Advertisement

The European Journal of Development Research

, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 692–706 | Cite as

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Interventions in the Pacific: Defining, Assessing and Improving ‘Sustainability’

  • Matthew Clarke
  • Simon Feeny
  • John Donnelly
Original Article

Abstract

Through the conduct of ex post evaluations, this article examines the impact of aid projects and programmes beyond the funding period in the water and sanitation sector, which, since the inclusion of hygiene, has recently become known as Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH). The evaluations were conducted in rural areas of three Pacific countries: Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. This article argues that in assessing the lasting impact of community development projects (in this instance, WASH) the term benefit persistence better captures the wider scope of impact that a project might have on a community extending beyond the stated project goals and objectives. These ‘additional’ or unstated impacts can extend the benefit that aid projects can have. A number of areas that strengthen the likelihood of benefit persistence were also identified.

Keywords

aid sustainability water sanitation hygiene Pacific 

Abstract

A travers des évaluations ex-post, cet article examine l’impact, au delà des périodes de financement, des projets et programmes d’aide au secteur de l’eau et de l’assainissement qui, depuis l’inclusion de la composante hygiène, a récemment pris le nom d’« eau, assainissement et hygiène » (WASH). Les évaluations ont été effectuées dans les zones rurales de trois pays du Pacifique: la Papouasie-Nouvelle-Guinée, les îles Salomon et la République de Vanuatu. Cet article fait valoir que lorsque l’on évalue l’impact durable des projets de développement communautaires (dans ce cas, WASH), l’expression « persistance des bénéfices » rend mieux compte de l’impact plus large qu’un projet peut avoir sur une communauté et qui peut dépasser les buts et objectifs énoncés du projet. Ces effets « supplémentaires » ou non anticipés peuvent étendre les bénéfices potentiels des projets d’aide. Un certain nombre d’aspects renforçant la probabilité de la persistance des bénéfices ont également été identifiés.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This article is an output from an Australian Development Research Award (ADRA) research project generously supported by the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID). The views are those of the authors and not necessarily those of AusAID.

References

  1. Abeysuriya, K.R., Willetts, J.R., Carrard, N.R. and Mitchell, C.A. (2013) Decentralised and distributed systems: What will it take to make them a sustainable option for urban sanitation in the 21st century? Water 15 (3): 42–44.Google Scholar
  2. Asian Development Bank (ADB) (2001) Improving Life for the Poor through Water Supply and Sanitation. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.Google Scholar
  3. Asian Development Bank (ADB) (2002) Impact Evaluation Study on Water Supply and Sanitation Projects in Selected Developing Member Countries. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.Google Scholar
  4. Appleton, B. and Sijbesma, C. (2005) Hygiene Promotion. (Thematic Overview Paper 1) The Hague, the Netherlands: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre.Google Scholar
  5. AusAID (2000) Promoting Practical Sustainability. Canberra, Australia: Australian Agency for International Development.Google Scholar
  6. AusAID (2013) Water, Sanitation and Hygiene. Canberra, Australia: Australian Agency for International Development, http://www.ausaid.gov.au/aidissues/watersanitation/Pages/default.aspx, accessed August 2013.
  7. Belout, A. and Gauvreau, C. (2004) Factors influencing project success: The impact of human resource management. International Journal of Project Management 22 (1): 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke, M. (2002) Achieving behaviour change: Three generations of HIV/AIDS programming and jargon in Thailand. Development in Practice 12 (5): 625–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cleaver, F. (1999) Paradoxes of participation: Questioning participatory approaches to development. Journal of International Development 11 (4): 597–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Curtis, V. (2007) Dirt, disgust and disease. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 61 (8): 660–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Curtis, V., Danquah, L. and Aunger, R. (2009) Planned, motivated and habitual hygiene behaviour: An eleven country review. Health Education Research 24 (4): 655–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Development Assistance Committee (DAC) (2010) Criteria for Evaluating Development Assistance, Development Assistance Committee, OECD, Downloaded 16 September, http://www.oecd.org/document/22/0,2340,en_2649_34435_2086550_1_1_1_1,00.html, accessed August 2013.
  13. Diallo, A. and Thuillier, D. (2005) The success of international development projects, trust and communication: An African perspective. International Journal of Project Management 23 (3): 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Donnelly, J. (2010) Maximising participation in international community-level project evaluation: A strength-based approach. Evaluation Journal of Australasia 10 (2): 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dov Dvir, D., Raz, T. and Shenhar, A. (2003) An empirical analysis of the relationship between project planning and project success. International Journal of Project Management 21 (1): 89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Easterly, W. (2006) The White Man’s Burden. New York: Penguin Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gesch, P. (2007) Working out of two mind sets: Critical methodology and PNG traditional ways. Contemporary PNG Studies DWU Research Journal 7 (November): 17–34.Google Scholar
  18. GoPNG (2010) Papua New Guinea Medium Term Development Strategy 2011–2015. Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea: GoPNG.Google Scholar
  19. Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Kleemeier, E. (2000) The impact of participation in sustainability: An analysis of the Malawi rural piped scheme programme. World Development 28 (5): 929–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Narayan, D. (1995) The Contributions of People’s Participation: Evidence from 121 Rural Water Supply Projects. Environmentally Sustainable Development Occasional Paper No 1. Washington DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  22. Overseas Development Institute (ODI) (2006) Sanitation and Hygiene: Knocking on New Doors. ODI Briefing Paper 13. London: Overseas Development Institute.Google Scholar
  23. Riddell, R. (2007) Does Foreign Aid Really Work? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Sanitation and Water Conference, Melbourne (2008) Meeting the Sanitation and Water Challenge in South East Asia and the Pacific, downloaded 15 September 2010, www.watercentre.org/resources/publications/attachments/sanitation_water_challenge.pdf.
  25. Sijbesma, C. (2011) Sanitation Financing Models for the Urban Poor. (Thematic Overview Paper 25) The Hague, the Netherlands: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre.Google Scholar
  26. Trudgen, R. (2000) Why Warriors Lie Down and Die. Darwin, Western Australia: Aboriginal Resource and Development Services.Google Scholar
  27. Vallance, R. (2007) Is there a Melanesian research methodology? Contemporary PNG Studies, DWU Research Journal 7 (November): 1–16.Google Scholar
  28. WaterAid Australia and International WaterCentre (2008) ‘Introduction: The Facts’ in Sharing Experiences: Sustainable Sanitation in South East Asia and the Pacific. Brisbane, Australia: WaterAid Australia and International WaterCentre, pp. 3–9.Google Scholar
  29. WaterAid (2009) Management for Sustainability: Practical Lessons from Three Studies on the Management of Rural Water Supply Schemes. Tanzania: WaterAid.Google Scholar
  30. WaterAid (2011) Sustainability Framework. London, UK: WaterAid.Google Scholar
  31. WHO (2004) Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Links to Health: Facts and Figures. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organisation.Google Scholar
  32. WHO and UNICEF (2013) Joint monitoring program for water and sanitation, http://www.wssinfo.org/, accessed 8 October 2013.
  33. Willetts, J., Halcrow, G., Carrard, N., Rowland, C. and Crawford, J. (2010) Addressing two critical MDGs together: Gender in water, sanitation and hygiene initiatives. Pacific Economic Bulletin 25 (1): 162–176.Google Scholar
  34. Willetts, J.R., Paddon, M., Nguyen Dinh Giang, N., Nguyen, H. and Carrard, N.R. (2013) Sustainability assessment of sanitation options in Vietnam: Planning with the future in mind. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development 3 (2): 262–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. WVA and WaterAid Australia (2007) Getting the Basics Right: Water and Sanitation in South East Asia and the Pacific. Melbourne, Australia: World Vision Australia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Clarke
    • 1
  • Simon Feeny
    • 2
  • John Donnelly
    • 2
  1. 1.Deakin UniversityGeelongAustralia
  2. 2.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations