Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Influence of the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation Normative Content in Measuring the Level of Service

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Human Rights to Water and Sanitation (HRWS) have been consolidated as relevant frameworks to measure different levels of services. It is essential to move forward with specific initiatives that interpret the content of these human rights and operationalize them through specific metrics. However, some critical issues emerge in attempting this. Different approaches are proposed in this article to tackle this challenge: (1) utilizing a participatory technique to discuss the relative importance of the normative criteria to define water and sanitation services, (2) defining a short list of key indicators to measure the different dimensions of HRWS, and (3) assessing the impact of different weighting systems in the constructing an aggregated index, which has been proposed as a useful tool to monitor water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) from a rights perspective. Two municipalities (in Mozambique and Nicaragua) were selected as initial case studies. The results suggest that there is a common understanding among the experts about prioritization of the HRWS criteria. Differences in the relative importance given to the HRWS criteria can be explained due to the particularities of the local context. Further, the research suggests that expert opinions may be partially conditioned by targets and indicators proposed at the international level. Although the influence of weighting techniques on aggregated measures and their utilization in the decision-making process are limited, this methodology has a great potential for adapting specific WASH metrics to different regional, national, and/or local contexts taking into account the HRWS normative content.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In some cases, one positive or negative answer to a given indicator led to other indicators not being assessed. For instance, those households practicing open defecation were not evaluated against the other sanitation criteria—they were categorized as “not applicable”.

  2. In those cases where one household had no data to assess one or more specific dimensions, a weighted mean of other dimensions was calculated to assess the final index value.

  3. The “non-applicable” and “unknown” categories have been added to the non-respondents for simplicity considerations. This category includes, for instance, those households (1) practicing open defecation, (2) with no children under three, and (3) not connected to community systems managed by a committee.

References

  • AquaFed. (2014). Human right to safe drinking water and sanitation. The International Federation of Private Water Operators, http://www.aquafed.org/page-5-59.html#7.

  • Bain, R. E. S., Gundry, S. W., Wright, J. A., Yang, H., Pedley, S., & Bartram, J. K. (2012). Accounting for water quality in monitoring access to safe drinking water as part of the Millennium Development Goals: Lessons from five Countries. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 90, 228A–235A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bao, P. C., Aramaki, T., & Hanaki, K. (2013). Assessment of stakeholders’ preferences towards sustainable sanitation scenarios. Water and Environment Journal, 27, 58–70. doi:10.1111/j.1747-6593.2012.00327.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baquero, O. F., de Palencia, A. J. F., & Pérez-Foguet, A. (2015). Measuring disparities in access to water based on the normative content of the human right. Social Indicators Research, in press. doi:10.1007/s11205-015-0976-8.

  • Blancas, F. J., Contreras, I., & Ramírez-hurtado, J. M. (2013). Constructing a composite indicator with multiplicative aggregation under the objective of ranking alternatives. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 64, 668–678. doi:10.1057/jors.2012.90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booysen, F. (2002). An overview and evaluation of composite indices of development. Social Indicators Research, 59, 115–151. doi:10.1023/A:1016275505152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, B. A., Grandgirard, A., & Ward, J. R. (2010). Quantifying and exploring strategic regional priorities for managing natural capital and ecosystem services given multiple stakeholder perspectives. Ecosystems, 13, 539–555. doi:10.1007/s10021-010-9339-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, D., Ogwang, T., & Opio, C. (2010). Simplifying the water poverty index. Social Indicators Research, 97, 257–267. doi:10.1007/s11205-009-9501-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • COHRE WaterAid COSUDE and UN-HABITAT. (2008). Sanitation: A human rights imperative. In Right to water programme (Ed.), Center on housing rights and evictions. Geneve.

  • Duke, J. M., & Aull-Hydeb, R. (2002). Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process. Ecological Economics, 42, 131–145. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00053-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esty, D. C., & Porter, M. E. (2005). National environmental performance: An empirical analysis of policy results and determinants. Environment and Development Economics, 10, 391–434. http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/430.

  • Feitelson, E., & Chenoweth, J. (2002). Water poverty: Towards a meaningful indicator. Water Policy, 4, 263–281. doi:10.1016/S1366-7017(02)00029-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flores, O., Jiménez, A., & Pérez-Foguet, A. (2013). Monitoring access to water in rural areas based on the human right to water framework: A local level case study in Nicaragua. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 29, 605–621. doi:10.1080/07900627.2012.757017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flores, O., Jiménez, A., & Pérez-Foguet, A. (2015). Reporting progress on human right to water and sanitation through UN water global monitoring mechanisms. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, 5, 310–321. doi:10.2166/washdev.2015.151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman, E., & Peniwati, K. (1998). Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 108, 165–169. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00244-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freudenberg, M. (2003). Composite indicators of Country performance: A critical assessment. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gallego-Ayala, J., Dos Santos-Dimene, C., Munhequete, A., & Amos, R. (2014). Assessing the performance of urban water utilities in Mozambique using a water utility performance index. Water SA, 40, 665–675. doi:10.4314/wsa.v40i4.12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallego-Ayala, J., & Juizo, D. (2012). Performance evaluation of River Basin Organizations to implement integrated water resources management using composite indexes. Journal of Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 50–52, 205–216. doi:10.1016/j.pce.2012.08.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallego-Ayala, J., & Juizo, D. (2014). Integrating stakeholders’ preferences into water resources management planning in the incomati river. Water Resources Management, 28, 527–540. doi:10.1007/s11269-013-0500-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, R. G., Jiménez, A., & Foguet, A. P. (2013). Water-sanitation-hygiene mapping: An improved approach for data collection at local level. Science of the Total Environment, 463–464, 700–711. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.06.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, R. G., & Pérez-Foguet, A. (2010). Improved method to calculate a water poverty index at local scale. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 136, 1287–1298. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, R. G., & Pérez-Foguet, A. (2013). Unravelling the linkages between water, sanitation, hygiene and rural poverty: The WASH poverty index. Water Resources Management, 27, 1501–1515. doi:10.1007/s11269-012-0251-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Limón, J. A., & Atance, I. (2004). Identification of public objectives related to agricultural sector support. Journal of Policy Modeling, 26, 1045–1071. doi:10.1016/j.jpolmod.2004.07.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Limón, J. A., & Sanchez-Fernandez, G. (2010). Empirical evaluation of agricultural sustainability using composite indicators. Ecological Economics, 69, 1062–1075. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grošelj, P., Hodges, D. G., & Stirn, L. Z. (2015). Participatory and multi-criteria analysis for forest (ecosystem) management: A case study of Pohorje, Slovenia. Forest Policy and Economics (in press). doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2015.05.006.

  • Hajkowicz, S. (2006). Multi-attributed environmental index construction. Ecological Economics, 57, 122–139. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • INIDE (2005). Censo 2005. Instituto Nacional de Información para el Desarrollo. Retrived from http://www.inide.gob.ni/.

  • Irujo, A. E. (2007). The right to water. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 23, 267–283. doi:10.1080/07900620601182968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jemmali, H., & Sullivan, C. A. (2014). Multidimensional analysis of water poverty in MENA region: An empirical comparison with physical indicators. Social Indicators Research, 115, 253–277. doi:10.1007/s11205-012-0218-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. H., Villumsen, M., & Petersen, T. D. (2014). The AAAQ framework and the right to water. International indicators for availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality. An issue paper of the AAAQ toolbox. Copenhagen: The Danish Institute for Human Rights.

  • Jiménez, A., Cortobius, M., & Kjellén, M. (2014a). Water, sanitation and hygiene and indigenous peoples: a review of the literature. Water International, 39, 277–293. doi:10.1080/02508060.2014.903453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez, A., Mtango, F., & Cairncross, S. (2014b). What role for local government in sanitation promotion? Lessons from Tanzania. Water Policy, 16(6), 1104–1120. doi:10.2166/wp.2014.203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez, A., & Pérez-Foguet, A. (2012). Quality and year-round availability of water delivered by improved water points in rural Tanzania: Effects on coverage. Water Policy, 14, 509–523. doi:10.2166/wp.2011.026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joint Monitoring Programme. (2014). WASH targets and indicators post-2015: Recommendations from International Consultations. Updated April 2014. Retrieved from http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/post-2015-WASH-targets-factsheet-12pp.pdf Accessed 02 Jan 2015.

  • Joint Monitoring Programme. (2015). Progress on sanitation and drinking-water-2015 update and MDG assessment Geneva/New York, JMP, http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/JMP-Update-report-2015_English.pdf. Accessed 03 Nov 2015.

  • Jonsson, U. (2003). Human rights approach to development programming, UNICEF. Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office.

  • Kim, Y., Kee, Y., & Lee, S. J. (2015). An analysis of the relative importance of components in measuring community wellbeing: Perspectives of citizens, public officials, and experts. Social Indicators Research, 121, 345–369. doi:10.1007/s11205-014-0652-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Komnenic, V., Ahlers, R., & Zaag, P. V. D. (2009). Assessing the usefulness of the water poverty index by applying it to a special case: Can one be water poor with high levels of access? Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 34, 219–224. doi:10.1016/j.pce.2008.03.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langford, M. (2010). A poverty of rights: Six ways to fix the MDGs. IDS Bulletin, 41, 83–91. doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436.2010.00108.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langford, M., Bartram, J., & Roaf, V. (2014). Revisiting dignity: The human right to sanitation. In M. Langford & A. F. S. Russell (Eds.), The right to water: Theory, practice and prospects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, G. K. L., & Chan, E. H. W. (2008). The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach for assessment of Urban renewal proposals. Social Indicators Research, 89, 155–168. doi:10.1007/s11205-007-9228-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohani, B., & Todino, G. (1984). Water quality index for Chao Phraya River. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 110, 1163–1176. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1984)110:6(1163).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molle, F., & Mollinga, P. (2003). Water poverty indicators: Conceptual problems and policy issues. Water Policy, 5, 529–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moriarty, P., Smits, S., Butterworth, J., & Franceys, R. (2013). Trends in rural water supply: Towards a service delivery approach. Water Alternatives, 6, 329–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munda, G. (2012). Choosing aggregation rules for composite indicators. Social Indicators Research, 109, 337–354. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9911-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munda, G., & Nardo, M. (2005). Non-compensatory composite indicators for ranking Countries: A defensible setting. Ispra: Joint Research Centre European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD-JRC. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators. Methodology and user guide. París: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • ONGAWA–Engineering for Human Development. (2015). A proposal to broadly measure the human right to water and sanitation: The reality of the rural area of Nicaragua. http://www.ongawa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ongawa-resumen-ejecutivo-BAJA.pdf.

  • Pérez-Foguet, A., & Garriga, R. G. (2011). Analyzing water poverty in basins. Water Resources Management, 25, 3595–3612. doi:10.1007/s11269-011-9872-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qureshi, M. E., & Harrison, S. R. (2003). Application of the analytic hierarchy process to riparian revegetation policy options. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 2, 441–458. doi:10.1007/s11842-003-0030-6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roaf, V., Khalfan, A., & Langford, M. (2005). Monitoring implementation of the right to water: A framework for developing indicators. Global issue papers No. 14. Berlin: Heinrich Böll Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Villaverde, A., González-Gómez, F., & Picazo-Tadeo, A. J. (2013). Public choice of urban water service management: A multi-criteria approach. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 29, 385–399. doi:10.1080/07900627.2012.721668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1994). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces, 24, 19–43. doi:10.1287/inte.24.6.19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saisana, M., & Saltelli, A. (2008). Expert panel opinion and global sensitivity analysis for composite indicators. In F. Graziani (Ed.), Computational methods in transport: Verification and validation (pp. 251–275). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K., & Dikshit, A. K. (2007). Development of composite sustainability performance index for steel industry. Ecological Indicators, 7, 565–588. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.06.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, C. (2002). Calculating a water poverty index. World Development, 30, 1195–1210. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00035-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, C., Meigh, J., Giacomello, A. M., & Fediw, P. (2003). The water poverty index: Development and application at the community scale. Natural Resources Forum, 27, 189–199. doi:10.1111/1477-8947.00054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Un Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation (2014). Monitoring compliance with the human rights to water and sanitation (chapter 5). Realising the human rights to water and sanitation: A handbook by the UN special Rapporteur Catarina de Albuquerque.

  • UNDP. (2015). Human development report 2015: Work for human development. New York: UNDP.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2002). The right to water. E/C.12/2002/1. General comment no. 15 of the Economic and Social Council. New York: UN.

  • United Nations. (2009a). Report of the independent expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, Catarina de Alburquerque. A/HRC/12/24. In Human Rights Council (Ed.), New York: UN.

  • United Nations. (2009b). Statement-Twelfth session of the Human Rights Council, A/HRC/12/24. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/WaterAndSanitation/SRWater/Pages/AnnualReports.aspx, Accessed 2 Jan 2015.

  • United Nations. (2010a). Declaration on the right to water. A/RES/64/292. General assembly. New York: UN. http://www.un.org/en/ga/64/resolutions.shtml Accessed 15 April 2015.

  • United Nations. (2010b). Human rights and access to safe drinking water and sanitation. A/HRC/RES/15/9. New York: UN. http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G10/166/33/PDF/G1016633.pdf?OpenElement Accessed 15 April 2015.

  • United Nations. (2010c). Report of the independent expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, Catarina de Alburquerque. A/HRC/15/31. New York: UN.

  • United Nations. (2012). Report of the independent expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, Catarina de Alburquerque. A/67/270. New York: UN. http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N12/456/53/PDF/N1245653.pdf?OpenElement Accessed 11 Feb 2015.

  • United Nations General Assembly. (2014). Report of the open working group of the general assembly on sustainable development goals, resolution A/68/970. New York.

  • United Nations General Assembly. (2015). The human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation-resolution A/RES/70/169. 2015.

  • Washwatch.org. (2014). http://www.washwatch.org/en/.

  • World Health Organization and Unicef. (2010). Rapid assessment of drinking-water quality in the Republic of Nicaragua. Country report of the pilot project implementation in 2004–2005. Geneva.

  • WSP. (2012). Economic impact of poor sanitation in Africa: Mozambique. Washington, DC: Water and Sanitation Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, P., Ang, B. W., & Zhou, D. Q. (2010). Weighting and aggregation in composite indicator construction: A multiplicative optimization approach. Social Indicators Research, 96, 169–181. doi:10.1007/s11205-009-9472-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all families who participated in the study. Further thanks go to ONGAWA–Engineering for Human Development, San Sebastián de Yalí Municipality, Ministry of Health (MINSA), and students from the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Nicaragua (UNAN-León) in Nicaragua, and to the the Municipality of Manhiça, for their valuable contribution during field work, in Mozambique. This study was mainly funded by the Centre de Cooperació per al Desenvolupament (Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya) [references 0010–2011, 0014–2012, 0001–2013] and the Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo [references 11-CAP2-1562 and 07-CO-068]. We also acknowledge the participation of thirty-seven anonymous experts in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Engineering Sciences and Global Development (ESc&GD), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), Campus Nord-Edif C2, Jordi Girona 1-3, 08034, Barcelona, Spain

    O. Flores Baquero, R. Giné-Garriga & A. Pérez-Foguet

  2. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Barcelona School of Civil Engineering (ETSECCPB), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), Campus Nord-Edif C2, Jordi Girona 1-3, 08034, Barcelona, Spain

    O. Flores Baquero, R. Giné-Garriga & A. Pérez-Foguet

  3. Water Regulatory Council of Mozambique, Av. Amilcar Cabral No. 757, PO Box 253, Maputo, Mozambique

    J. Gallego-Ayala

  4. Stockholm International Water Institute, Drottninggatan 33, 11151, Stockholm, Sweden

    A. Jiménez-Fernández. de Palencia

Authors
  1. O. Flores Baquero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Gallego-Ayala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Giné-Garriga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Jiménez-Fernández. de Palencia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Pérez-Foguet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to O. Flores Baquero.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baquero, O.F., Gallego-Ayala, J., Giné-Garriga, R. et al. The Influence of the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation Normative Content in Measuring the Level of Service. Soc Indic Res 133, 763–786 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1374-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1374-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation