustainability

disagree 28

96.6% 12

80.0% 40

90.9%

agree 1

3.4% 3

20.0% 4

9.1%

5.5 Participation of women in the project operation and maintenance does not contribute to the project sustainability

disagree 28

90.3% 15

100.0% 43

93.5%

agree 3

9.7% 0

0.0% 3

6.5%

5.6 Women are capable of implementing the role of project operation and maintenance effectively

disagree 6

20.0% 2

13.3% 8

17.8%

agree 24

80.0% 13

86.7% 37

82.2%

5.7 Women's participation in projects is symbolic and have no positive effects on project success and sustainability

disagree 26

83.9% 15

100.0% 41

89.1%

agree 5

16.1% 0

0.0% 5

10.9%

100

d ia g re e

a g re e

d ia g re e

a g re e

d ia g re e

a g re e

d ia g re e

a g re e

d ia g re e

a g re e

d ia g re e

a g re e

d ia g re e

a g re e

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7

P e rc e n ta g e

Statements

men

women

Furthermore, 16% of male respondents believe that ‘participation of women is symbolic’

and has no positive impact on project success (Q.5.7), while 20% of male respondents disagree that

‘women are capable of implementing the role of project operation and maintenance effectively’

(Q.5.6). Interestingly, 13% of female responses also disagreed with the latter statement, which

suggests that there is some sort of disagreement exists among female respondents too. Even more

surprising is 20% of female respondents agreeing with the statement that the ‘participation of

women during project construction does not contribute to project success’ (Q.5.4), while only 3% of

men agreed to the same statement (Table 36). This eliminated the assumption that female

responses could be biased towards the supporting a greater role of women for project sustainability,

and some sort of skepticism or disagreement does exist among women too. Please see Figure 23 for

the overall distribution of responses among male and female survey participants and Annex P for

more information on country‐specific statements.

Figure 23. Survey results: agreements/disagreements to statements by gender (2)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

diagree

5 .1

5 .2

5 .3

5 .4

5 .5

5 .6

5 .7

Percentage

S ta te m e n ts

women

men

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This section integrates the findings of the meta‐analysis of the studies on drinking water supply

project sustainability in developing countries with the results of the online survey among the group

of drinking water practitioners in the case study country of Tajikistan. In constructing the discussion,

I first provide a synthesis of the findings to answer the research sub‐question (2) ‐ Which forms and

components of women’s participation are positively (or negatively) associated with project

sustainability? Then, the results of the online survey are discussed in greater detail to answer the

research sub‐question (3) Do practitioners believe that women’s participation positively contributes

to project sustainability? Finally, the research sub‐question (1) What can be generalized on the

impact of women’s participation to the project success? and the key research question ‐ Does

women’s participation in donor‐funded drinking water supply projects in developing countries

contribute to project sustainability?, are discussed linking to the established theory and literature

review discussed earlier. The limitations of the research findings and a critical reflection on the

methodology employed are also discussed. The last section of this chapter summarizes the key

conclusions of this study and puts forward a set of practical recommendations for the realization of

sustainable water supply projects in developing countries.

6.1 Forms of women’s participation for project sustainability

The components of women’s participation that have been argued across different studies on the

sustainability of drinking water supply projects in developing countries are numerous and diverse. It

has been found through the meta‐analysis of 39 studies, that 15 studies (39%) discuss women’s

participation as linked to project success. Those studies prevailingly argued for two types of

women’s participation as critical for project sustainability. Namely, (a) participation of women in

decision‐making activities at the stage of project planning and design (n=10 or 26%), and (b)

women’s participation in management of constructed systems, that includes decision‐making

activities at the stage of project maintenance, such as collection of fees for repairs (n=6 or 15%). The

results of the online survey with the practitioners on rural drinking water supply projects from the

case study country indicated that women’s participation is considered more valuable compared to

men’s participation in two types of project activities: (a) education and awareness campaigns before

and during construction (M=1.13), and (b) collection of fees for project maintenance and repair

(M=1.20) (see p. 84, Section 5.2. Survey Results)

The findings of the meta‐analysis and the online survey support each other. While the online

survey findings are more specific with regard to type of participation (i.e. collection of fees and

education and awareness campaigns), the results on the meta‐analysis point out to the same types

of women’s participation, but in broader terms (i.e. participation in planning and design, and

management/collection of fees). Findings suggest that participation of women in both stages of

project implementation, i.e. before and after project construction is valuable and can contribute to

project success. Namely, involving women in decision‐making activities at the stage of project

planning and design, particularly by using their potential for community education and awareness

campaigns, can contribute to sustainable projects. Next, involving women in the decision‐making

activities after the completion of the project, such as collection of fees for the project maintenance

and repair is also important for project success.

It is important to mention, that the findings of the online survey and the meta‐analysis did

not indicate that women’s participation could be counterproductive for the success of such projects.

Thus, the participants of the survey did not believe that the participation of women was

unimportant for project success. Similarly, the studies of the meta‐analysis that assessed women’s

participation and project sustainability did not discuss women’s participation as an inherently

negative strategy. However, it is worth mentioning that the meta‐analysis results support some

criticism that women’s participation in sustainable drinking water supply projects is a contested

issue, and thus several studies 21 discuss pitfalls which might occur when women’s participation is

ineffective, problematic and nominal. If women’s participation is not taken seriously or when

21 N=6 or 40% out of 15 that discuss women’s participation as a strategy for project success

women lack agency and power within a community (O'Reilly, 2004), women’s participation can be

nominal and token (Prokopy, 2004; Singh, 2006) and even problematic for the successful

implementation of drinking water projects (Sultana, 2009). Nevertheless, this criticism does not

contradict the general belief that participation of all community stakeholders, including women is

essential for successful implementation of drinking water projects.

6.2 Perceptions of women’s participation

The opinions of the practitioners on rural drinking water supply projects from the case study country

indicate that women’s participation is unanimously seen as positively contributing to project

sustainability. Thus, overall 96% (n=46) of the survey participants perceived women’s participation

as important for project success both at the stage of project planning and implementation and

project operation and maintenance, whereas insignificant 4.3% (n=2) of the respondents took a

neutral stand on this (see also p. 83, Section 5.2. Survey Results). Neutral opinions on women’s

participation were expressed only by male respondents. However, gender of the respondents was

not found to be a significant predictor on the perception of respondents on ‘important role of

women’s participation to project success’. Thus both male and female participants of the survey did

not differ statistically in their views on the positive role of women’s involvement.

Respondents perceived that the attributes of women as the participants of projects do not

differ from the attributes of male community members with regard to project sustainability. Thus,

(a) reputation and trust of community, as well as (b) knowledge and skills to manage projects were

found to be the most critical qualities for both male and female community members involved in the

implementation of drinking water supply projects.

6.3 Women’s participation and project sustainability

Participation of female community members is perceived by the practitioners on rural drinking

water supply projects positively and viewed as one of the potential contributive elements for

successful projects. Stakeholders welcome women’s involvement, as they do men’s involvement.

Women’s participation are found to be particularly valuable in some specific project areas (i.e.

community awareness, collection of fees). However, women’s participation is not seen by

stakeholders, involved in implementation, as a miracle formula for successful projects. Indeed,

participation of both male and female community members is viewed as a prerequisite for

community‐managed projects and should be an imperative foundation for such projects. The

success of the projects depends more on the personal qualities of both men and women, rather

then on their gendered distinction. This conclusion is supported by the arguments made in studies

on the importance of coherent community participation, when both men and women are involved

actively in project implementation (Admassu, Kumie, & Fantahun, 2003; Doe & Khan, 2004; FonJong,

Nebasina, & Fonchingong, 2004; Prokopy, 2005; Garande & Dagg, 2005; Hoko & Hertle, 2006; Smith,

2008; Whittington, et al., 2009).

Why then has women’s participation come into the discourse in the first place as a success

strategy for sustainable water projects? The fact that women and girls in poor rural community

settings of developing countries carry a special role of ‘water‐fetchers’ cannot be ignored. Here,

feminist theory comes into place, arguing that women historically were found to be closer to nature

and water resources, and thus women’s family traditions and customs are strongly connected to the

importance of having access to fresh water. Furthermore, the feminist scholarship potentially

contributed to the promotion of women’s rights in relation to access and control of water in 1990s

(Rocheleau, Thomas‐Slayter, and Wangari, 1996). Whether it is sufficient to say that women are

more capable than men for the role of water providers, or that women are the only responsible

party for the sustainability of water projects is subject to debate. The fact that women’s

participation has been contested since the beginning of 2000s supports the argument that women’s

participation should not be viewed as a panacea for solving sustainability problems of community‐

managed drinking water projects.

What successful water projects share is equal and effective participation of men and women

in all stages of project implementation: during the project planning and construction and at the

100

stage of project maintenance. Furthermore, women and men should not be viewed as two separate

groups within a community. Heterogeneity within a community does exist due to various

differentiations based on social, economic and cultural aspects. As similarly argued in the earlier

studies by Acharya, Yoshino, Jimba, and Wakai (2007), Singh (2006), and Sultana (2009), the

heterogeneity within women’s groups is closely linked to aspects of agency or capacity to act. The

theoretical discourse of ‘power’ and ‘agency’ suggests that men and women with sufficient power to

act (and manage drinking water projects) are capable of performing (the role of water providers)

effectively. Indeed, as argued by Cleaver (2012) and Ahmed and Zwarteveen (2012), we should move

beyond the simple mapping of gendered responsibilities in water governance, and build on the

concept of ‘agency’ that helps to understand capacity or power relations within communities.

Furthermore, as has been argued by Franks and Cleaver (2007), the framework of water governance

is built on the concept of agency, where available resources and mechanisms managed by different

actors shape the processes of water management and in turn produce gendered outcomes. In other

words, the effective management of water resources should not be focused on ‘gendered’

phenomenons, where either men or women are seen as the only capable of effectively managing

water resources, but the resources of power and agency within communities should be seen as a

key to project success.

Community‐participation has established strong roots as an effective strategy for the

implementation of community‐managed drinking water projects. Indeed, implementation of

community‐managed projects without participation of community members sounds illogical, thus

the strategy has established strong evidence in the literature. However, attempts to decouple

community participation into the participation of either men or women and view it as a gendered

phenomenon, can be argued as a reductionist approach, limited to account for complexities of

human agency.

Meanwhile, despite the overall argument of this research that both male and female

representatives of local communities, who have sufficient and adequate power and agency to

101

manage drinking water supply projects, should be effectively involved, several specific forms of

community participation still deserve gendered consideration. As the results suggest, several

decision‐making project activities, such as (a) organization of community awareness campaigns and

(b) collection of fees for project repair and maintenance can be found as more effectively

implemented when women’s involvement is dominant, thus producing more valuable and

productive results. These findings are consistent with several prior studies suggesting that the

involvement of women in decision‐making activities during project construction and maintenance is

crucial for project success, especially within the communities where male traditionally dominate in

decision‐making (e.g. James et al., 2002, Admassu, Kumie, and Fantahun, 2003, O'Reilly, 2004,

Gleitsmann, Kroma, and Tammo, 2007, Aladuwaka and Momsen, 2010). Furthermore, issues such as

corruption, unemployment, alcoholism are more common among the male population of many rural

areas in developing countries, including Tajikistan. This explains this finding of believing why women

should be more involved in managing monetary resources for project maintenance, thus leading to

more productive results and producing greater potential for project sustainability. Certainly, this

cannot be claimed to happen equally in rural communities of developing countries, and thus the

societal and cultural complexities have to be taken into account. However, the need to involve more

women in decision‐making cannot be ignored due to the historical fact of discrimination of women

and exclusion from decision‐making in many poor rural areas of developing countries.

6.4 Limitations and future research

This research project has included a comprehensive meta‐analysis of global literature on the

sustainability of drinking water projects, and a survey of views of the practitioners involved in rural

drinking water projects in the case study country. This research contributes to the building of novel

theories on project sustainability in the rural drinking water sector, and is the first research at such

that attempts to conduct a review of all studies assessing sustainability of rural drinking water

102

projects. However, the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research need to be

considered:

(i) The available studies on the sustainability of rural drinking water projects in developing

countries are limited in number, and those predominantly employ only qualitative research

methods. Thus, this meta‐analysis is limited to 39 studies and is based primarily on the consideration

of qualitative findings, which makes a quantitative meta‐analysis on this topic infeasible. This

suggests that more studies on the sustainability of drinking water projects should be conducted in

the future, so as to produce quantitative research evidence. Furthermore, the selection method for

identification of potential studies was mainly focused on publications available in press in English

language, thus, the possibility of similar studies available in other languages cannot be excluded.

This partially may explain the fact of no identified studies in developing countries of post‐Soviet

space (though some attempts have been made). Meanwhile, an assumption should be admitted that

the studies on this topic are least researched or least published for post‐Soviet countries, which is

potentially due to unpopularity of community‐management model in rural water governance.

(ii) The opinions of the practitioners on rural drinking water supply projects are limited only

to a small group of people (46 survey respondents) and one case study country (Tajikistan) due to

practical considerations of this research (availability of time and money). Thus, the opinions of the

practitioners involved in rural drinking water supply in other developing countries will contribute to

the discussion with novel arguments, and thus it suggests that further attempts must be made to

collect such information. Furthermore, while the presented results of the survey represent just a

snapshot from the case study country, it does not present universal opinions and thus further

research is necessary.

(iii) Finally, longitudinal field studies that would attempt to investigate in‐depth impacts of

women’s and men’s participation as heterogeneous groups of communities, evaluating power

relations within communities and aspects of agency, will provide a more comprehensive analysis and

deeper insights to the discussion in the domain of sustainable drinking water supply projects.

103

6.5 Conclusions and Recommendations

This study has attempted to answer the key research question ‐ Does women’s participation in

donor‐funded drinking water supply projects in developing countries contribute to project

sustainability? While, the findings of this study provide evidence that the response to the key

research question is positive and participation of women in drinking water projects does contribute

to project success, they also suggest that the involvement of both male and female members of

community is imperative for the implementation of community‐managed projects.

This study concludes that the considerations of community involvement should not be based

on the ‘reductionist’ approach, limiting understanding of project sustainability problem only to

gendered phenomenon, but instead both women and men should be provided equal opportunities,

resources and mechanisms to participate in such projects. Furthermore, it concludes that neither

women nor men should be viewed as homogeneous groups, and thus social, economic and cultural

heterogeneity and the differentiations in exercising power and agency within a community should

be taken into consideration.

Furthermore, this study suggests that while the involvement of community members should

not be exclusive only to male or female community members, there are certain types of project

activities, where involvement of men or women respectively is seen as more valuable. In particular,

involvement of women during and after project implementation is seen as more effective at the

stages of (i) organization of community awareness campaigns and (ii) collection of fees for repair and

maintenance.

Based on the findings of this study and the conclusions reached, the following three practical

recommendations are suggested for the consideration to stakeholders involved in the

implementation of community‐managed projects in developing countries. First, community

participation is imperative and active involvement of local community members in all stages of

project implementation (planning, construction and maintenance) should be viewed as a

104

prerequisite for successful implementation of community‐managed rural drinking water supply

projects. Second, opportunities for participation in project activities should be provided equally to

both men and women, however involvement of those members of local communities who exercise

sufficient agency or power to act in managing drinking water projects can prove to contribute more

significantly to project sustainability. Finally, specific project activities, such as collection of fees and

community awareness campaigns, can be more performed more productively with the involvement

of female community members. Community members should be provided with greater and more

prolonged training opportunities to increase their potential for community‐management in rural

water supply. Thus, for example, while women could improve their skills on financial management

for system maintenance, male community members could continuously improve their skills for

system repair. This can be organized through the establishment of community training centers,

which could provide training and certification services on a long‐term basis.

105

Bibliography

Abrams, L. (1996). Understanding sustainability of local water services. Retrieved November 18, 2013, from www.thewaterpage.com/sustainability.htm

Acharya, S., Yoshino, E., Jimba, M., & Wakai, S. (2007). Empowering rural women through a community development approach in Nepal. Community and Development Journal, 42 (1), 43‐46.

ADB (2006). Tajikistan Country Gender Assessment. Asian Development Bank (ADB), East and Central Asia Regional Department and Regional and Sustainable Development Department. Dushanbe: Printed in Philippines.

Admassu, M., Kumie, A., & Fantahun, M. (2003). Sustainability of drinking water supply projects in rural of North Gondar, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Health Development, 17 (3), 221‐229.

Ahmed, S. (2005). Why is gender equity is concern for water management? In S. Ahmed, Flowing Upstream. Empowering Women through Water Management Initiatives in India (pp. 1‐50). Ahmedabad: Center for Environment Education.

Ahmed, S., & Zwarteveen, M. (2012). Gender and water in South Asia. Revisiting perspectives, policies and practice. In S. A. Margreet Zwarteveen, Diverting the Flow: Gender Equity and Water in South Asia (pp. 3‐30). New Delhi, India: Zubaan.

Aladuwaka, S., & Momsen, J. (2010). Sustainable development, water resources management and women's empowerment: the Wanaraniya water project in Sri Lanka. Gender and Development , 18 (1), 43‐58.

Allen, A., Julio, D., & Hofmann, P. (2006). The peri‐urban water poor: citizens or consumers? Environment and Urbanization, 18 (2), 333‐351.

Antrobus, P. (2006). Gender quality in the new millennium: Goal or gimmil. Caribbean Quarterly , 52 (2/3), 39‐50.

Armanios, D. E. (2010). Sustainable development as a community of practice: insights from rural water projects in Egyps. Sustainable Development, 20, 42‐57.

Arya, S. L. (2007). Women and watershed development in India: issues and strategies. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 14, 199‐230.

Babbie, E. (2013). The Practice of Social Research. 13th ed. Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Belmont, CA Wadsworth CENGAGE Learning.

Bamberger, M. &. (1990). Case Studies of the Project Sustainability: Implications for Policy and Operations from Asian Experience. Washington, DC: Economic Development Institute for the World Bank.

Barnes, R. R. (2009). Planning for Sustainable Water and Sanitation Projects in Rural, Developing Countries. A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at University of New South Wales (UNSW).

Barnes, R., & Ashbolt, N. (2010). Development of a planning framework for sustainable rural water supply and sanitation. A case study of a Filipino NGO. International Studies of Management and Organization, 40 (3), 78‐98.

Belmont. (1979, April 18). The Belmont Report. Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Retrieved November 19, 2012, from US Department of Health and Human Services: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/belmont.html

Bhandari, B. S., Grant, M., & Pokharel, D. (2005). Sustainable community water: Managing supply systems in the mid‐hills of Nepal. Water Policy, 7 (2), 201‐214.

Binder, D. (2008). Sustainability of Water Service Delivery in Rural Environment: Past Approaches and The Way Forward., s.I.: s.n.

Brikke, F., & Bredero, M. (2003). Linking Technology Choice with Operation and Maintenance in the Context of Community Water Supply and Sanitation. Geneva: World Health Organization and IRC Water and Sanitation Center.

Briscoe, J., & de Ferranti, D. (1988). Water for Rural communities: Helping People Help Themselves. Washington, DC.: The World Bank.

106

Brundland (1987). Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. United Nations General Assembly. New York: UN.

Bukhoriev, J. (2010). Water Supply and Sanitation in Tajikistan. Dushanbe, Tajikistan: Oxfam. Busari, O. (2009). Water, sanitation and sustainability: Lessons from a community project.

Environment, Development and Sustainability, 11, 71‐83. Carius, A., Feil, M., & Tänzler , D. (2003). Addressing Environmental Risks in Central Asia Risks.

Published by UNDP/Regional Bureau for Europe and the CIS. Berlin, Germany. Carter, R. C., Tyrrel, S. F., & Howsam, P. (1999). Impact and sustainability of community water supply

and sanitation programmes in developing countries. Journal of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, 13, 292‐296.

CAWater. (2012). CAWATERinfo. Retrieved June 24, 2012, from http://www.cawater‐ info.net/aral/water_e.htm

Cleaver, F. (1999). Paradoxes of participation. Questioning participatory approaches to development. Journal of International Development , 11 (4), 597‐612.

Cleaver, F. (2012). Understanding gendered agency in water governance. In S. A. Margreet Zwarteveen, Diverting the Flow. Gender Equity and Water in South Asia. Dhaka, India: Zubaan.

Cleaver, F., & Toner, A. (2006). The evolution of community water governance in Uchira, Tanzania: the implications for equity of access, sustainability and effectiveness. Natural Resources Forum , 30, 207‐218.

Coles, A., & Wallace, T. (2005). Water, gender and development: An introduction. In A. C. Wallace, Gender, Water and Development (pp. 1‐20). Oxford and New York: Berg Publishers.

Crow, B., & Sultana, F. (2002). Gender, class and access to water: Three cases in a poor and crowded delta. Society and Natural Resources, 15 (8), 709‐24.

Datta, S. K., & Vigro, K. J. (1998). Towards sustainable watershed development through people's participation: lessons from the lesser Himalaya, Uttar Pradesh, India. Mountain Research and Development , 18 (3), 213‐233.

deWilde, C. K., Milman, A., Flores, Y., Salmeron, J., & Ray, I. (2008). An integrated method for evaluating community‐based safe water programmes and an application in rural Mexico. Health Policy and Planning, 23, 452‐464.

Dikito‐Wachmeister, M. (2000). Women's Participation in Decision Making Processes in Rural Water Projects, Makoni District, Zimbabwe. Bradford: University of Bradford.

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, Mail and Mixed‐Mode Surveys. Third edition. Noboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Doe, S. R., & Khan, S. M. (2004). The boundaries and limits of community‐management: lessons from the water sector in Ghana. Community Development Journal, 39 (4).

Duncker, L. (1998). Report on the Development of Strategies for Empowerment of Women in Water Supply and Sanitation Projects. Water Research Commission (WRC) report, no 817/1/99.

Dunmade, I. (2002). Indicators of sustainability: Assessing the sustainability of a foreign technology for a developing economy". Technology in Society, 24 (4), 461‐471.

Esposto, S. (2009). The sustainability of applied technologies for water supply in developing countries. Technology in Society, 31, 257‐262.

EU. (2010). European Union and Central Asia: EU action on water resources in Central Asia as a key element of environmental protection. Retrieved June 24, 2012, from http://eeas.europa.eu/central_asia/docs/factsheet_environment_en.pdf

Figueiredo, P., & Perkins, P. E. (2012). Women and water management in times of climate change: participatory and inclusive processes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 60, 188‐194

Floyd, J. F. (2009). Survey Research Methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series. Fourth edition. SAGE. Massachusetts, Boston. Fonchingong, C. C. (2006). Expanding horizons: Women's voices in community‐driven development

in the Cameroon grasslands. GeoJournal, 63 (3), 137‐149.

107

FonJong, L. N., Nebasina , E., & Fonchingong, C. C. (2004). Rethinking the contribution of indigenous management in small‐scale water provision among selected rural communities in Cameroon. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 6, 429‐451.

Franks, T., & Cleaver, F. (2007). Water governance and poverty: A framework for analysis. Progress in Development Studies, 7 (4), 291‐306.

Garande, T., & Dagg, S. (2005). Public participation and effective water governance at the local level: A case study from a small under‐developed area in Chile. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7, 427‐431.

Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Gine, R., & Perez‐Foguet, A. (2008). Sustainability assessment of national rural water supply program in Tanzania. Natural Resources Forum, 32, 327‐342.

Gleitsmann, B. A., Kroma, M. M., & Tammo, S. (2007). Analysis of a rural water supply project in three communities in Mali: Participation and sustainability. Natural Resource Forum, 31, 142‐150.

Green, C., Joekes, S., & Leach, M. (1998). Questionable links: Approaches to gender in environmental research and policy. In C. J. Pearson, Feminist Visions of Development: Gender Analysis and Policy (pp. 259‐83). London: Routledge.

Gross, B., van Wijk, C., & Muckerjee, N. (2000). Linking Sustainability and Demand, Gender and Poverty. A Study in Community‐Managed Water Supply Projects in 15 countries. International Water and Sanitation Centre.

GWA. (2003). Gender Perspectives in Water Sector: The Gender and Water Development Report 2003. Gender and Water Alliance. Delft: GWA.

Hartsock, N. C. (1983). The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In S. H. Hintikka, Discovering Reality (pp. 283‐310). D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Harvey, P. A., & Reed, R. A. (2006). Sustainable supply chain for rural water supplies in Africa. Engineering Sustainability 159 (1), 31‐39.

Hawkins, R., Ojeda, D., Asher, K., Baptiste, B., Harris, L., Mollett, S., et al. (2011). Gender and environment: critical tradition and new challenges. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29, 237‐253.

Haysom, A. (2006). A Study of the Factors Affecting Sustainability of Rural Water Supplies in Tanzania. Report, WaterAid.

Heathershaw, J. & Herzig, E. (2011). Introduction: the sources of statehood in Tajikistan. Central Asian Survey, 30 (1), 5‐19.

Hermanowicz, S. W. (2008). Sustainability in water resource management: changes in meaning and perception. Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science, 3, 181‐188.

Hodgkin, J. (1994). The Sustainability of Donor‐Assisted Rural Water Projects. WASH technical report No. 94. USAID.

Hoko, Z., & Hertle, J. (2006). An Evaluation of the sustainability of a rural water rehabilitation project in Zimbabwe. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth , 31, 699‐706.

Holm, R. (2012). Recent history provides sustainable african water quality project Insight. Ground Water , 50 (5), 808‐811.

Hoque, B. A., Aziz, K. M., Hasan, K. Z., & Sack, R. B. (1994). Women's involvement in a rural Bangladesh water and sanitation project. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health, 25 (1), 67‐73.

Hoque, B. A., Juncker, T., Sack, R. B., Ali, M., & Aziz, K. A. (1996). Sustainability of a water, sanitation and hygiene education project in rural Bangladesh: a 5‐year follow‐up. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 74 (4), 431‐437.

Howard , G., & Bartram, J. (2003). Domestic Water Quality, Service Level and Health. Geneva:. Geneva: WHO.

108

Hunter, P. R., Zmirou‐Navier, D., & Hart, P. (2009). Estimating the impact on health of poor reliability of drinking water interventions in developing countries. Science of the Total Environment , 407, 2621–2624.

Hutton, G., & Bartram, J. (2008). Global costs of attaining the Millenium Development goal for water supply and sanitation. Bulletin of the World Health Organization , 86, 13‐19.

Jakariya, M., Chowdhury, A., Hossain, Z., Rahman, M., Sarker, Q., Khan, R. I., et al. (2003). Sustainable community‐based safe water options to mitigate the Bangladesh arsenic catastrophe – An experience from two upazilas. Current Science, 85 (2), 141‐46

James, A. J., Verhagen, J., van Wijk, C., Nanavaty, R., Parikh, M., & Bhatt, M. (2002). Transforming time into money using water: A participatory study of economics and gender in rural India. Natural Resources Forum, 26 , 205–217.

Jiméneza, A., & Pérez‐Foguetb , A. (2010). Challenges for water governance in rural water supply: lessons learned from Tanzania. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 26 (2), 235‐248.

Jones, S. (2011). Participation as citizenship or payment? A case study of rural drinking water governance in Mali. Water Alternatives, 4 (1), 54‐71.

Joshi, D., & Zwarteveen, M. (2012). Gender in drinking water and sanitation. An introduction. In S. A. Margreet Zwarteveen, Diverting the Flow: Gender Equality and Water in South Asia (pp. 162‐174). New Delhi: Zubaan.

Kabeer, N. (2000). Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women's empowerment. In R. Shahra, Gendered Poverty and Well‐Being. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Katz, T., & Sara, J. (1998). Making Rural Water Supply Sustainable: Recommendations from a Global Study. Washington: World Bank.

Kendie, S. B. (1996). Some factors influencing affective utilization of drinking water facilities: Women, income and health in rural North Ghana. Environmental Management, 20 (1), 11‐23.

Kesby, M. (2005). Retheorising empowerment through participation as a performance in space: Beyond tyranny to transformation. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30 (4), 2037‐65.

Kleemeier, E. (2000). The impact of participation on sustainability: An analysis of the Malawi rural piped scheme program. World Development, 28 (5), 929‐944.

Kasimova, R. (2005). Women participation in decision‐making in the rural water supply. Gender and community, 2, 1‐6.

Krylova, L., & Safarova, N. (2013). Gender Assessment: SDC Rural Drinking Water Program in Tajikistan. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. Dushanbe: SDC.

Lloyd‐Williams, D. State of the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation in Tajikistan in 2010. Dushanbe: TajWSS policy paper 1.

Lockwood, H. (2003). Post‐project Sustainability: Follow‐up Support to Communities. World Bank (WB). s.n.

Lockwood, H., Bakalian, A., & Wakeman, W. (2005). Assessing sustainability in rural water supply: the role of follow‐up support to communities. Literature Review and Desk Review of Water Supply and Sanitation Project Documents. s.n.

LSMS. (2007). The World Bank. Retrieved January 9, 2014, from Tajikistan Living Standards Measurement Survey 2007: http://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/72

Madrial, R., Alpizar, F., & Schlute, A. (2011). Determinants of performance of community‐based drinking water organizations. World Development, 39 (9), 1663‐1675.

Magrath, J. (2006). Towards Sustainable Water‐Supply Solutions in Rural Sierra Leone A Pragmatic Approach, Using Comparisons with Mozambique. A Report by Oxfam, in collaboration with WaterAid. WaterAid. s.n.

Makoni, F. S., Manase, G., & Ndamba, J. (2004). Patterns of domestic water use in rural areas of Zimbabwe, gender roles and realities. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 29, 1291–1294.

109

Marobhe, N. J., Renman, G., & Jacks, G. (2007). The study of water supply and traditional water purification knowledge in selected rural villages in Tanzania. Tribes and Tribals, Special Volume 1, 111‐120.

Masduqi, A., Endah, N., Soedjono , E. S., & Hadi, W. (2010). Structural equation modeling for assessing of the sustainability of rural water supply systems. Water Science and Technology, 10 (5).

Massoud, M. A., Al‐Abady, A., Jurdi, M., & Nuwayhid, I. (2010). The challenges of sustainable access to safe drinking water in rural areas of developing countries: Case of Zawtar El‐Charkieh, Southern Lebanon. Journal of Environmental Health, 72 (10).

Mayoux, L. (1995). Beyond naivety: Women, gender inequality and participatory development. Development and Change, 26 (2), 235‐58.

Mayoux, L. (2003). Beyond Rhetoric: Women's Empowerment and Micro‐enterprise Development. London and New York: Zed Press.

McCommon, C., Warner, D., & Yohalem, D. (1990). Community Management of Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Services. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Washington, DC.: The World Bank.

MLRWR. (2010). Brochure: Historical development of the Ministry of Land Reclamation and Water Resources of Republic of Tajikistan (in russian). Dushanbe: GoT.

MLRWR. (2006). Water Sector Development Strategy in Tajikistan. Ministry of Land Reclamation and Water Resources. Dushanbe: GoT.

Moe, C., & Rheingans, R. (2006). Global challenges in water, sanitation and health. Journal of Water and Health , 4 (Supp1), 41‐57.

Molyneux, M. (2002). Gender and the silences of social capital: Lessons from Latin America. Development and Change , 33 (2), 167‐88.

Montgomery, M. A., Bartram, J., & Elimelech, M. (2009). Increasing functional sustainability of water and sanitation supplies in rural Sub‐Saharan Africa. Environmental Engineering Science, 26 (5), 1017‐1023.

Moriarty, P., Butterworth, J., & van Koppen, B. (2004). Beyond Domestic: Case Studies on Poverty and Productive Uses of Water at the Household Level. IRC Technical Report , 41.

Mukhopadhyay, M. (2007). Mainstreaming gender or "streaming" gender away: Feminists marooned in the development business. In E. H. A. Cornwall, Feminism in Development: Contradictions Contestations and Challenges (pp. 135‐49). London and New York: Zed Books.

Murphy, H. M., McBean, E. A., & Farahbakhsh, K. (2009). Appropriate technology – A comprehensive approach for water and sanitation in the developing world. Technology in Society , 31, 158–167.

Musonda, K. (2004). Issues Regarding Sustainability of Rural Water Supply in Zambia. Thesis, MA in Social Science in the subject of Social Work at the University of South Africa.

Narayan, D. (1995). The Contribution of People's Participation: Evidence from 121 Rural Water Supply Projects. Washington, DC.: Environmentally Sustainable Development Occasional Paper Series No. 1. The World Bank.

Oakley, P. (1991). Projects with People: The Practice of Participation in Rural Development. Geneva: International Labour Office.

Oluyemo, C. A. (2012). Women's empowerment as determinant for maintenance and sustainability of potable water and sanitation facilities in Ekiti State, Nigeria. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 6 (4), 49‐69.

Opare, S. (2012). Rainwater harvesting: an option for sustainable rural water supply in Ghana. GeoJournal, 77, 695‐705.

O'Reilly, K. (2004). Developing contradictions: Women’s participation as a site of struggle within an Indian NGO. The Professional Geographer, 56 (2), 174‐184.

Padawangi, R. (2010). Community‐driven development as a driver of change: Water supply and sanitation projects in rural Pinjab, Pakistan. Water Policy, 12 (1), 104‐120.

110

Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., et al. (2006). Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews. A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme. s.n

Prokopy, L. S. (2009). Determinants and benefits of household level participation in rural drinking water projects in India. Journal of Development Studies, 45 (4), 471–495.

Prokopy, L. S. (2005). The relationship between participation and project outcomes: Evidence from rural water supply projects in India. World Development, 33 (11), 1801‐1819.

Prokopy, L. S. (2004). Women’s participation in rural water supply projects in India: is it moving beyond tokenism and does it matter? Water Policy, 6, 103–116.

Prokopy, L., Thorsten, R., Bakalian, A., & Wakeman, W. (2008). Evaluating the role of post‐ construction support in sustaining drinking water projects evidence from Peru. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27, 294‐305.

Pzreworski, A., & Salomon, F. (1998). The Art of Writing Proposals. Retrieved from http://www.ssrc.org/publications/view/7A9CB4F4‐815F‐DE11‐BD80‐001CC477EC70/

Rakhimov, S. (2011). State and Perspectives of Drinking Water Supply in Tajikistan. Presentation of the first deputy minister of Ministry Land Reclamation and Water Resources in Tajikistan. (in Russian). Dushanbe.

Rapport, N., & Overing, J. (2000). Social and Cultural Anthropology: The Key Concepts. London: Routledge.

REACT (2008). Tajikistan Compound Crises Flash Appeal 2008. Rapid Emergency Assessment and Coordination Team (REACT). Dushanbe: UNDP.

Regmi, S. C., & Fawcett, B. (1999). Integrating gender needs into drinking‐water projects in Nepal. Gender and Development, 7 (3), 62‐72.

Rocheleau, D. E., Thomas‐Slayter, B., & Wangari, E. (1996). A feminist political ecology perspective. In D. E. Rocheleau, B. Thomas‐Slayter, & E. Wangari, Gender and Environment. Routledge.

Rowland, d. F. (1978). Analysis of Experiences of Self‐Help and Public Participation in Rural Water Supplies: The Case of Mexico. Occasional paper No.6. Paris, France: OECD Development centre.

Sara, J., & Katz, T. (1998). Making Rural Water Supply Sustainable: Report on the Impact of Project Rules. UNDP World Bank Water and Sanitation Program. s.n.

Schouten, T. &. (2003). Community Water, Community Management: From System to Service in Rural Areas. London: ITDG Publishing.

SCISPM. (2013). Foreign Aid Report 2012. State Committee on Investments and State Property Management of the Republic of Tajikistan (SCISPM). UNDP/DFID, SCISPM, Dushanbe.

Shahriari, H., Danzer, A. M., Giovarelli, R., & Undeland, A. (2009). Improving Women's Access to Land and Financial Resources in Tajikistan. Retrieved January 9, 2014, from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTAJIKISTAN/Resources/CombinedGenderESWreportENG. pdf

Singh, N. (2006). Women’s participation in local water governance: Understanding institutional contradictions. Gender Technology and Development, 10.

Singleton, R. A., & Straits, B. C. (2009). Approaches to Social Research (5th edition ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Smith, J. L. (2008). A critical appreciation of the “bottom‐up” approach to sustainable water management: embracing complexity rather than desirability. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 13 (4), 353–366.

Steenbergen, F. (2012, July 2). MDG 7 and the Moment of Truth. Retrieved December 2, 2012, from The Water Chennel: http://www.thewaterchannel.tv/en/thewaterplaza/the‐water‐blog/98‐mdg‐ 7‐and‐the‐moment‐of‐truth

Stirman, S. W., Kimberly, J., Cook, N., Calloway, A., Castro, F., & Chans, M. (2012). The sustainability of new programs and innovations: a review of the empirical literature and recommendations for future research. (K. J. Stirman S.W., Ed.) Implementation Science, 7:17.

111

SUE KMK. (2011). National Survey on the Conditions of Water Supply and Sanitation in the Country. Dushanbe: GoT.

Sugden, S. (2003). Indicators for the Water Sector: Examples from Malawi. Water Aid Framework Report. London.

Sultana, F. (2009). Community and participation in water resources management: gendering and naturing development debates from Bangladesh. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 34, 346–363.

Sultana, F. (2009 (a)). Fluid lives: subjectives, gender and water in rural Bangladesh. Gender, Place and Culture, 16 (4), 427‐444.

TajWSS. (2012). Tajikistan Water and Sanitation Network. Retrieved February 18, 2014, from TajWSS Partners: http://tajwss.tj/site/en/partners‐contacts.html

UN (2011, September 23). The Human Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation. Retrieved from UN Human Rights Council:

http://daccess‐ddsny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/LTD/G11/162/55/PDF/G1116255.pdf?OpenElement UN (2012, July 24). United Nations General Assembly. Sixty‐six session. Agenda item 19. Sustainable

Development: The Future we want. Retrieved August 2, 2012, from http://www.uncsd2012.org/thefuturewewant.html

UNDP (2013). Human Development Report 2013. The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World. United Nations Development Program. New York: United Nations Development Program (UNDP).

UN‐ECOSOC (1992). Agenda 21. United Nations Development of Economic and Social Affairs. Washington: UN‐ECOSOC.

UNICEF, WHO (2011). Drinking Water. Equity, Safety and Sustainability. JMP Thematic Report in Drinking Water 2011. USA: WHO/UNICEF.

United Nations. (2005). Health. Dignity and Development: What Will It Take? Stockholm: Stockholm International Water Institute and United Nations Millennium Project.

Universal Newswires (2014). Tajik GDP most dependent on remittances, World Bank says. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from http://www.universalnewswires.com/centralasia/turkmenistan/viewstory.aspx?id=13206

Vaske, J. J. (2008). Survey Research and Analysis. Application in Parks, Recreation and Human Dimensions. State College, PA, USA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Walby, S. (2005). Gender mainstreaming: Productive tensions in theory and practice. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 12 (3), 321‐43.

WB. (2008). Finance for All? Policies and Pitfall in Expanding Access. World Bank, Washington, DC. WB. (2014). The World Bank. Working for a World Free of Poverty. Retrieved January 06, 2014, from

How we classify countries: http://data.worldbank.org/about/country‐classifications WB (1990). World Bank. World Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press. WELL (1998). Chapter 2 ‐ principles and practices. In DFID Guidance Manual on Water Supply and

Sanitation Programme (pp. 29‐40). London: WEDC. Whittington, D., Davis, J., Prokopy, L., Komives, K., Thorsten, R., Lukacs, H., et al. (2009). How well is

the demand‐driven, community management model for rural water supply systems doing? Evidence from Bolivia, Peru and Ghana. Water Policy, 11 (6), 696–718.

WHO/UNICEF. (2000). Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment . Geneva: World Health Organization.

WHO/UNICEF. (2013). Joint Monitoring Programme. Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water. 2013 update. World Health Organization and UNICEF 2013. NYC: UNICEF and WHO.

Wijk, C. v. (2001). The Best of Two Worlds? Methodology for Participatory Assessment of Community Water Services. IRC. Delft: IRC Technical Paper Series.

WMO (2014). The Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development. Retrieved January 13, 2014, from World Meteorological Organization. Hydrology and Water Resource Program: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/hwrp/documents/english/icwedece.html

112

Wood, M. (1994). Community management of rural water supplies. Waterlines, 12 (3), 6‐9. Zwarteveen, M., & Ahmed, S. (2012). Gender, water laws and policies: an introduction. In S. A.

Margreet Zwarteveen, Diverting the Flow. Gender Equity and Water in South Asia. (pp. 67‐84). Dhaka, India: Zubaan.

113

Appendices

Annex A. Matrix of Research Methods

Research Question: Does women’s participation in donor‐funded drinking water supply projects in developing countries contribute to the project sustainability? Research sub‐questions: (i) What can be generalized on the impact of women’s participation to the project success? (ii) Which forms and components of women’s participation are positively (or negatively) associated with project sustainability? (iii) Do practitioners on rural drinking water supply believe that women’s participation positively contributes to project sustainability?

Objective: To provide comprehensive literature review of available knowledge on the role and impacts of women’s participation in rural drinking water supply projects in developing countries.

Methods and Sources: ‐ Literature review of peer‐ reviewed scholarly articles

Analysis: ‐ Meta‐analysis of literature review ‐ Tabulation of survey results and qualitative (and quantitative) analysis to identify patterns in the data

Time/Site: Jun’13‐Mar’14 (Syracuse) Mar’13‐Apr’14 (Syracuse)

Sub‐objective 1: To understand the key (positive/negative) impacts of women’s participation in drinking water supply project design/implementation/maintenance

Methods and Sources: ‐ Literature review of peer‐ reviewed scholarly articles

Analysis: ‐ Meta‐analysis of literature review

Site/Time: Same as above

Sub‐objective 2: To segregate major forms of women’s participation into positive or negative impacts

Methods and Sources: ‐ Literature review of peer‐ reviewed scholarly articles ‐ Online Surveys with participants from case study country (Tajikistan)

Analysis: ‐ Meta‐analysis of literature review ‐ Tabulation of survey results and qualitative (/quantitative) analysis

Site/Time: Same as above

Sub‐objective 3: To understand the contemporary perception of women’s participation strategies as a contributing factor to project success or failure

Methods and Sources: ‐ Online Surveys

Analysis: ‐ Meta‐analysis of literature review ‐ Tabulation of survey results

Site/Time: Same as above

114

Annex B. Relationship between research questions, methods and hypothesis

Main research question: Does women’s participation in donor‐ funded drinking water supply projects in developing countries contribute to project sustainability?

Research sub‐question 1:

What can be generalized on the impact of

women’s participation to the project

success?

Research sub‐question 2:

Which forms and components of women’s

participation are positively (or negatively)

associated with project sustainability?

Research sub‐question 3: Do practitioners on rural drinking water supply believe that women’s participation positively contributes to project sustainability?

Sub‐hypotheses 1:

Participation of women positively contributes to the

project success, however this depends on women’s

agency and power

Sub‐hypotheses 2:

Women’s participation in the post‐project

construction phase (maintenance) has stronger

association with project sustainability than other

forms of women’s participation

Sub‐hypotheses 3:

Practitioners believe that women’s participation positively contributes to project sustainability, but their opinions vary with respondents’ gender

Main hypotheses:

Participation of women positively contributes to the project sustainability

Method 1: Meta‐ analysis of existing

studies

Method 2: Surveys among practitioners

115

Annex C. Format of Literature Summary Matrix

# Year Author Geogra phical focus

Title of publication

Title of the journal

Focuse s on rural popula tion

Assesses Project Sustainab ility/effec tiveness

Assesses drinking water projects

discusses women's participat ion

Research Question/ Objective(s)

Project Description

Methods Results Conclusion

1 2007 Acharya S., Yoshino E., Jimba M., Wakai S

Nepal Empowerin g rural women through a community developme nt approach in Nepal

Community Developme nt Journal Vol 42 No 1 (pp 34‐46)

Yes Yes No Yes Investigates how community development programs can empower rural women in developing countries. Assesses the impact of community development program (School and Community Health Project funded by JICA) in a remote hill district of Nepal, focusing on two programs: 1) literature and 2) credit and group savings. Raises the question of how effective the community development activities are in meeting project objectives.

Started in 1992 to improve overall living conditions of the people through health, economic, and educational improvements. The project targeted women due to high urban‐rural male migration

Qualitative and quantitative data analysis: participatory approaches (focus and general group discussions), time‐lines, ethno‐ history, in‐ depth interview, case studies) and household surveys. Quantitative: a longitudinal evaluation to assess the impact of the project (compared to benchmark data).

Functional literacy program is a good start, which has revealed its dynamism with practical extensions in a post‐literacy period; Group savings and credit programs provide the driving force to help illiterate rural women start small‐scale economic activities that are effective in absorbing the female workforce in these communities (p.34). Literacy program increased the female literacy rate and significantly reduced gender gap in literacy (p.43).

Found that homogeneity in group formation could be a crucial factor in the success of many community‐based organizations, whereas heterogeneity could jeopardize the success of the program as was exemplified in the bitter experience of mixing married women and unmarried women in the common savings groups in three communities (p.44). If community development programs lack dynamism, but merely provide financial support, program efforts may weaken disadvantaged people by increasing their dependency on the programs rather ...

116

Annex D. TajWSS agency membership list

Network of Stakeholder Organizations on Sustainable Water Supply and Sanitation

# Name of member organization

1 Presidential Apparatus, Government of Tajikistan (GoT) 2 Ministry of Land Reclamation (Melioration) and Water Resources (MoLRWR) of the RT 3 TajikSelkhozVodoprovodStroy (Tojik Ob Dehot) – subordinate agency of MoLRWR 4 Committee on Environmental Protection of GoT 5 Main Department on Geology of GoT 6 Main Department for Supervision over Safety in Industry and Mining of GoT 7 Ministry of Health of the RT_SES Department 8 Ministry of Economic Development and Trade (MoEDT) 9 State Agency for Construction and Architecture of the GoT (SACA) 10 Agency for standardization, metrology, certification and trade inspection of the GoT

(Tajikstandart) 11 State Unitary Enterprise “Khojagii Manziliyu Kommunali” of GoT (Housing Services) 12 Ministry of Finance of the RT 13 Ministry of Justice of the RT 14 Ministry of Agriculture of the RT 15 Academy of Sciences of the RT 16 “Educational & training center on reform of housing & utilities services” of State Unitary

Enterprise “Khojagii Manziliyu Kommunali” of GoT 17 Dept of population & territories defense of the Committee of emergency situations &

civil defense of the RT 18 Ministry of Foreign Affairs 19 20

Institute of Professional Retraining of Government Officials Tajik Technical University

21 Majlisi Millii / Majlisi Namoyandagon (Parliament) 22 Khukumat of Rudaki District 23 Khukumat of Muminabad District 24 Plast Service, Pipe supply, mounting and construction, Trainings and workshops 25 Tajikistan Association of Contractors 26 Dev‐net‐consult 27 Yovoun Electrochemical Plant 28 Republican Youth Public Organization

"The younger generation of Tajikistan" 29 Consumers Union of RT 30 Drinking Water Federation, Muminabad

117

Annex E. Survey Tool in English and Russian

Survey Questionnaire Women’s Participation in Rural Drinking Water Supply Projects in Tajikistan

This research aims at defining if participation of women in donor‐funded community‐managed rural drinking water supply projects in Tajikistan has any impacts to the project success and sustainability. Your participation in this survey is very important and answers provided to the questions listed below will help to respond the research question. Please answer the questions simply by clicking on the right box and leaving comments in the shaded area. You can fill out form manually by printing out and sending back the scanned version to the provided e‐mail address.

Before you start the survey, please confirm your consent to participate in the survey Yes No

GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 First name (only):

1.2 Gender: Male Female

1.3 Age:

1.4 Type of professional occupation:

Project manager/team leader Monitoring/evaluation

Engineer/ technical worker Community mobilizer

Trainer/educator Other, specify

1.5 Type of Agency you presently work for: International or local donor agency Governmental agency

International or local non‐governmental Community‐based organization

Consulting or research institution Educational institution or university

Private sector Other, specify

1.6 How many years of experience have you had in drinking water projects: 0 (no experience) 0‐5 years 6‐10 years 11‐20 years 21‐30 years >30 years

1.7 Did you have any international experience in implementing drinking water supply projects? Yes No

Comments (number of years, duty station, etc):

For the purpose of this study a project is defined as a donor‐funded and community‐managed rural drinking water supply project that include: (i) any type of small‐ to medium‐scale water schemes, (ii) constructed in rural area, (iii) with the financial (and technical) support from donor agencies, (iv) operated and maintained by members of local community, (v) used predominantly for drinking or as a primary source of drinking water within the community. In practice, such projects can be (i) piped systems with treated surface water (from river, lake, etc), (ii) piped systems with subsurface water (boreholes with electric pumps), (iii) handpumps, (iv) rainwater harvesting schemes, (v) spring catchment projects, or any combination of these schemes with other possible variations of drinking water supply projects. Project sustainability is defined as effective and uninterrupted functionality of a project within the entire designed timeframe.

118

PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY 2.1 For a project to be sustainable how long should it operate once constructed? 0‐10 years 11‐20 years 21‐30 years >30 years for the entire designed lifespan Comments:

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 3.1 For a project to be sustainable, how important is community involvement?

Very important Important Neither important nor unimportant Unimportant Very unimportant

3.2 Please rate the relevance of the following factors to the success and sustainability of the project. Rate from 1 to 5, when 1=most relevant and 5=least relevant. Please leave blank if you believe that any of the suggested is irrelevant; provide comments where necessary.

Rating Comments

a. Enough spare time of community members to maintain the project

b. Enough money of community members to maintain the project

c. Gender of community members who maintain the project

d. Age of community members who maintain the project

e. Physical health of community members who maintain the project

f. Technical and institutional support of local authorities to the community

g. Post‐construction donor support and monitoring

h. Training and knowledge of community members to maintain

i. Formal education (school and/or university)

j. Other, specify

119

3.3 For a project to be sustainable how important is participation community members (male and female) in activities during the construction of the project (participation in decision‐making, contribution with labour or money for construction, etc)? Very

important Important Neither important

nor unimportant Unimportant Very

unimportant

Men

Women

3.4 For a project to be sustainable, how important is the participation of community members (male and female) in the project operation and maintenance, once the project is constructed? Very

important Important Neither important

nor unimportant Unimportant Very

unimportant

Men

Women

3.5 Please leave any comments related to the questions 3.1‐3.4 here:

GENDER DIFFERENCES 4.1 For a project to be sustainable, please rate the importance of involving male community members in the following activities. You may select up to three as “very important”; select “neither important nor unimportant” if you think it is not applicable in this context.

Very important

Important Neither important

nor unimportant

Unimportant Very unimportant

a. Project planning and design

b. Community mobilization for construction

c. Education and awareness campaigns before and during construction

d. Collection of fees from community members for maintenance and repair

e. Organization of repairs or mobilization of community members for repair

f. Regular monitoring and data collection

g. Other, specify

120

4.2 Please rate the importance of the following variables of men for the sustainability of the project. Please select “neither important nor unimportant”, if you think it is not applicable in this context or does not have any difference to the project sustainability. Very

important Important Neither

important nor unimportant

Unimportant Very unimporta

a. Age

b. Marital status

c. Physical health

d. Religion

e. Employment status

f. Reputation/ trust of community

g. Knowledge/ skills

h. Other, specify

4.3 For a project to be sustainable, please rate the importance of involving female community members in the following activities. You may select up to three as “very important”; select “neither important nor unimportant” if you think it is not applicable in this context .

Very important

Important Neither important nor unimportant

Unimportant Very unimportant

a. Project planning and design

b. Community mobilization for construction

c. Education and awareness campaigns before and during construction

d. Collection of fees from community members for maintenance and repair

e. Organization of repairs or mobilization of community members for repair

f. Regular monitoring and data collection

g. Other, specify

121

4.4 Please rate the following variables of women as important/unimportant for the project sustainability. Please select “neither important nor unimportant”, if you think it is not applicable in this context or does not have any difference to the project sustainability. Very

important Important Neither

important nor

unimportant

Unimportant Very unimportant

a. Age

b. Marital status

c. Physical health

d. Religion

e. Employment status

f. Reputation/ trust of community

g. Knowledge/ skills

h. Other, specify

4.5 Please leave any comments related to the questions 4.1‐4.4 here:

WOMEN’S PARTICIPATION 5.1 Women in Tajikistan presently have equal rights (to male community members) to participate in the implementation and maintenance of community‐managed drinking water projects Agree Disagree Don’t know 5.2 It is important for the sustainability of the project that women have equal rights (to male community members) to participate in the project implementation and maintenance Agree Disagree Don’t know

5.3 Women are given more opportunities (by donors, implementing agencies and/or local authorities) to participate in the project implementation and maintenance (e.g. because they believe that it positively effects success and sustainability of the project)

Agree Disagree Don’t know 5.4 Participation of women during the project construction does not contribute to the project success and sustainability

Agree Disagree Don’t know 5.5 Participation of women in the project operation and maintenance (post‐construction phase) does not contribute to the project success and sustainability Agree Disagree Don’t know 5.6 Women are capable of implementing the role of project operation and maintenance effectively Agree Disagree Don’t know

122

5.7 Women’s participation in the project is very symbolic and does not have any positive effects on the project success and sustainability Agree Disagree Don’t know 5.8 Please leave any comments related to the questions 5.1‐5.7 here:

OTHER 6.1 If you responded to question 5.3 as “agree” and think that women are given more opportunities to manage the project, please rate from 1‐5 the below reasons, where 1=most relevant and 5=least relevant. Please leave blank if you believe that any of the suggested is irrelevant; provide comments where necessary. Rate Comments

a. Strong encouragement of implementing/ donor agencies

b. Strong encouragement of local authorities

c. Community prefer to see women operating the project

d. Lack of male members of community (e.g. labour migration)

e. Other, specify

7. Please leave any other general comments with regard to this questionnaire:

Thank you for your participation! Please return the completed questionnaire to Nargis Artyushevskaya at

[email protected]

123

Вопросник Об участии женщин (представителей местного населения) в Проектах Сельского

Питьевого Водоснабжения в Таджикистане Данное исследование направлено на выявление важности участия женщин‐представителей местных общин в устойчивости проектов сельского питьевого водоснабжения, финансируемых донорами в Таджикистане. Ваше участие в данном опросе является очень важным и любая предоставленная Вами информация будет принята во внимание при проведении анализа данных. Пожалуйста ответьте на нижеследующие вопросы просто кликнув на нужный затемненный квадрат и оставив комментарий в затемненной строке. Вы также можете заполнить вопросник в ручную. Для этого распечатайте, заполните форму и отправьте отсканированный вариант на указанный адрес электронной почты.

Согласны ли Вы участвовать в данном опросе? Да Нет

ИНФОРМАЦИЯ ОБ УЧАСТНИКЕ

1.2 Имя (без фамилии):

1.6 Ваш пол: Мужской Женский

1.7 Возраст:

1.8 Род профессиональной деятельности:

Менеджер проекта/руководитель Специалист по мониторингу и оценке

Инженер/ технический работник Мобилизатор общин

Тренер по обучающим семинарам Другое (уточните):

1.9 Тип организации, в которой Вы работаете: Донорская организация (международная или местная) Государственное учреждение

Неправительственная организация (международная или местная) Общественная организация

Консалтинговое или исследовательское агентство Университет или учебное

Частный сектор Другое (уточните):

1.6 Сколько лет опыта работы с проектами по питьевому водоснабжению Вы имеете? 0 (нет опыта) 1‐5 лет 6‐10 лет 11‐20 лет 21‐30 лет более 30 лет

Система питьевого водоснабжения, созданная при поддержке донорских организаций и переданная на содержание представителям местного населения (представителям общины), в данном вопроснике именуется «проект». Данный проект представляет собой следующее: (i) любую систему питьевого водоснабжения средних и малых масштабов, (ii) построенную в сельской местности, (iii) при финансовой (и технической) поддержке со стороны донорских организаций, (iv) находящуюся в управлении и на содержании у местного населения, (v) используемую преимущественно в целях обеспечения потребностей местного населения в питьевой воде. На практике такими проектами могут быть (i) водопроводная система с механизмами обеззараживания воды из поверхностных источников (река, озеро и др), (ii) водопроводная система с механизмами обеззараживания воды из подземных источников (напр., скважина с электро‐ насосом), (iii) ручной насос (водокачка), (iv) система сбора дождевой воды, (v) родниковая (каптажная) система, или любая возможная комбинация из вышеперечисленного. Устойчивость проекта значит эффективная и безостановочная работа системы водоснабжения в течении

124

1.7 Был ли у Вас опыт работы по проектам питьевого водоснабжения в других странах? Да Нет

Комментарии (количество лет, страна и т.д.):

УСТОЙЧИВОСТЬ ПРОЕКТА 2.1 Сколько лет должна функционировать система водоснабжения для того, чтобы называться устойчивой 0‐10 лет 11‐20 лет 21‐30 лет более 30 лет в течении всего срока эксплуатации, запланированного при проектировании Комментарии:

УЧАСТИЕ ОБЩИН 3.1 Важно ли участие общин (представителей местного населения) для обеспечения устойчивости проекта?

Очень важно Важно Не имеет отношения Не важно Совсем не важно

3.2 Пожалуйста определите степень важности перечисленных факторов для обеспечения устойчивости проекта. Оцените от 1 до 5, где 1 = «очень важно» и 5 = «наименее важно» (нажмите на серое поле в строке «оценка» и выберите соответствующую оценку). Оставьте поле пустым, если Вы считаете что‐то из перечисленного не имеет никакого отношения в данном контексте; прокомментируйте в строке комментарии.

Оценка Комментарии

a. Наличие достаточного времени у местного населения для содержания проекта

b. Наличие достаточных финансовых средств у местного населения для содержания проекта

c. Половые различия представителей общины, непосредственно отвечающих за содержание системы

d. Возраст представителей общины, непосредственно отвечающих за содержание системы

e. Состояние здоровье представителей общины, непосредственно отвечающих за содержание проекта

f. Техническая и/или учредительная поддержка со стороны местных властей

g. Помощь со стороны донорских организаций после окончания проекта (завершения строительства)

h. Знания и навыки представителей общины, непосредственно отвечающих за содержание системы

i. Наличие среднего (и/или высшего) образования среди представителей общины, непосредственно отвечающих за содержание системы

j. Другое (уточните):

125

3.3 Насколько важно участие местного населения (мужского и женского) в процессе строительства системы водоснабжения для обеспечения устойчивости проекта (напр., участие в принятии решений, вклада деньгами или трудом, и т.д.)?

Очень важно

Важно Не имеет отношения

Не важно Совсем не важно

Мужчины

Женщины

3.4 Насколько важно участие местного населения (мужского и женского) в содержании системы водоснабжения после завершения строительства для обеспечения устойчивости проекта?

Очень важно

Важно Не имеет отношения

Не важно Совсем не важно

Мужчины

Женщины

3.5 Оставьте любые комментарии относительно вопросов 3.1‐3.4 здесь:

ГЕНДЕРНЫЕ РАЗЛИЧИЯ 4.1 Определите степень важности участия мужчин‐представителей местного населения в перечисленных видах проектной деятельности. Вы можете отметить не более трех перечисленных видов деятельности как «очень важно»; выберите «не имеет отношения», если Вы считаете, что что‐либо из перечисленного является неуместным в данном контексте.

Очень важно

Важно Не имеет отношения

Не важно Совсем не важно

h. Планирование проекта

i. Мобилизация общин для участия в строительстве системы

j. Проведение обучения местного населения до и во время строительства

k. Сбор средств с местного населения для содержания и ремонта системы

l. Организация ремонта или мобилизация общины для проведения ремонта

m. Проведения мониторинга и сбор данных

n. Другое (уточните):

126

4.2 Определите, насколько следующие критерии мужчин‐представителей местного населения, непосредственно участвующих в содержании системы, важны для устойчивости проекта. Пожалуйста, выберите «не имеет отношения», если Вы считаете, что что‐то из перечисленного не влияет на исход/устойчивость проекта. Очень

важно Важно Не имеет

отношения Не важно Совсем не

важно

i. Возраст

j. Семейное положение

k. Состояние здоровья

l. Религия и вероисповедание

m. Трудовая деятельность

n. Репутация/ доверие местного населения

o. Знания и навыки

o. Другое (уточните):

4.3 Определите степень важности участия женщин‐представителей местного населения в перечисленных видах проектной деятельности. Вы можете отметить не более трех перечисленных видов деятельности как «очень важно»; выберите «не имеет отношения», если Вы считаете, что что‐либо из перечисленного является неуместным в данном контексте.

Очень важно

Важно Не имеет отношения

Не важно Совсем не важно

a. Планирование проекта и составление дизайна системы

b. Мобилизация общин для участия в строительстве системы

c. Проведение обучения местного населения до и во время строительства

d. Сбор средств с местного населения для содержания и ремонта системы

e. Организация ремонта или мобилизация общины для проведения ремонта

f. Проведения мониторинга и сбор данных

127

g. Другое (уточните):

4.4 Определите, насколько следующие критерии женщин‐представителей местного населения, непосредственно участвующих в содержании системы, важны для устойчивости проекта. Пожалуйста, выберите «не имеет отношения», если Вы считаете, что что‐то из перечисленного не влияет на исход/устойчивость проекта. Очень

важно Важно Не имеет

отношения Не важно Совсем не

важно

a. Возраст

b. Семейное положение

c. Состояние здоровья

d. Религия и вероисповедание

e. Трудовая деятельность

f. Репутация/ доверие местного населения

g. Знания и навыки

h. Другое (уточните):

4.5 Оставьте любые комментарии относительно вопросов 4.1‐4.4 здесь:

УЧАСТИЕ ЖЕНЩИН 5.1 В Таджикистане женщины – представители местного населения имеют возможности участвовать в процессах выполнения проекта и содержания системы после ее строительства наравне с мужской частью населения Согласен (‐на) Не согласен (‐на) Не знаю 5.2 Женщины должны иметь одинаковые возможности наравне с мужчинами участвовать в выполнении проекта и содержании системы, что является необходимым для устойчивости проекта Согласен (‐на) Не согласен (‐на) Не знаю

5.3 Женщинам ‐ представителям местного населения предоставляется больше возможностей (со стороны донорских и исполняющих организаций и/или местных властей) для участия в осуществлении и содержании проектов из‐за убеждения, что это положительно влияет на успех и устойчивость проекта Согласен (‐на) Не согласен (‐на) Не знаю 5.4 Участие женщин ‐ представителей местного населения во время строительства проекта не способствует успешному выполнению или устойчивости проекта Согласен (‐на) Не согласен (‐на) Не знаю

128

5.5 Участие женщин ‐ представителей местного населения в процессе содержании системы (после завершения строительства) не способствует успешному выполнению или устойчивости проекта Согласен (‐на) Не согласен (‐на) Не знаю 5.6 Женщины ‐ представители местного населения способны эффективно исполнять роль ответственных за работу и содержание системы в общинах Согласен (‐на) Не согласен (‐на) Не знаю 5.7 Участие женщин ‐ представителей местного населения в проектах питьевого водоснабжения является только символическим и не оказывает никакого положительного влияния на успех и устойчивость проекта Согласен (‐на) Не согласен (‐на) Не знаю 5.8 Оставьте любые комментарии относительно вопросов 5.1‐5.7 здесь:

ДРУГОЕ 6.1 Если Вы ответили на вышеупомянутое утверждение 5.3 как «согласны» и считаете, что женщинам (представителям местного населения) предоставляется больше возможностей участвовать в содержании системы, оцените следующие возможные причины этого по шкале от 1 до 5, где 1 = «имеет большое отношение» и 5 = «имеет наименьшее отношение». Оставьте пустым какие‐либо из перечисленных причин, если считаете что они совершенно неуместны в данной ситуации; прокомментируйте в строке комментарии. Оценка Комментарии

a. Сильное поощрение со стороны исполнительных и/или донорских организаций

b. Сильное поощрение со стороны местных властей

c. Общины предпочитают видеть женщин (представителей местного населения) ответственными за содержание системы

d. Отсутствие/нехватка мужской части населения (например, в связи с трудовой миграцией)

e. Другое (уточните):

7. Оставьте любые комментарии относительно вопросника здесь:

Спасибо большое за Ваше участие! Пожалуйста, вышлите заполненный вопросник на адрес электронной почты Наргис Артушевской [email protected]

129

Annex F. Informed Consent forms in English and Russian

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

SURVEY ON UNDERSTANDING PERSCEPTIONS OF STAKEHOLDERS on the role of women in sustainability of constructed drinking water projects in Tajikistan

The purpose of this form is to provide a clear explanation of the nature of this research. If you are entirely satisfied with this explanation and freely choose to participate in the study, please complete the attached survey questionnaire. If you have any concerns or questions please direct them to the Student Researcher at the contact details provided below.

This study is a research project on the “Role of Women in Sustainability of Donor‐funded Drinking Water Supply Projects in Developing Countries: Case Study of Tajikistan”, undertaken by Nargis Artyushevskaya, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of MS Program in Environmental Studies, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York (SUNY ESF). The research aims at providing a comprehensive analysis on the possible impacts of different forms of women’s involvement and participation in rural drinking water supply project activities to the project effectiveness and success/ sustainability. The researcher plans to analyze the available base of literature on the topic, as well as collect the opinions of experts, involved directly or indirectly in financing, implementation and monitoring of drinking water supply projects in rural Tajikistan.

The participation in this survey is voluntary and you may decide to withdraw from the participation at the survey at any moment without penalty. If you decide to participate in the survey you have a right to leave your name anonymous. The estimated time answering the survey questions is 10‐15 minutes. The information collected via this survey will be kept confidential and the identity of individual responses will not be revealed in the best of investigator ability, unless stated otherwise by the Participant.

I have received a copy of this consent form and I understand the nature of the research project. I declare that I am 18 years of age or older and I voluntarily agree to take part in the survey without expecting any compensation.

_____________________________________ _______________ Signature Date ___________________________________________________________________________ Name, position, organization (please leave anonymous, if decided) Nargis Artyushevskaya Dr. Richard Smardon Student Researcher Principle Investigator MS Candidate, Environmental Studies Professor, Environmental Studies SUNY ESF SUNY ESF [email protected] [email protected] (1) 315‐600‐0081 (1) 315‐470‐6576

130

ОФИЦИАЛЬНОЕ СОГЛАСИЕ НА УЧАСТИЕ В ОПРОСЕ

О роли женщин в устойчивости проектов по питьевому водоснабжению в развивающихся странах

Данный документ предоставляет краткую информацию о данном исследовании. В случае, если Вы удовлетворены данной информацией и готовы принять участие в данном опросе, Вам необходимо подписать данный документ (ниже), свидетельствующий о Вашем согласии. Если у Вас есть какие‐либо вопросы или комментарии, пожалуйста направьте их на адрес электронной почты Научного Работника, указанный ниже.

Данное исследование на тему «Роль Женщин в Устойчивости Проектов Питьевого Водоснабжения в Развивающихся Странах: Пример Таджикистана», проводится Наргис Артушевской, в рамках учебной программы Степени Магистра по Окружающей Среде, Колледж Наук по Окружающей Среде и Лесоводства, Государственного Университета штата Нью‐Йорк.

Исследование направлено на проведение подробного анализа о возможном влиянии участия женщин (представителей общин) в проектах питьевого водоснабжения на успешное выполнение и устойчивость проекта. Планируется, что данное исследование предоставит полный анализ существующей литературы на данную тему, а также соберет мнения экспертов, принимающих непосредственное или косвенное участие в финансировании, реализации и мониторинге проектов питьевого водоснабжения в сельской местности Таджикистана. Ваше участие в данном опросе основано полностью на добровольной и конфиденциальной основе, и Вы можете прекратить участие в любой момент без каких‐либо штрафных санкций. Если Вы примете решение участвовать, у Вас есть право не указывать Ваше имя. Заполнение вопросника займет 10‐15 минут. Информация, собранная путем проведения данного опроса, является конфиденциальной и любая идентификационная информация Участника не будет разглашена, за исключением случаев, когда сам Участник пожелает обратное. Я получил (сохранил) копию данного документа и понимаю цели данного исследования. Данным я подтверждаю, что мне 18 или более лет и я выражаю согласие принять участие в данном опросе, не ожидая взамен какого‐либо вознаграждения. _____________________________________ _______________ Подпись Дата ___________________________________________________________________________ Имя, должность, организация (не указывайте, в случае если желаете оставаться анонимным) Наргис Артушевская Профессор Ричард Смардон Студент – Научный Работник Эксперт Кандидат Наук по Окружающей Среде Профессор, Отдел Окружающей Среды Колледж Наук по Окружающей Среде Колледж Наук по Окружающей Среде и Лесоводства, и Лесоводства, Гос. Университета штата Нью‐Йорк Гос. Университета штата Нью‐Йорк [email protected] [email protected] (1) 315‐600‐0081 (1) 315‐470‐657

131

Annex G. Survey Recruitment Scripts in English and Russian

Recruitment script

Letter to the Survey Participants from TAJWSS (Partnering Agency) Dear TAJWSS Partners, You are kindly invited to participate in the survey for the research on the “Role of Women in Sustainability of Donor‐funded Drinking Water Supply Projects in Developing Countries: Case Study of Tajikistan”. This research is undertaken by Mrs. Nargis Artyushevskaya, MS Candidate in Environmental Studies, College of Environmental Science and Forestry of the State University of New York (SUNY ESF). Her research aims at analyzing the role of female community members participation in rural community‐ managed drinking water supply projects to the sustainability of the projects. This research is a logical continuation of her previous study on the Sustainability of Drinking Water Supply projects in Tajikistan (2012), which you actively contributed to. Nargis would be very thankful if you could spend your 10‐15 minutes to complete the attached questionnaire. Your participation is very important and responses will remain confidential. Please find enclosed the Informed Consent Form with additional information on the research. You are kindly requested to send the completed questionnaire with the consent form back to Nargis Artyushevskaya at ([email protected]) before ___________ [deadline]. Текст обращения в участникам Письмо к участникам опроса, партнерам ТАДВСС Уважаемые партнеры ТАДВСС, Вы приглашены принять участие в опросе по исследованию «Роль женщин для устойчивости проектов питьевого водоснабжения финансируемые донорами в развивающихся странах: пример Таджикистана». Данное исследование проводится Наргис Артушевской, Кандидатом Наук в сфере Окружающей Среды, Колледжа Окружающей Среды и Лесоводства, Государственного Университета штата Нью‐Йорк. Ее исследование направлено на проведение анализа о роли участия женщин, представительниц местных общин, в сельских проектах по питьевому водоснабжению и их устойчивость. Данное исследование является логическим продолжением предыдущего исследования об Устойчивости Проектов по Питьевому Водоснабжению в Таджикистане, в котором вы приняли активное участие. Наргис будет очень признательна если бы Вы смогли уделить 10‐15 минут своего времени на заполнение приложенного вопросника. Ваше участие очень важно для данного исследования и вся информация будет оставаться конфиденциальной. Пожалуйста найдите в приложении документ Официального Соглашения с дополнительной информацией об исследовании. Мы убедительно просим Вас выслать заполненный вопросник с согласием на участие на электронный адрес Наргис Артушевской ([email protected]) до _____________ (срока).

132

Annex H. Survey Pre‐test Recruitment Script

Dear ____________________________________________ (name of participant), You are kindly invited to participate in the pre‐testing of the survey questionnaire on the "Women's participation in the sustainability of drinking water supply projects". This questionnaire is designed to collect the opinions of specialists in the case study country (Tajikistan) on the role of women's participation for the sustainability of the projects. The present format of the questionnaire (doc, pdf) is chosen strategically to adjust to the convenience of the survey participants, due to potential problems with limited access to internet. Please find attached the informed consent form with more details on this research. With this invitation for the pre‐testing, you are kindly asked to (i) read and sign the informed consent form, and (ii) answer the questions in the attached questionnaire. In addition, please feel free to provide any general feedbacks with regard to this questionnaire with particular consideration of the following: 1. Are questions clear and readable? Do you think any particular question(s) should be rephrased? 2. Does the chosen ranking design for the questions seem to be appropriate? 3. Do you have any additional questions you think should be included into this questionnaire? 4. How much time did you spend to complete the questionnaire? 5. Does the background information provided on the first page of the questionnaire is clear and sufficient? I will highly appreciate if you could return the completed questionnaire and the informed consent form within the next three days (if possible). Your feedback is very important for the pre‐testing of the survey tool. Let me know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Nargis Nargis Artyushevskaya MS Candidate, Environmental Studies SUNY ESF [email protected] (1) 315‐600‐0081

133

Annex I. Survey Pre‐test Informed Consent

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

PRE‐TESTING OF THE SURVEY TOOL on the role of women in sustainability of constructed drinking water projects in developing countries

The purpose of this form is to provide a clear explanation of the nature of this research. Once you are entirely satisfied with this explanation and freely choose to participate in the pre‐testing of the survey tool, you may indicate your willingness to participate by signing below. If you have any concerns or questions please direct them to the Student Researcher or the Principle Investigator at the contact details provided below.

This study is a research project on the “Role of Women in Sustainability of Donor‐funded Drinking Water Supply Projects in Developing Countries: Case Study of Tajikistan” undertaken by Nargis Artyushevskaya, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of MS Program in Environmental Studies, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York (SUNY ESF). The research aims at providing a comprehensive analysis on the possible impacts of different forms of women’s involvement and participation in rural drinking water supply project activities to the project effectiveness and success/ sustainability. The researcher plans to analyze the available base of literature on the topic, as well as collect the opinions of experts, involved directly or indirectly in financing, implementation and monitoring of drinking water supply projects in rural Tajikistan.

The participation in the survey pre‐testing is voluntary and you may decide to withdraw from the participation at any moment without penalty. If you decide to participate in the pre‐testing you have a right to leave your name anonymous. The information collected through the pre‐testing of the survey tools will be kept confidential and the identity of individual responses will not be revealed in the best of investigator ability, unless stated otherwise by the Participant.

I have received a copy of this consent form and I understand the nature of the research project. I declare that I am 18 years of age or older and I voluntarily agree to take part in the pre‐testing of the survey tool without expecting any compensation.

134

Annex J. Survey Pre‐test Results

# Type of Comment Recommendations/ Suggestions

1 Terms and Definitions  Include short summary definition on key terms, such as “project sustainability”, “sustainability”

 Extend on the general information concerning the research project to provide more background to the respondent

2 Working and Language  Rephrase wordings such as “tokenism”  Reformulate some of the questions for respondents to

understand easier 3 Ranking scale and format  The ranking scale on “importance” has been revised

 Use larger fonts/make bold some parts of the questionnaire to attract greater attention of a respondent

 Improve the format so that it is convenient for any respondent to check the answers, i.e. make boxes for option answers clickable

 Add “I don’t know” to the questions with “true/false” answer type of questions

 Consider minimizing the number of open‐ended “comment” sections and consider having only one space fort the comments at the end of a section

 Put questions and answer options in different color for a respondent to better distinct from question and answer sections

4 Other  Include one more category in the General Section on the type of agency being represented by a respondent, i.e. “educational institution/ university”

 Include one more option in the General Section on experience, i.e. 0‐5 years of experience

 May need to include some more information on the instructions of completing the questionnaire

 Delete the last section requesting contact information of a respondent

The overall time reported by the respondents of the pre‐testing stage was 15‐20 min for the completion of the survey. However, some respondents said that it should take less time if the actual participants of the survey are familiar with the language/context. It has also noticed by the respondents that some questions may tend to prompt a respondent to agree with the statement rather than disagree. Thus the formulation of such questions has been revisited and improve to improve the understanding of the questions.

135

Annex K. Survey Piloting Recruitment Script

Dear ___________________________________________ (name of the participant), You are kindly invited to participate in the piloting of the survey questionnaire on the "Women's participation in the sustainability of drinking water supply projects". This questionnaire is designed to collect the opinions of specialists in the case study country (Tajikistan) on the role of women's participation for the sustainability of the projects. Please find attached the informed consent form with more details on this research. With this invitation for the piloting, you are kindly asked to (i) read and sign the informed consent form, and (ii) answer the questions in the attached questionnaire. Please feel free to provide any general feedbacks with regard to this questionnaire and any particular suggestions to improve the tool. I will highly appreciate if you could return the completed questionnaire and the informed consent form by _________ (date). Your feedback is very important for the piloting of the survey tool. Let me know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Nargis MS Candidate in Environmental Studies College of Environmental Science and Forestry State University of New York Mob: 1 (315) 600 0081 E‐mail: [email protected]

136

Annex L. Survey Piloting Informed Consent

INFORMED CONSENT FORM PILOTING OF THE SURVEY TOOL

on the role of women in sustainability of constructed drinking water projects in developing countries

The purpose of this form is to provide a clear explanation of the nature of this research. Once you are entirely satisfied with this explanation and freely choose to participate in the piloting of the survey tool, you may indicate your willingness to participate by signing below. If you have any concerns or questions please direct them to the Student Researcher at the contact details provided below.

The participation in the survey piloting is voluntary and you may decide to withdraw from the participation at any moment without penalty. If you decide to participate in the piloting you have a right to leave your name anonymous. The information collected through the piloting of the survey tools will be kept confidential and the identity of individual responses will not be revealed in the best of investigator ability, unless stated otherwise by the Participant.

137

Annex M. Literature Review Findings Tabulation

# Year Author(s) Country Projects Assessed/ methods Major findings/ factors of success Major findings/factors of failure

1 2000 Kleemeier Malawi The Impact of Participation on Sustainability: An Analysis of the Malawi Rural Piped Scheme Program

Case study of 17 schemes Qualitative (field observations)

‐ External agency support for community management committees ‐ Better management and repair capacity

2 2002 James, Verhagen, van Wijk, Nanavaty, Parikh, & Bhatt

India Transforming time into money using water: A participatory study of economics and gender in rural India

Case study of two villages Qualitative (field observations, interviews)

‐ Provision of earning opportunities for women ‐ Involvement of empowered women in decision‐making

3 2003 Jakariya, Chowdhury, Hossain, Rahman, Sarker, Khan, & Rahman

Bangladesh Sustainable community‐based safe water options to Mitigate the Bangladesh arsenic catastrophe – An Experience from two upazilas

Qualitative and quantitative (testing of 51,685 tube wells)

‐ Close integration with the community; ‐ Appropriate technical solutions ‐ Training of female village volunteers

4 2003 Admassu, Kumie, & Fantahun

Ethiopia Household study among 768 households in 11 randomly selected associations in North Gondar using a pre‐tested structured questionnaire, focus group discussions and 114 physical site observations in Dec 2001‐Jan 2002

Quantitative (surveys) Qualitative (focus groups, field observations

‐ Modest water service fee ‐ Moderate distance from water points ‐ Community involvement in all stages of water development ‐ Adequate skill and capacity to maintain water sources ‐ Gender sensitivity

‐ Insufficient community partnership with management

‐ Lack of adequate skills of financial management

‐ Absence of gender sensitivity

5 2004 Doe & Khan Ghana The boundaries and limits of community‐management: lessons from the water sector in Ghana

Qualitative (literature review)

‐ (Small) size of village population (community cohesion) ‐ Community participation in decision‐making, planning and service provision

22 the districts of Bangladesh are divided into sub‐districts called Upazila

138

‐ Sense of ownership

6 2004 FonJong, Nebasina & Fonchingong

Cameroon Rethinking the contribution of indigenous management in small‐scale water provision among selected rural communities in Cameroon Case study

Qualitative (literature review, interviews)

‐ Community participation ‐ Involvement of women in project planning ‐ Involvement of women in project management

7 2004 Musonda Zambia Issues regarding sustainability of rural water supply in Zambia

Case Study Qualitative (24 interviews)

‐ effective community organization ‐ communities have the ability to operate and maintain ‐ communities are able to raise adequate user fees for purchasing spare parts ‐ there is a strong backup support at the district level to carry out major repairs

8 2004 O'Reilly India Developing Contradictions: Women’s Participation as a Site of Struggle Within an Indian NGO

Case study Qualitative (interviews, observations, document review)

‐ Women’s participation not taken seriously ‐ Women’s participation as a “decorative item” ‐ Lack of women’s agency and power

9 2004 Prokopy India Women’s participation in rural water supply projects in India: is it moving beyond tokenism and does it matter?

Qualitative (focus groups, interviews) and quantitative (household surveys) 45 villages

‐ Community participation is generally positive ‐ Participation of women is not against general custom ‐ Men support women’s involvement ‐ Women are interested and do not hesitate to participate ‐ Women has agency and allowed to speak out ‐ Women are consulted on the project

‐ Participation of women as nominal or token ‐ Participation of women as a reservation policy

10 2005 Prokopy India The relationship between participation and project

Quantitative (regression model) and qualitative

‐ Community contribution into capital costs

139

outcomes: Evidence from rural water supply projects in India

(interviews) ‐ Household involvement in decision‐making

11 2005 Bhandari, Grant & Pokharel

Nepal Sustainable community water: Managing supply systems in the mid‐hills of Nepal

Qualitative (interviews) and quantitative (household survey)

‐ Involvement of women in project planning ‐ Government supervision, adequate mechanisms for the handover of constructed schemes, and coordination among local water committees and local government

‐ Lack of involvement of women during the planning stages

12 2005 Garande & Dagg

Chile Public Participation and Effective Water Governance at the Local Level: A Case Study from a small under‐developed area in Chile

Case study Qualitative

‐ Community participation in planning and management ‐ Participation should be inclusive and communicative

‐ Lack of comprehensive consultation with community ‐ Low level of participation of community ‐ Lack of transparency

13 2006 Singh India Women’s Participation in Local Water Governance: Understanding Institutional Contradictions

Qualitative (observations, interviews, focus groups) 22 villages in 5 districts

‐ Homogeneity in women’s groups for participation

‐ Heterogeneity in women’s groups for participation ‐ Women’s participation is passive and tokenistic

14 2006 Magrath Sierra Leone

Towards Sustainable Water‐ Supply Solutions in Rural Sierra Leone A Pragmatic Approach, Using Comparisons with Mozambique

Quantitative (surveys) ‐ Low‐tech technology ‐ Post‐project support ‐ Availability of tools and spare parts ‐ Community capacity building ‐ Health education

‐ Lack of community cohesion ‐ Women’s workload and position in society

15 2006 Cleaver & Toner

Tanzania The Evolution of Community Water Governance in Uchira, Tanzania: the implications for equity of access, sustainability and effectiveness Case study

Qualitative (field observations, interviews, document review)

‐ Sense of community ownership

16 2006 Hoko & Hertle Zimbabwe An evaluation of the sustainability of a rural water rehabilitation project in

Case Study Qualitative (field observations, interviews)

‐ Active community involvement ‐ Strengthened capacity of water committees

140

Zimbabwe Easiness of operation of facility ‐ Improved awareness of local communities on the project

17 2006 Haysom Tanzania A study of the factors affecting sustainability of rural water supplies in Tanzania

Qualitative and Quantitative 38 villages in 6 regions

‐ Pricing based on achieving full cost‐recovery ‐ Simplicity in management structures

‐ Ongoing use of alternative sources is found to undermine cost recovery

18 2007 Acharya, Yoshino, Jimba, & Wakai

Nepal Case study of community development program School and Community Health Project launched in 1992 in 15 villages (45,000 people) to improve the overall living conditions of people through health, economic and educational improvements and targeted women. Qualitative and quantitative techniques of data analysis through benchmark data analysis

Qualitative Quantitative

‐ Homogeneity in community management groups

‐ Project dynamism ‐ Outside support and people’s

initiative

‐ Heterogeneity in community management groups

‐ Lack dynamism and mere financial support

19 2007 Gleitsmann, Kroma & Tammo

Mali Analysis of a rural water supply project in three communities in Mali: Participation and Sustainability

Case study of three villages Qualitative (focus groups, key informant interviews) and quantitative (household surveys)

‐ Lack of commitment to maintain ‐ Inappropriate technology ‐ Women (and herders) not involved in management

20 2008 deWilde, Milman, Flores, Salmeron & Ray

Mexico An Integrated Method for Evaluating Community‐based Safe Water Programs and an application in rural Mexico 31 study communities

Qualitative (field observations, interviews, document review)

‐ User convenience (esp. among women)

21 2008 Gine & Perez‐ Foguet

Tanzania Sustainability assessment of national rural water supply program in Tanzania

Qualitative (literature review, interviews, meeting, field observations)

‐ Management at the lowest appropriate level ‐ Communities owning and managing their water schemes

141

‐ Availability of spare parts and knowhow ‐ Full cost recovery for operation and maintenance of the scheme ‐ The protection of water sources ‐ Balancing between technology, service level and the capacity of the beneficiaries ‐ The recognition of women as key players and the inclusion of the poor

22 2008 Prokopy, Thorsten, Bakalian & Wakeman

Peru Evaluating the Role of post‐ construction Support in Sustaining Drinking Water Projects Evidence from Peru

Case study: two programs Quantitative (household survey, system operator survey) and qualitative (focus groups)

‐ Post construction support (technical, educational, managerial, financial assistance externally received)

23 2008 Smith Pakistan A critical appreciation of the “bottom‐up” approach to sustainable water management: embracing complexity rather than desirability

Case study Qualitative

‐ Community participation passive and tokenistic ‐ local level capacity constrains ‐ critical lack of facilitator knowledge

24 2009 Busari

Swaziland Water, sanitation and sustainability: lessons from a community‐project Case Study

Qualitative (field work observations, interviews, document review)

‐ Close coordination of all stakeholders in planning, packaging and implementing the project

25 2009 Esposto Darfur Iraq

The sustainability of applied technologies for water supply in developing countries Case studies

Qualitative ‐ Choice of technology (locally oriented)

26 2009 Montgomery, Bartram & Elimelech

Sub‐ Saharan Africa

Increasing Functional Sustainability of Water and Sanitation Supplies in Rural Sub‐Saharan Africa

Case Study Qualitative

‐ effective community demand ‐ local financing and cost recovery ‐ dynamic operation and maintetance

27 2009 Prokopy India Determinants and Benefits of Household Level Participation

Qualitative (focus groups, interviews) and

‐ Higher levels of overall community participation in a

142

in Rural Drinking Water Projects in India

quantitative (household surveys) 45 villages

project

28 2009 Sultana Bangladesh Community and participation in water resources management: gendering and naturing development debates from Bangladesh

Case study Qualitative (observations, focus groups, interviews)

‐ Social and geographical restrictions of women to practice participation (women’s exclusions in participation) ‐ Heterogeneity in participation groups

29 2009 Whittington, Davis, Prokopy, Komives, Thorsten, Lukacs, Bakalian & Wakeman

Bolivia Peru Ghana

How well is the demand‐driven, community management model for rural water supply systems doing? Evidence from Bolivia, Peru and Ghana

Case studies Qualitative (interviews, focus groups)

‐ Access to spare parts ‐ Community participation ‐ Post‐construction support (?)

30 2010 Aladuwaka & Momsen

Sri Lanka A case study of Wanaraniya water project in Sri Lanka covering 283 households (964 families)

Qualitative methods (interviews, focus groups, field observations)

‐ Community participation ‐ Women’s commitment to (hard

work) ‐ Partnership with others

(government bodies, NGOs) ‐ Women’s participation and

leadership in project planning and design

‐ Women’s agency and control over water (power of disconnecting water)

‐ Women’s solidarity ‐ Employment opportunities of

women ‐ Support of males to women’s

leadership ‐ Sense of ownership ‐ Knowing technology and how

143

to fix breakdowns ‐ Affordability of fixing

breakdowns

31 2010 Armanios Egypt Sustainable Development as a Community of Practice: Insights from Rural Water Projects in Egypt 23 water projects

Qualitative (field observations, interviews)

‐ Lack of economic sustainability (debts and economic burdens to future generation)

32 2010 Barnes & Ashbolt

Philippines Planning for Sustainable Water and Sanitation Projects in Rural Developing Communities Case study of Philippines

Qualitative (field observations, interviews)

‐ Community involvement in project planning and development workers as facilitators ‐ Commitment of beneficiaries to the project ‐ Project initiation arising from within a community ‐ Genuine need for water ‐ Integrity and transparency between community and development workers

33 2010 Jiméneza & Pérez‐Foguetb

Tanzania Challenges for Water Governance in Rural Water Supply: Lessons Learned from Tanzania

Qualitative (field observation, interviews, case studies)

‐ Strengthening role of local government

‐ Limitations in community funds ‐ Low professionalism in the management of services ‐ Limited role of decentralized government with regard to monitoring, regulation and technical support

34 2010 Masduqi, Endah, Soedjono & Hadi

Indonesia Structural equation modeling for assessing of the sustainability of rural water supply systems

Qualitative (interviews, field observation) Structural Equation Modelling

‐ selection of technology ‐ water sources ‐ investment cost ‐ capability of operator ‐ availability of spare parts ‐ operation cost

144

‐ technical operation ‐ community participation ‐ institutional management

35 2010 Massoud, Al‐ Abady, Jurdi & Nuwayhid

Lebanon The Challenges of Sustainable Access to Safe Drinking Water in Rural Areas of Developing Countries: Case of Zawtar El‐ Charkieh, Southern Lebanon

Case study Qualitative

‐ Integration of quality of water supply management and educational programs

‐ contamination of the source ‐ poor maintenance operations ‐ aging of the networks

36 2010 Padawangi Pakistan Community‐Driven Development as Drivers of Change: Water Supply and Sanitation Projects in Rural Punjab, Pakistan

Qualitative (interviews) and quantitative (regression analysis) 78 projects

‐ community participation ‐ women’s active involvement ‐ support of community‐ management model by the government ‐ community owenrship and appreciation of the project ‐ public sector provides continuous monitoring and guidance

37 2011 Madrial, Alpizar & Schlute

Costa Rica Determinants of Performance of Community‐Based Drinking Water Organizations

Four case study Qualitative

‐ High sense of ownership ‐ Human capital (expertise, education, leadership, participation by women) ‐ Training programs that include young people and women

38 2012 Holm Malawi Recent History Provides Sustainable African Water Quality Project Insight

Case study Qualitative (field observations)

‐ Identification of needs ‐ Partnerships with community ‐ ‐ An exit strategy

39 2012 Opare Ghana Rainwater harvesting: an option for sustainable rural water supply in Ghana

Case study (two communities) Qualitative

‐ affordability ‐ ease of operations ‐ user ownership ‐ user management

145

Annex N. Categorization of Literature Review Findings

# Author(s) Country Typology of project sustainability factors

Technical Financial Institutional Social Other

1 Kleemeier, 2000

Malawi Repair capacity External agency post‐ project support

Management capacity

2 James et al., 2002

India Empowerment of women: provision of earning opportunities Involvement women in decision‐ making

3 Jakariya et al., 2003

Bangladesh Appropriate technical solutions

Close integration with community Training of female village volunteers

4 Admassu et al., 2003

Ethiopia Adequate skills and capacity to maintain water source

Modest water service fee

Community involvement in all stages of water project Gender sensitivity

Moderate distance from water points

5 Doe & Khan , 2004

Ghana Community participation in decision‐ making Sense of ownership (Small) size of village population (community cohesion)

6 FonJong et al., 2004

Cameroon Community participation Involvement of women in project planning and management

7 Musonda, 2004

Zambia Ability to operate and maintain

Communities are able to raise adequate user fees for purchasing spare parts Strong backup support at the district level to carry out major repairs

Effective community organization

8 O'Reilly, 2004 India Women’s participation perceived seriously and is not a decorative item Women’s agency and power

9 Prokopy, 2004 India Community participation Participation of women is not against

146

general custom Men support women’s involvement Women are interested and do not hesitate to participate Women has agency and allowed to speak out Women are consulted on the project

10 Prokopy, 2005 India Community contribution into capital costs

Household involvement in decision‐ making

11 Bhandari et al., 2005

Nepal Government supervision Adequate mechanisms for the handover of constructed schemes Coordination among local water committees and local government

Involvement of women in project planning

12 Garande & Dagg, 2005

Chile Transparency Community participation in planning and management Community participation inclusive and communicative

13 Singh, 2006 India Homogeneity in women’s groups for participation Women’s participation is active

14 Magrath, 2006

Sierra Leone

Low‐tech technology Availability of tools and spare parts Community’s capacity in construction

Community cohesion Women’s and societal position affects negatively

15 Cleaver & Toner, 2006

Tanzania Sense of community ownership

16 Hoko & Hertle, 2006

Zimbabwe Strengthened capacity of water

Active community involvement Improved community awareness

147

committees about the project

17 Haysom, 2006 Tanzania Full cost‐recovery tariff Simplicity in the management structures

Ongoing use of alternative sources can undermine cost recovery

18 Acharya et al, 2007

Nepal Outside support Homogeneity in community management groups People’s initiative

Project dynamism

19 Gleitsmann et al., 2007

Mali Appropriate technology

Commitment to maintain Women (and herders) are involved in management

20 deWilde et al., 2008

Mexico User convenience (esp. among women)

21 Gine & Perez‐ Foguet, 2008

Tanzania Availability of spare parts and knowhow

Full cost recovery for operation and maintenance

Management at the lowest appropriate level

Communities ownership and management of water schemes Recognition of women as key players and the inclusion of the poor

Protection of water sources Balancing between technology, service level and the capacity of the beneficiaries

22 Prokopy et al., 2008

Peru Technical external post‐construction assistance

Financial external post‐ construction support assistance

Managerial and educational post‐ construction support from outside

23 Smith, 2009 Pakistan Sufficient knowledge to manage

Active (and not tokenistic) community participation Local level capacity constrains

24 Busari, 2009

Swaziland Close coordination of all stakeholders in planning, packaging and implementing the project

25 Esposto, 2009 Darfur Iraq

Choice of technology (locally oriented)

26 Montgomery et al., 2009

Sub‐ Saharan

Local financing and cost recovery

Dynamic operation and maintetance

Effective community demand

148

Africa

27 Prokopy, 2009 India Higher levels of overall community participation in a project

28 Sultana, 2009 Bangladesh No social and geographical restrictions of women to practice participation (women’s inclusion in participation) Homogeneity in participation groups

29 Whittington et al., 2009

Bolivia Peru Ghana

Access to spare parts Post‐construction support

Community participation

30 Aladuwaka & Momsen, 2010

Sri Lanka Knowing technology and how to fix breakdowns

Affordability of fixing breakdowns

Partnership with others (government bodies, NGOs)

Community participation Women’s commitment to projects (hardwork) Women’s participation and leadership in project planning and design Women’s agency and control over water (power of disconnecting water) Women’s solidarity Employment opportunities of women Support of males to women’s leadership Sense of ownership

31 Armanios, 2010

Egypt Financial sustainability (no debts and economic burdens to future generation)

32 Barnes & Ashbolt, 2010

Philippines Community involvement in project planning and Commitment of beneficiaries to the project Project initiation arising from within

Genuine need for water Integrity and Transparency between community and development workers

149

a community Development workers should act as facilitators

33 Jiméneza & Pérez‐ Foguetb, 2010

Tanzania Sufficient community funds

Strong role of local government Professionalism in the management of services

Limited role of decentralized government with regard to monitoring, regulation and technical support

34 Masduqi et al., 2010

Indonesia Technology choice and adequate technical operation Availability of spare parts

Sufficient investment costs Adequate operational costs

Capability of operators Institutional management

Community participation Water source

35 Massoud et al., 2010

Lebanon Adequate maintenance operations

Qualitative water supply management and educational programs

Prevent contamination of water sources

36 Padawangi, 2010

Pakistan Support of community‐ management model by the government Community owenrship and appreciation of the project Public sector provides continuous monitoring and guidance

Community participation Women’s active involvement

37 Madrial et al., 2011

Costa Rica High sense of ownership Human capital (expertise, education, leadership, participation by women) Training programs that include young people and women

150

38 Holm, 2012 Malawi Proper exist strategy (for handover)

Partnerships with community

Accurate identification of needs

39 Opare, 2012 Ghana Ease of operations Project affordability User ownership User management

151

Annex O. Crosstab of survey results: General Information on Survey Participants

Case Processing Summary

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent Gender * Age 44 95.7% 2 4.3% 46 100.0% Gender * Type of agency a respondent works for

46 100.0% 0 0.0% 46 100.0%

Gender * Years of experience 46 100.0% 0 0.0% 46 100.0% Gender * Professional occupation

46 100.0% 0 0.0% 46 100.0%

Gender * Age Crosstabulation Count

Age Total 0‐30 31‐40 41‐50 51‐60 60+

Gender male 2 7 10 7 4 30 female 3 3 3 3 2 14

Total 5 10 13 10 6 44

Gender * Type of agency a respondent works for Crosstabulation Count

Type of agency a respondent works for internation al or local donor agency

internatio nal or

local NGO

government al agency

community‐ based

organization

consulting or research institution

private sector

total

Gender male 8 9 8 3 2 1 31 female 1 6 1 4 2 1 15

Total 9 15 9 7 4 2 46

Gender * Years of experience Crosstabulation Count

Years of experience Total 0‐5 years 6‐10 years 11‐20 years 21‐30 years 30+ years

Gender male 6 9 11 3 2 31 female 7 5 3 0 0 15

Total 13 14 14 3 2 46

Gender * Professional occupation Crosstabulation Count

Professional occupation Total project

manager/tea m leader

engineer/te chnical worker

trainer/edu cator

monitoring/ evaluation

community mobilizer

other

Gender male 15 6 1 2 1 6 31 female 8 0 3 2 0 2 15

Total 23 6 4 4 1 8 46

152

Annex P. Survey results: agreement to country‐specific statements

Statistics

5.1 Women in

Tajikistan

presently have

equal rights (to

men) to

participate in the

implementation

and maintenance

of projects

5.2 It is

important for the

sustainability of

the project that

women have

equal rights (to

men) to

participate in

projects

5.3 Women are

given more

opportunities (by

donors,

implementing

agencies and/or

local authorities)

to participate in

projects

5.4 Participation

of women during

the project

construction

does not

contribute to the

project

sustainability

5.5 Participation

of women in the

project operation

and maintenance

does not

contribute to the

project

sustainability

5.6 Women are

capable of

implementing

the role of

project operation

and maintenance

effectively

5.7 Women's

participation in

projects is

symbolic and

have no positive

effects on project

success and

sustainability

N Valid 46 46 46 44 46 45 46

Missing 0 0 0 2 0 1 0

Mean .65 .96 .48 .09 .07 .82 .11

Median 1.00 1.00 .00 .00 .00 1.00 .00

Mode 1 1 0 0 0 1 0

Std. Deviation .482 .206 .505 .291 .250 .387 .315

Variance .232 .043 .255 .085 .062 .149 .099

Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maximum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

153

CURRICULUM VITAE

NARGIS A. ARTYUSHEVSKAYA

11/8 Fedina, apt 65, Dushanbe, Tajikistan (734043) Phone: (315) 600‐0081, [email protected]; [email protected]

Linkedin: http://lnkd.in/qEMYGK

SUMMARY  Ten years of professional experience in the area of water and sanitation, hygiene education, emergency

response.

 Fulbright Exchange Student: Candidate of Master of Science in Environmental Studies, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York (SUNY ESF).

 Graduated from the University of Oxford, Master of Science in Water Science, Policy and Management. Possesses Bachelor degree in Management and Associate Degree in Computer Sciences.

Education and qualifications

State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry 2012 – 2014 Syracuse, NYS, U.S.A. MS candidate in Environmental Studies Oxford University, School of Geography and Environment 2011 – 2012 Oxford, U.K. MSc in Water Science, Policy and Management Tajik State University of Nosiri Khusrav 2002 – 2007 Kurgan Tyube, Tajikistan Management in Economics Diploma of Economist (equivalent to Bachelor degree) Tajik State Polytechnic College 1999 – 2002 Kurgan Tyube, Tajikistan Computer‐based processing and system control Diploma of junior computer engineer

Professional Experience

United Nation Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Tajikistan 2003 – 2011 Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Project Officer (April 2008 – September 2011)  Collection and critical analysis of program implementation data and further processing into Situation

Analysis Reports (SitReps), project progress reports and end‐of‐year evaluation reports.  Coordination of project activities via technical cooperation and close coordination with project partners.

Organization of flow of supplies and services to the project sites.  Development of annual project plans and budget design in consultation with government partners.  Preparation of project proposals to donors, fundraising concept notes and Program Review Papers.  Coordination of Water and Sanitation Emergency Response Activities via technical cooperation with sector

154

agencies. Preparation of Contingency Plans, rapid emergency response activities, sector updates and Appeals to Donors.

 Contribution to the development of country program documents, such as Country Program Action Plan (CPAP), Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) and Assessment of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

 Provision of technical inputs to the development of national standards for sanitation and water supply in schools in consultation with international experts and local government authorities.

 Organization of field donor visits to the project sites; field monitoring of project activities, ensuring timely and successful implementation of project activities.

WASH/ Education Project Assistant (February 2003 – April 2008)  Assisting Project Officer in data collection and analysis, monitoring and maintaining program records and

archiving.  Assisting in preparation of progress reports via obtaining timely updates from project partners,

government counterparts and service providers. Data processing and translation into appropriate format.  Monitoring of project activities in the field in coordination with local government authorities and project

stakeholders. Ensuring timely field reports on the project progress.  Ensuring smooth and effective flow of communication with project stakeholders via drafting and

translation of official letters.  Assisting in coordination of Water and Sanitation Emergency Response Sector via drafting of meeting

agendas and notes, ensuring timely flow of communication between sector partners and organization of emergency response activities to the affected project sites.

Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development (ACTED), Tajikistan 2000 – 2003 Water and Sanitation Program Assistant (Feb 2001 – Feb 2003)  Assisting Program Manager in overseeing project activities via collection, processing and analysis of data

from the field.

 Development and maintenance of project databases.

 Contribution to the progress reports and project updates in preparation to donor visits, annual reviews.

Technical assistance with organization of donor visits.

 Organization of program coordination meetings, review of notes and dissemination of meeting updates.

 Field monitoring of project activities and preparation of timely updates.

 Drafting official letters, translation of program related documents.

 Maintaining filing system and archiving of program related documents.

Program Volunteer (Dec 2000 – Feb 2001)  Assisting in data collection, analysis and translation of program related materials.

 Provision of clerical assistance with organization of meetings, logistics and follow‐up.

 Assisting in maintaining of program filing and archive systems.

Training and Conferences

Water Security, Risk and Society Conference, Oxford, U.K. 2012

WASH in schools on‐line course, Emory University/ UNICEF 2011

Education in Emergency Training, Geneva, Switzerland 2010

International Conference on “Water for Life”, Dushanbe, Tajikistan 2010

International Conference on Inclusive Education 2008

155

UNICEF Emergency Awareness Training, Geneva, Switzerland 2008

UNICEF Regional Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) training

Montreux, Switzerland 2007 UNICEF Mine Action and Small Arms Workshop, Geneva, Switzerland 2006

Second World Water Forum, Mexico 2006

International Round Table on Girls’ Education, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene 2005

Oxford, UK Water Quality Monitoring Training, Dushanbe, Tajikistan 2004

National Children’s Water Forum, Dushanbe, Tajikistan 2003

Publications  Sustainability of Donor‐funded drinking water supply schemes in Tajikistan 2012

Contributed to:  Repositioning UNICEF WASH in school strategy 2010

 Tajikistan Rapid Emergency Assessment, WASH Cluster 2009

 Tajikistan Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in schools survey 2008

 National Rapid Water Quality Assessment Survey in Tajikistan 2006

Awards and Scholarships

 Huber Technology Fund  George Peter’s Bursary (Wolfson College, Oxford University)  Fulbright Foreign Exchange Student Scholarship

LANGUAGES English, Russian, Tajik