Search

Author(s): Juliet Willetts *, Jess MacArthur, Naomi Carrard In July 2023, the Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) released a progress report on household drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) (2000-2022) with [...]

Qualitative research and evaluation is often described as an art rather than a science. This intangible nature has left many program teams feeling uncertain about how to justify and use qualitative forms of assessment in their monitoring, evaluation, and learning practice. Existing guidance is theoretically based and often focused on applications in the Global North. Building on an expressed need for guidance from a community of practice in Asia and the Pacific, this collaborative action research process aimed to create practical and tested guidance for program teams. The analysis was conducted as part of a Cambodia-based sanitation program assessment. Drawing from literature and the collaborative process, we propose a set of six principles to guide insightful, practical, and robust qualitative assessments. We provide examples regarding how the principles can be used to plan, conduct, and review qualitative assessments with a goal to strengthen the future use of qualitative tools in programming. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While citywide sanitation planning is perceived to be an enabler of coordinated improvements in sanitation services for developing countries, intended outcomes have often been elusive. In order to illustrate how political economy, chosen planning approaches, and ideas about change and development have acted as determinants of outcomes, this paper draws on three case study countries that took qualitatively different approaches to sanitation planning - Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia. The analysis found that the assumptions informing the planning methods were often not valid, which then undermined the potential for successful implementation. Based on the analysis, the paper argues that urban sanitation planning and implementation in developing countries needs to be transformed to reduce the emphasis on comprehensiveness and instead emphasise flexibility, a learning orientation and strategically chosen incentives. This approach demands tighter cycles of planning and action, direct testing of assumptions, and an in-depth understanding of the local- and national-level political economy and the links between them. It requires innovation to be enabled, with funding mechanisms that focus on outcome rather than input. In this way it would be possible to shift away from the typical emphasis on prescriptive procedural planning steps and towards delivery of the much-needed improved sanitation outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study on how water, sanitation and hygiene issues can be constructively addressed together with gender equality. It indicates that lack of access to safe water and basic sanitation in the Pacific negatively affects some Millennium Development Goals (MGD) such as the reduction in women's labor, achievement of universal primary education and reduction of child mortality. It suggests the need for gender-sensitive water, sanitation and hygiene initiatives and provides empirical evidence on possible gender outcomes in the Pacific.

Following publication of the manuscript, the authors were contacted by Mr Shaun Kies-Ryan, a hydrogeologist working in the Solomon Islands urban water sector. Section 3.1, second paragraph: replace the sentence "Countries where piped water in urban areas was found to be wholly or substantially drawn from groundwater included Kiribati, Timor-Leste and Vanuatu with 67%, 65% and 68% of urban households respectively using piped water drawn from groundwater sources." with the corrected text "Case study countries where piped water in urban areas was found to be wholly or substantially drawn from groundwater included Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Kiribati and Timor-Leste with 94%, 68%, 67% and 65% respectively of urban households using piped water drawn from groundwater sources". Section 3.1, third paragraph: replace the first clause of the sentence "For most case study countries, rates of reliance on groundwater for drinking were reasonably comparable across urban and rural areas, with two notable exceptions: Vanuatu, where urban rates of groundwater reliance were found to be almost four times higher than rural, and Cambodia" with the corrected text "For most case study countries, rates of reliance on groundwater for drinking were reasonably comparable across urban and rural areas, with three notable exceptions: Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands, with much higher rates of urban groundwater reliance, and Cambodia...". [Extracted from the article]