Development of a Planning Framework for Sustainable Rural Water Supply and

Sanitation: A Case Study of a Filipino NGO

Author(s): Rebecca Barnes and Nicholas Ashbolt
Source: International Studies of Management & Organization , Fall 2010, Vol. 40, No. 3,
SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY (Fall 2010), pp. 78-98
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20798251

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
International Studies of Management & Organization

This content downloaded from

212.112.107.252 on Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:59:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Int. Studies ofMgt. & Org., vol. 40, no. 3, Fall 2010, pp. 78-98.
? 2010 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved.
ISSN 0020-8825/2010 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/IMO0020-8825400305

Rebecca Barnes and Nicholas Ashbolt

Development of a Planning Framework

for Sustainable Rural Water Supply
and Sanitation
A Case Study of a Filipino NGO

Abstract: Premature failure or abandonment of water and sanitation development

interventions is a common phenomenon that has severely limited progress in
developing regions. In searching for the causes, researchers have implicated
decision-making and planning processes that neglect one or more key areas
of sustainability (represented here by social, environmental, human health,
economic, and technical criteria). This case study in the rural Philippines analyzes
the relationship between the project planning processes of aid organizations and
long-term project sustainability, and develops a locally appropriate framework
by which to incorporate holistic consideration of sustainability into decision
processes. Applying the " sustainability framework," the sustainability of project
impacts was found to be most significantly affected by the extent to which the
implementing agency allowed project identification and planning to be performed
by the community, the attributes (such as experience, integrity, and commitment)
of human players involved in the project, and the nature of the relationships
between these individuals.

The Millennium Development Goals set the water and sanitation development sector
with a difficult task. The sector does not look like it will meet its target by 2015,

Rebecca Barnes is a postgraduate student at the School of Civil and Environmental Engi
neering, University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia; e-mail: barnes.
bec@gmail. Nicholas Ashbolt, adjunct professor, School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of New South Wales, and senior research microbiologist, Office
of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, OH,
45268; e-mail: ashbolt.nick@epa.gov. Views expressed in this article are not necessarily
those of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

78

This content downloaded from

212.112.107.252 on Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:59:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION 79

at least in terms of sanitation and rural water supply (United Nations 2006). While
increasing the quantity of development projects is undoubtedly necessary, there is
evidence that increasing the longevity of projects would significantly affect their
progress. Dunmade (2002) reports that the success rate of most projects is quite
low, with many development initiatives even being abandoned prior to completion.
It has been estimated that 30 to 60 percent of existing rural water supply systems
are inoperative at any given time (Brikke and Bredero 2003). The globe is "littered
with failed water and sanitation projects" (Moe and Rheingans 2006, 53), a form
of unsustainable development.
Sustainable development has been defined as "development which meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs" (WCED 1987, 43). Applied to the water and sanitation
development sector, sustainability refers to the ability of services to continue to
provide recipients with the intended human health and lifestyle benefits without a
significant adverse effect on other people or other existing or potential services. This
article follows the principle proposed by Malmqvist et al. (2006), that if a water or
sanitation system is sustainable with respect to environmental, economic, social,
technical, and human health criteria, it constitutes sustainable development.
Examination of common failure mechanisms implicates poor planning as the
underlying cause of early failure or abandonment of small-scale projects. In particu
lar, failures are frequently traceable to planning that fails to include consideration
of key sustainability areas (Barnes and Ashbolt 2006; Brikke and Bredero 2003;
Dunmade 2002), such as those proposed by Malmqvist et al. (2006). Note that the
term "planning" in this article refers to all elements of the preparation process for
a water or sanitation project, including selection of participants, timing, choice of
infrastructure, dealing with gender issues and community training, while "decision
making" refers specifically to the process of choosing the appropriate infrastructure
for the project.
Addressing unsustainable development projects must therefore involve the
improvement of agency-planning processes, including decision making. However,
the improvement of planning involves overcoming a number of barriers that have
typically hindered the use of planning tools by development agencies. The barriers
include: tools that are inappropriate for a developing setting, perhaps because they
"require a 'planning culture,' which is often missing in developing countries" (Ka
lbermatten, Middleton, and Schertenleib 1999,8); lack awareness of unsustainable
development projects and the need for improved planning as a result of a failure
to conduct long-term evaluations of projects (Butters 2004; Moe and Rheingans
2006); lack of awareness of the time-consuming nature of many decision tools,
particularly in light of the complex set of procedures already required by most in
ternational funding agencies (Rondinelli 1976); and an inconsistent understanding
of the term "sustainability" across cultures, so that a decision tool does not match
the understanding of the potential user agency (Barnes and Ashbolt 2006).
The sustainability framework (Lundie et al. 2006) is a participatory decision

This content downloaded from

212.112.107.252 on Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:59:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 80 BARNES (AUSTRALIA) AND ASHBOLT (USA)

approach designed to help planners in the urban water sector of developed regions
incorporate the five primary sustainability criteria considered necessary to assess
the sustainability of the options (Malmqvist et al. 2006). In doing so, the framework
encourages the holistic consideration of sustainability needed in rural development
projects but is not in a form suitable for use by local-level development agencies.
The framework consists of six phases: (1) framing the problem and objectives,
including drivers for the project and use of the results; (2) generating preliminary
options using brainstorming and lateral thinking processes with a diverse range of
stakeholders; (3) selecting sustainability criteria across the five primary areas dis
cussed above; (4) preliminary screening of options against general criteria, perhaps
using a coarse screen based on minimum performance standards; (5) performing
a detailed assessment of remaining options with respect to the five sustainability
criteria, using various qualitative and quantitative tools; and (6) using the results of
phase 5, undertaking a multicriteria decision aid (MCDA) process with stakeholders
to recommend the preferred option(s). The framework, which had not previously
been applied in a developing region, was tested in the Philippines with a nongov
ernmental organization (NGO) implementing water and sanitation projects in rural
and remote communities.
The research described in this article has two aims. First, to analyze the rela
tionship between planning and long-term project sustainability for rural water and
sanitation development projects in the Philippines, and second, to identify locally
appropriate methods of implanting improved planning processes into such projects
in such a way as to improve their sustainability using the sustainability framework
as a basis for an applicable decision aid.

Methods

Design

The case study focused on a Filipino NGO implementing water and sanitation
projects in rural villages. The methodology had three phases (see Process). It
had specific objectives but was designed to be flexible with respect to time and
participants?a necessary trait of successful research in the Southeast Asian context
(Nagel et al. 2005).
Multiple methods were employed because they are useful for gaining depth of
information, particularly in an unfamiliar setting (Burgess 2000). Each method
employed had their associated strengths and weaknesses. The combination meant
that the strengths of one method often made up for the shortcomings of another. For
example, initial desk study and observational methods complemented field-based
interviews in, for example, allowing interview questions to be tailored to what
was known about the NGO's personnel and projects. Interviews helped to build
relationships in preparation for the workshop. The workshop was conducted during
the fourth of five visits to the Philippines, by which time relationships of trust and

This content downloaded from

212.112.107.252 on Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:59:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION 81

friendship with many of the participants had been cultivated. As a result, workshop
participants were not afraid to volunteer information or express opinions.

Participants and instruments

The participants and research instruments involved in each phase of the study are
summarized in Table 1.

Process

Phase 1

Since accurate data gathering in the Filipino culture only occurs when a strong
relational element is present (Maggay 1999), language the learning and relationship
building with local development workers were undertaken. In practice, activities
included language classes, an initial exploratory trip to visit the organization in the
Philippines, traveling to a number of project sites, maintaining a keen interest and
enthusiasm in all the interactions with the hosts, living in a remote tribal village
for two weeks, partaking in local customs such as dances and weddings, spending
extended time with local development workers, interviewing members of other
organizations, conducting desk studies, and responding to requests for reviewing
documents or practices. These activities afforded an assessment of the cognitive,
organizational, cultural, and technical context of the NGO and also resulted in
subsequent opportunities for travel, interviews, receipt of hospitality, and sharing
of conclusions and suggestions, which would otherwise have been unavailable.

Phase 2

In order to achieve the first aim, evaluations of the four best practice water projects
(as determined by desk studies of project documents) were undertaken in four rural
Filipino communities, and the development workers responsible were interviewed
regarding the planning processes employed. Projects were between 7 and 20 years
old. The evaluations involved splitting the beneficiary community into focus groups
of 10 to 15 participants and asking the groups to give both a score and a comment
on the accuracy of certain statements pertaining to their water system. Statements
described key indicators of sustainability, such as "our water supply is reliable all
year" and "tariffs are collected regularly." After this activity, focus groups were
asked for the top three achievements of the project and the key reasons for project
success. The semistructured interviews conducted with development workers (Table
1) focused on three discussion areas: the detailed planning process employed for
the project, the reasons for project success, and the causes of unsustainable projects
in the Philippines. Links between project planning and project sustainability were
determined by comparing planning processes employed (as reported by development

This content downloaded from

212.112.107.252 on Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:59:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 82 BARNES (AUSTRALIA) AND ASHBOLT (USA)

Table 1
Participants and research instruments involved in the case study

Research
phase Description Participants Instruments

1 Understanding the Local development Observation

local and organiza workers Informal interviews
tional context Beneficiaries of local
Desk study
projects Participation and
Members of other lo cultural immersion
cal aid organizations
Evaluations of four Beneficiaries of four Focus group
best practice projects projects discussions
and analysis of links Development Semistructured
between planning workers interviews
and sustainability
Testing framework to Twenty-five com Workshop
assess its munity development
applicability workers and office
staff of the NGO

workers) with the results of project evaluations, and by examining the statements of
the beneficiaries and development workers regarding reasons for project success.

Phase 3

A simplified version of the sustainability framework was tested to assess its ap

plicability in the Filipino context. The participants (Table 1) attended a training
session on sanitation technologies currently used in rural, developing regions and
were then given the task of choosing, using the method described by the sustain
ability framework, an appropriate sanitation system for a hypothetical rural Filipino
community of 1,000 people. The framework was used because of its emphasis
on holistic consideration of sustainability and on stakeholder involvement in
water-related decisions. A simplified version was used since some aspects of the
framework were likely to be inappropriate with respect to the capacity of the or
ganization. Data-intensive tools, such as life-cycle analysis, ecological footprint,
and quantitative microbial risk assessment, normally used in phase 5 of the sus
tainability framework were not employed because the development workers had
not been trained in their use and accurate qualitative and quantitative data were
unavailable in a hypothetical problem setting (and were unlikely to be attainable
in a real Filipino setting). The simplified version did not employ phase 4 of the.
sustainability framework (preliminary screening of options) in order to affirm that
every option suggested by the participants was a valuable contribution. Assessing
every option in this context was feasible because the time- and data-intensive phase
5 had been excluded. The simplified framework involved the following phases:

This content downloaded from

212.112.107.252 on Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:59:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION 83

(1) describing the problem to be solved, (2) generating preliminary options (by
participatory brainstorming), (3) generating sustainability criteria (by participatory
brainstorming) and selecting a subset of generated criteria for use in weighting the
options (by a facilitator since some criteria were inappropriate for the following
step), and (4) undertaking a MCDA process to recommend the preferred option(s).
Participants were divided into small groups, and each group was asked to assign a
score of 1, 2, or 3 to each option with respect to one criterion only. Small groups
recorded their scores, which were discussed by the large group. Preferred options
were suggested and justified by the participants.

Data analysis

The data analysis process (Figure 1) followed the basic qualitative analysis tech
nique, similar to the one presented in Wester and Peters (2000, 142). The steps
were performed iteratively. Five trips to the Philippines for data gathering were
undertaken, and data analysis occurred between these trips. This is called the
"constant comparative" method of analysis.

Results

Relationship between planning and sustainability

Features of successful project planning

The project-planning cycle of the organization was thoroughly investigated. The

beneficiaries who initiated the project by approaching the NGO for help have
conducted the need identification. Significant data gathering was undertaken by
the NGO before a proposal was written. Each community was highly involved in
choosing the basic design of its water system, although development workers of
the NGO controlled the detailed design with community consultation. Community
labor (bayanihan, lit., "cooperation") was used for the construction. The project
cycle to the point of handover usually took two years, and each community was
visited three to four times per year after the handover to check on its progress.

Reasons of project success

The most common factors to which NGO development workers attributed the suc
cess of projects were (in order of frequency from interview data): strong community
involvement in project planning and implementation to the extent that development
workers saw themselves as facilitators rather than implementers (five respondents);
commitment of beneficiaries to the project (three respondents); need identification
and project initiation arising from within the community (two respondents); genu
ine need (two respondents); and integrity and attitude of the development workers

This content downloaded from

212.112.107.252 on Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:59:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 84 BARNES (AUSTRALIA) AND ASHBOLT (USA)

Data collection
(interviews, focus group discussions, participation
and observation, desk study, workshop)

Data presentation
(word-for-word transcription from digital recordings,
typing field notes, etc.)

Preliminary ordering of material

(into broad categories according to research)

Coding material
(reading through material in each category,
developing a set of relevant codes or
subcategories, and labeling material accordingly)

Development of new
Collecting information according to
categories of
codes, and reading and interpreting information

Incorporating findings into

conceptual framework

Figure 1. Analysis process for Philippines case study data

(especially in light of the lack of integrity of the government) and transparent

financial dealings of the development workers (two respondents).
The most common factors to which community members attributed the suc
cess of projects were: unity and good relationships within the community, among
community elders, between community churches, and between the development
workers and the community (emphasized by three communities); commitment and
support of the development workers and community leaders (emphasized by three
communities); willingness and commitment of community members to participate
and take the initiative (emphasized by two communities); and good design, quality

This content downloaded from

212.112.107.252 on Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:59:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION 85

workmanship, and quality materials (emphasized by two communities).

There were two other aspects of the NGO that appeared to be linked to the high
quality and longevity of its projects. The first was the length of the implementation
period (about two years) and the proceeding contact period with the barangays.
Parikh and Parikh (2004) agree that intense contact between development agen
cies and recipients is a crucial factor for sustainable services. The other was the
NGO's willingness to learn and openness to new approaches. The Water Safety
Plan (WSP) concept (Davison et al. 2002) was recently explained to the staff, and
a simple WSP now forms part of every project proposal. Regular evaluations have
been conducted every two years (by contract), and the implications for improved
project planning have been readily taken up. In general, the NGO appeared open
to feedback and keen to enhance its development work.

Causes of unsustainable projects

There were some unsustainable practices occurring within projects implemented by

the NGO, although projects that had completely ceased to operate were rare. The
organization's emphasis on being facilitators only and on encouraging the recipi
ent community to make the main technological decisions had led to unsustainable
sanitation-related decisions. Most communities had an understanding of the link
between water quality and disease, whereas few communities understood the im
portance of sanitation and the link between sanitation and water quality especially
as caused by the flow of wastewater through groundwater. For this reason, the
implications of sanitation technology options were not properly considered, and
unsustainable practices were implemented.
When asked to recount stories of failed development projects in rural Philip
pines, interviewees typically recounted projects that failed for one of the follow
ing reasons: (1) lack of consideration of local circumstances by the implementing
agency, (2) poor quality workmanship by those who did not have any real interest
in, or commitment to, the project, (3) poor financial planning, (4) lack of manage
ment and ownership by the community, and (5) brevity of project planning and
the implementation period.

Improved pfanning practices

Trialing the framework

The most favorable option (as indicated by the tested version of the sustainability
framework) proved very sensitive to criteria selection, and criteria selection proved
sensitive to local and organizational values. Technical and economic criteria were at
the forefront of the discussion during criteria generation and justification of chosen
design, reflecting a cognitive focus on these issues. Environmental criteria (water
use and environmental impact) and social criteria (social acceptability) were also

This content downloaded from

212.112.107.252 on Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:59:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 86 BARNES (AUSTRALIA) AND ASHBOLT (USA)

mentioned. Participants were evidently not used to considering human health cri
teria (such as health and safety of emptying the tank), which were not volunteered
despite the facilitator's attempts to allude to them. Leaving out human health criteria
tended to favor water-sealed toilets with septic tanks and perpetuated the failure to
plan for emptying and maintenance. Failure to discriminate between long-term and
short-term implications of criteria had the same effect. For example, capital cost
represents only a short-term disadvantage and may only affect the international
funding body supporting a project. Health and safety or environmental issues, on
the other hand, may be long-term considerations.
Semiquantitative assessment proved difficult and arbitrary within the group.
Some had difficulty recognizing which end of the numbering scale was "best" and
which was "worst, " while others wanted to incorporate their perception of an op
tion with respect to all the criteria into the score for a single criterion. Preconceived
notions of the most favorable option affected the scoring process.

Discussion

Relationship between planning and sustainability

Both development workers and, to an even greater extent, the beneficiaries empha
sized the significance of the characteristics of human players and human relationships
in determining the success of a project. In particular, the unity of the beneficiary com
munity, the extent to which they treated each other with respect, and the integrity and
commitment of development workers were perceived to have significantly affected
the success of the projects since their construction. An experienced, independent
observer noted that all the best practice projects were the responsibility of excel
lent development workers. Participatory approaches in particular require specific
skills and personal attitudes and attributes on the part of the practitioner (Nagel et
al. 2005), and those with these attributes tend to implement the better projects. As
one development worker commented, "It's about dealing with people, actually. It's
relationship building." The Australian Agency for International Development (1997)
confirmed the importance of strong relationships with elected community leaders
and elders, based on their water and sanitation experience in central Philippines.
Project planning should not be separated from the human communities and workers
by which, and for which, it is performed, nor disentangled from the web of human
relationships involved in the process. "Development and sustainability are human
processes?not technical or engineering processes" (Abrams 2000). Planning
tools must therefore be flexible. It has been shown that development practitioners
and researchers tend to standardize participatory approaches (Nagel et al. 2005).
However, an inflexible set of tools will encounter barriers to implementation in a
highly relational context.
The study also showed the importance of having the recipient community initiate
the water supply project and of genuinely involving them in the planning process.

This content downloaded from

212.112.107.252 on Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:59:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION 87

Parikh and Parikh (2004) name community involvement in all stages of project
implementation as one of two crucial factors for sustainability. The participatory
approach, however, is not simple (Barnes and Ashbolt 2006) and has been criticized
by some authors (Botchway 2001). While participatory processes in the Filipino
study produced a strong sense of ownership and long-term acceptance of the system,
facilitation without education sometimes gave way to unsustainable decisions (see
Causes of unsustainable projects). The credible emphasis on facilitation rather than
top-down decisions evidently has a problematic side, since "the decisions taken by
a community are influenced by its knowledge base" (International Environmental
Technology Centre 2002, 12).

Implications for a revised decision framework

The tested framework appears to require a method for ensuring representative

criteria selection, and if quantitative assessment of criteria is performed, a method
of weighting the options in order to discriminate between criteria with long-term
and short-term implications. Nevertheless, a decision framework cannot be overly
laborious. According to interviewees from various Filipino organizations, appli
cations for international funding already require significant amounts of work and
time to the extent that some organizations are dissuaded from applying. Decision
aids, which once mastered by one community, can be fairly easily applied to others
owing to their simplicity, flexibility, and low dependence on capacity.
The tendency for existing preferences to dictate the results of the application of
the framework has been reflected in previous research (Livingston 2006), which
suggests that decision outcomes are heavily dependent on values and ideas of the
institutions that construct the problem and solution. "There is a tendency for estab
lished organizations to reproduce the form of outcome that reflects the institutional
ized structure?what people know, what they value and how they are organized.
Alternative courses of action are likely to be assessed unfavorably (e.g., under
economic or social criteria) because the organizations ... do not provide a home
for discourses that would support these alternatives" (Livingston 2006, 232).
The difficulties encountered through quantitative scoring methods suggest that an
alternative method for scoring sustainability criteria, which still encourages genuine
consideration of each criterion, may be necessary. A set of nonnegotiable criteria
was suggested by one member of the organization for use in future sanitation-related
decisions. This appears to be a good way of avoiding particularly dangerous or
unfavorable technology choices and is analogous to the culling phase used in phase
4 of the sustainability framework (Lundie et al. 2006).
The results also suggest that a decision aid should advocate a representative
selection of sustainability criteria (from each area: economic, social, environmental,
technical, and human health). Because "sustainability" does not have a universally
understood definition, representative selection of criteria requires sensitization of
agency staff and community members to all key areas of sustainability.

This content downloaded from

212.112.107.252 on Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:59:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 88 BARNES (AUSTRALIA) AND ASHBOLT (USA)

Finally, the significance indicated by the results of timing, personnel, and rela
tionships in determining project sustainability shows that planning aids providing
advice on the nontechnical elements of project preparation are also important. For
example, planning aids must not neglect the first step in a project: the selection of
personnel. As much as possible, development workers selected from the imple
menting agency should be skilled and have integrity, and community members
and stakeholders should be committed to the project. A planning process must
allow sufficient time for relationship building and flexible scheduling. Transpar
ency and honesty throughout the process have an important role in encouraging
the development of trust.

Implications for desirable organizational attributes

The results of the case study also linked the culture and attitudes of an organization
to the sustainability of its water and sanitation projects. In particular, the three fol
lowing organizational attributes were found to contribute to project sustainability:
(1) the degree to which the organization is adaptive, open to learning and willing to
change, particularly in response to evaluations from past projects; (2) the quality of its
workers, particularly in terms of their skills, commitment, and integrity; and (3) the
emphasis placed by the organization on relationships with the beneficiary community
and willingness to devote time and energy to building these relationships.

Study weaknesses and further research

The main limitation of the study was that the examination of the relationship
between planning and sustainability focused on only four development projects
and their corresponding development workers. A larger sample size would have
increased the reliability of the results but could not feasibly be conducted to the
same depth. As such, the most common responses of community members and
development workers listed in the results section are intended only as an indication
of perceived precursors of sustainability.
As with all case study research, the demonstration of results in a particular
cultural and geographical context limits the extent to which conclusions can be
generalized to other regions. The planning-related precursors to sustainable rural
water and sanitation projects identified during the study need to be verified as
applicable (or otherwise) to other contexts. This study is part of a larger study
conducted by the authors in which the case study results were, to a large extent,
confirmed as internationally applicable (Barnes 2004).
The method was also limited in that the sustainability framework was tested in
a single three-hour session and could not employ time-consuming techniques and
extensive data gathering normally associated with a water-related decision process.
The framework was not able to be tested in the context of a real project with a rural
Filipino community, although the 25 development workers who participated had

This content downloaded from

212.112.107.252 on Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:59:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION 89

gathered from all over the country and brought a great deal of experience in rural
development projects to the application of the framework. The application of the
proposed revised framework (below) to real, local-level projects and its subsequent
revision is an area for further study.

Recommendations for a revised decision framework

A revision of the sustainability framework has been developed that incorporates

learning from the study of the Filipino NGO. It is intended as a decision aid and does
not include all aspects of planning and preparation that are peripheral to technol
ogy choice, such as hygiene education, training in gender awareness, or increasing
capacity for operation and maintenance. Due to the significance of organizational,
institutional, and personnel factors on the local applicability of proposed decision
processes, the revised framework is intended as an example method by which a
development organization can incorporate long-term sustainability into its deci
sion making, rather than as an inflexible, standardized approach. When applied to
a specific development agency, it may be more appropriate to select elements of
the framework as modules that can be inserted into existing decision processes in
order to provide an "organizational home" (Livingston 2006,215) for new practices.
The revised framework must also be accompanied by appropriate training, such as
sensitization of staff to the five key sustainability areas with an emphasis on those
areas that are not already implicitly or explicitly part of their decision processes.

Revised framework description

Step 1: The "Who?"phase

Gather together appropriate stakeholders. Committed and skilled development

workers, community leaders, and other committed community members should
be present. An effort should be made to include women (Narayan 1993; Wakeman
1995) since they tend to deal more directly with the water supply system during
their daily activities. Other possible participants include the municipal mayor or
local government representative, and others involved in funding or providing the
potential system.

Step 2: The "What?" phase

Identify the community's needs and wants by asking community members to

describe their current situation and their desired future state. Encourage the use of
pictures and stories. Presuming water or sanitation is a significant need or want, a
period of information gathering and continued relationship building should follow.
Allow plenty of time for this phase, during which continuous or regular communi
cation with, and feedback to, the beneficiary community should occur. Important

This content downloaded from

212.112.107.252 on Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:59:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 90 BARNES (AUSTRALIA) AND ASHBOLT (USA)

information includes: current water or sanitation infrastructure, resources, and

significant local personnel; stories of previous efforts to supply water or sanitation;
number of people who need to be served (present and future); uses of water and
quantities required; drivers for desiring water or sanitation; and layout and maps of
community, local landscape, local water sources, and neighboring communities.

Step 3: The "How?" phase

As a group, brainstorm a list of options for moving from the current situation
(with respect to water and sanitation) to the desired future situation identified in
the previous step.

Step 4: Identifying key factors

Encourage the community to brainstorm a list of criteria or factors that should be

fulfilled by the chosen solution. See Table 2 for examples. Try to ensure that factors
cover the economic, social, environmental, human, health, and technical areas.
If certain significant factors or groups of factors are left out, this may indicate an
area in which education is required. This requires the facilitator to be able to judge
the presence or absence of criteria in the responses of community members and
to determine appropriate action. Consider preparing an appropriate lesson, guest
speaker, site visit, poster or other culturally relevant instrument for sensitizing the
community to the issue.

Step 5: Wait

Certain criteria brainstormed above may be new to some participants. Allow time
between phase 4 and phase 6 in order to give participants a chance to reflect on
new concepts. Continue regular communication and relationship building with the
community during this time.

Step 6: Choosing options

If more than, say, three options exist, encourage the participants to select the best
few to assess. This will save time and complexity in the next step.

Step 7: Assessing the options

Taking one factor at a time, give each option a tick or cross (or other symbols mean
ing "good" or "bad," repectively) with respect to each factor. This may require notes
to be made as each criterion is addressed. For instance, some boxes may only be

This content downloaded from

212.112.107.252 on Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:59:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION 91

Table 2
Possible factors that must be fulfilled by chosen solution

General area of sustainability Specific factors

Economic Capital expenses affordable

Ongoing expenses affordable
Social Community likes the idea
Users can understand the way it works
Environmental Wastewater or product does not pollute the environ
ment
Wastewater or product does not pollute someone's
water source

Human health Water source is clean

Sanitation product can be disposed of or used safely
Water will not get contaminated in the system
Technical Parts are available locally
System does not have too many complex parts or
complex construction
System can be expanded when population increases
System provides enough water to meet community's
needs all year round

able to receive a tick under certain conditions or if certain activities are undertaken.
Write these conditions and notes next to the ticks and crosses (Table 3).

Step 8: Wait

Inform the community that they may choose any option they wish or a combina
tion of options. The solution must, however, have no crosses in its column. Give
the community time to think about which option they want or to discuss creative
alternatives. Continue communication and relationship building with the com
munity during this time.

Step 9: Turning crosses into ticks

Crosses in a column can be turned into ticks using appropriate measures. Thus, in
selecting a solution, those present need to discuss ways in which to turn crosses into
ticks in their desired solution. For example, the community may want to use a pipe
from the nearby village. They then need to address the crosses (or question marks)
in the column and commit to the necessary activities to resolve them (Table 4).

This content downloaded from

212.112.107.252 on Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:59:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 92 BARNES (AUSTRALIA) AND ASHBOLT (USA)

Table 3
Assessment of options with respect to criteria (example)

Options

Pipe from
Criteria Rainwater tanks nearby village Groundwater

Capital expenses V With aid V With aid V With aid

affordable
Ongoing expenses V With ongoing V Payment negoti With ongoing
affordable tariff collection ated with source tariff collection
village
Community likes
the idea
Users can V
understand the
way it works
Wastewater or
product does not
pollute the environ
ment
Wastewater or
product does not
pollute someone's
water source
Water source is ? Requires testing ? Requires testing
clean
Water will not get
contaminated in
system
Parts are available V
locally
System does not X
have complex parts
or overly complex
construction
System can be
expanded when
the population
increases
System provides
enough water to
meet needs all year
round

This content downloaded from

212.112.107.252 on Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:59:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION 93

Table 4
Assessment of options with respect to criteria (example)

Options

Pipe from
Factors Rainwater tanks nearby village Groundwater

Capital expenses V With aid V With aid V With aid

affordable
Ongoing expenses V With tariff V Needs payment V With tariff
affordable collection system for source collection
village
Community likes the V
idea
Users can under- V V X
stand the way it
works
Wastewater or prod- V V V
uct does not pollute
the environment
Wastewater or prod- V V V
uct does not pollute
a water source

Water source is V V Subject to testing. If ? Requires testing

clean water test not fea
sible, must look at
source of water and
possible contami
nation sources.

Water will not get V Must allocate the X

contaminated in task of checking
system pipes for leakage
and cleaning tank
regularly. Must
also educate on
hand washing and
hygiene.
Parts are available V
locally
System does not V V Subject to feasibil
have too many com ity of suspending
plex parts or complex pipes over the
construction valleys from the
source village
Use rainwater
System can be from school roof
expanded when when population
population increases X V increases
Sufficient water all
year round X V

This content downloaded from

212.112.107.252 on Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:59:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 94 BARNES (AUSTRALIA) AND ASHBOLT (USA)

Step 10: Determine roles and responsibilities

Define who will be responsible for each of the above conditions and for any nec
essary next steps. Individuals or groups should be identified for both immediate
short-term and ongoing responsibilities.

Revised framework discussion

Sustainable development, as defined by the World Council for Economic Develop

ment (WCED 1987), has two components: First, it meets the needs of the present,
and, second, it does not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs.
The difficulty facing the urban water sector in developed regions is primarily the
second of the two requirements. The technology with which to address immediate
water needs exists in a developed context as does the capacity required to operate it.
Instead, the implications of such technologies for future generations (such as over
extraction of a limited water resource or energy-demanding technologies, resulting
in significant greenhouse gas emissions) tend to be the limiting factors in selecting
appropriate solutions. For this reason, the sustainability framework seeks an optimal
sustainable solution that will result in minimal long-term negative impact. The WCED
definition of sustainability also applies to developing regions but with a different
emphasis. The high rate of failure of rural water supply and sanitation projects in
developing regions indicates that implementing bodies are struggling to fulfill the first
component of sustainability by adequately meeting the needs of the present genera
tion. Therefore, the revised framework for rural water and sanitation decisions seeks
a feasible solution that will meet existing needs, rather than an optimal solution with
respect to its impact on future generations. Note that this reasoning does not discount
the need for protecting future generations from harmful decisions in rural development
projects, nor does it contradict the WCED's definition of sustainability. The argument
is simply that the greatest difficulty in such decisions, and the greatest urgency, lies in
finding any solution that can appropriately and continuously meet community needs
and that the impact of small-scale, rural water and sanitation systems on the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs is likely to be small.
In practice, the revised framework achieves the shift of focus using criteria that
are designed to prevent an unsustainable decision, rather than to find a most sus
tainable decision. The criteria employed are more essential than desirable and are
judged on a binary good or bad basis. They act like constraints in that they filter
out solutions that will ultimately fail for reasons associated with one or more of
the key sustainability areas, or point to areas of an option that must be addressed
if it is to provide sustained health and lifestyle benefits.
Such an approach has two other important benefits. First, it reduces the necessity
of in-depth quantitative assessment of criteria, the capacity for which is less likely
to be present in a local-level development agency. Second, giving decision power

This content downloaded from

212.112.107.252 on Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:59:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION 95

to the community subject to constraints, particularly self-generated constraints, af

fords the community a greater degree of freedom in selecting their own system than
would be the case if the criteria were assessed quantitatively with the implication
that the highest scoring option represents the best choice. The revised approach
does, however, rely heavily on the capacity of the facilitators in their familiarity
with the five sustainability areas, their ability to recognize and encourage holistic
criteria selection, and their skills in facilitation and consensus building.

Revised framework application

Given the strong relationship between the planning processes of a development

agency and the sustainability of its projects, there are two criteria that must be
met by a planning framework designed to increase the sustainability of project
benefits. First, the framework must be informed by the relationship between the
project planning of an agency and the long-term sustainability of its services. That
is, it must address the key planning-related causes of project success and project
failure. Second, it must be easily applied within a development agency in order to
avoid the implementation gap that often exists between proposed planning tools
and their utilization on the ground.
The revised framework satisfies the first criterion, as it has been designed to
address several of the planning-related causes of project successes and failures
determined by the focus groups and interviews with the NGO's clients and mem
bers. For instance, the framework encourages significant time spent in the plan
ning phase and emphasizes human factors such as personnel, relationships, and
communication. It also gives the community the balance of power in the decision
process, subject to constraints. However, if the framework fails to meet the cri
terion of applicability within a target development agency, it will be defeated by
institutional barriers to improved planning and remain little more than untapped
research findings. Some current barriers to improved water and sanitation planning
practices are addressed below.

Lack of awareness of unsustainable development projects and the need for improved
planning due to failure to conduct long-term evaluations of projects. An agency will
deliberately undergo change only if the need for change is clearly perceived. Regu
lar, preferably external, evaluations of the long-term sustainability of an agency's
water and sanitation projects must be conducted in order to increase awareness of
the need for improved planning processes.

The time-consuming nature of many decision tools, particularly in light of the

complex set of procedures already required by most international funding agen
cies. While the steps of the revised framework are not complex, the framework
does encourage the user agency to allow for significant amounts of time to be spent
in data gathering and relationship building. Unwillingness to employ temporally

This content downloaded from

212.112.107.252 on Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:59:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 96 BARNES (AUSTRALIA) AND ASHBOLT (USA)

expensive planning can only be eliminated by discovering the importance of the

length of the planning period, preferably via project evaluations.

A nonuniform understanding of sustainability across cultures so that a decision

tool does not find a "home " in the understanding of the potential user agency.
Sensitization of staff to the five key sustainability areas is required in order for the
framework to be effective. For instance, staff of the case study NGO generally had
a nonholistic understanding of sustainability but quickly grasped the concept of
the five sustainability areas when it was explained to them.

Conclusions

Uncovering the underlying causes of development failures and successes is the

first step toward sustainable water service provision. An investigation of these
causes in the projects of a Filipino NGO has confirmed and provided details on
the relationship between planning-related activities and longer-term service sus
tainability. In particular, community initiation of a water or sanitation project and
strong community involvement in planning has proven important in ensuring the
success of a project. An adaptive approach involving continuous self-evaluation
and willingness to change on the part of a development agency allows lessons
from past mistakes to be incorporated into future planning processes, and appears
integral to the sustainability of projects. It is also important that sufficient time be
given by the agency to the planning and follow-up stages.
The influence of the knowledge base on decision outcomes and a cultural ten
dency to fail to follow design decisions through to their natural, long-term impli
cations means that some form of decision aiding is necessary in this context. The
development of decision support tools that integrate these cause-effect linkages is
lacking, but is needed, in sustainable service planning (OECD 2006). The charac
teristics of human players and human relationships are also integral to sustainable
water and sanitation service provision. Attention ought to be given to developing
relationships of trust, mutual respect, and unity within beneficiary communities and
between development workers and beneficiaries. It is important that development
organizations in this context be willing to devote time and resources to relationship
building and to maintain an organizational culture that values human relationships,
trust, and transparency. The development of commitment and integrity in those
involved in small-scale service provision is also important.
Given the significance of these human factors, a decision or planning tool needs
to be flexible in terms of the timing, people, and situation for which it can be used.
Tools may benefit from a flexible agenda that allows time for relationship build
ing and from steps to facilitate the understanding of power structures and factions
within the beneficiary community. The sustainability framework has been modified
in order to increase its usability by a development organization in a rural water
or sanitation project. The revision has been informed by the importance of com

This content downloaded from

212.112.107.252 on Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:59:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION 97

munity involvement and the significance of human relationships and institutional

norms in the planning process. The significance of organizational, institutional, and
personnel factors on the local applicability of proposed decision processes, and
the importance of finding an institutional home for organizational change, means
that the extent and nature of the revised framework's application will depend on
the context into which it is received.

References

Abrams, L. 2000. "Understanding Sustainability of Local Water Services." Water Policy

International, www.africanwater.org/sustainability.htm, accessed May 10, 2008.
Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID). 1997. "CVWSP (Central
Visayas Water and Sanitation Project): An Australia/Philippines Development Co
operation Project." Australian Agency for International Development and Cebu City
Regional Council, Canberra.
Barnes, R. 2004. "Planning for Sustainable Water and Sanitation Projects in Rural Devel
oping Communities." Ph.D. dissertation, University of New South Wales.
Barnes, R., and N.J. Ashbolt. 2006. "Review of Decision Tools and Trends for Water and
Sanitation Development Projects." Paper presented at the 32d Water, Engineering and
Development Centre (WEDC) Conference on Sustainable Development of Water Re
sources, Water Supply and Environmental Sanitation, Colombo, Sri Lanka, November
13-17.
Botchway, K. 2001. "Paradox of Empowerment: Reflections on a Case Study from North
ern Ghana." World Development 29 (1): 135-153.
Brikke, E, and M. Bredero. 2003. Linking Technology Choice with Operation and Main
tenance in the Context of Community Water Supply and Sanitation. Geneva: World
Health Organization and IRC Water and Sanitation Centre.
Burgess, R.G 2000. "Some Issues and Problems in Cross-Cultural Case Study Research."
In Cross-Cultural Case Study, ed. R.G. Burgess, 43-52. New York: Elsevier Science.
Butters, C. 2004. "Sustainable Human Settlements." NABU, www.arkitektur.no/page/
Miljo/Miljo_NABU?mener/8627/46976.html, accessed September 19, 2005.
Davison, A., G. Howard, M. Stevens, P. Callan, R. Kirby, D. Deere, and J. Bartram. 2002.
Water Safety Plans. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Dunmade, I. 2002. "Indicators of Sustainability: Assessing the Suitability of a Foreign
Technology for a Developing Economy." Technology in Society 24 (4): 461-471.
International Environmental Technology Centre. 2002. International Source Book on
Environmentally Sound Technologies for Wastewater and Stormwater Management
(Abridged Version). Osaka: United Nations Environment Project.
Kalbermatten, J.M., R. Middleton, and R. Schertenleib. 1999. Household-Centred Envi
ronmental Sanitation. Duebendorf: Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science
and Technology.
Livingston, D. 2006. "Institutions and Decentralised Urban Water Management." Ph.D.
dissertation, University of New South Wales.
Lundie, S., G Peters, N.J. Ashbolt, D.J. Livingston, and E. Lai. 2006. "A Sustainability
Framework for the Australian Water Industry." Water: Journal of the Australian Water
Association 33 (11): 53-59.
Maggay, M.P. 1999. Understanding Ambiguity in Filipino Communication Patterns. Que
zon City, Philippines: Institute for Studies in Asian Church Culture.
Malmqvist, P.A., G. Heinicke, E. Karrman, T.A. Stenstrom, and G. Svensson. 2006. Stra
tegic Planning of Sustainable Urban Water Management. London: IWA.

This content downloaded from

212.112.107.252 on Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:59:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 98 BARNES (AUSTRALIA) AND ASHBOLT (USA)

Moe, C, and R.D. Rheingans. 2006. "Global Challenges in Water, Sanitation and Health."
Journal of Water and Health 4 (Suppl ): 41-57.
Nagel, U.J., F. Heidhaus, P. Home, and A. Neef. 2005. "Participatory Approaches for
Sustainable Land Use in Southeast Asia: Lessons Learned and Challenges Ahead." In
Participatory Approaches for Sustainable Land Use in Southeast Asia, ed. A. Neef,
359-370. Bangkok: White Lotus Press.
Narayan, D. 1993. "Participatory Evaluation: Tools for Managing Change in Water and
Sanitation." World Bank Technical Paper Number 207. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2006. Water and
Agriculture: Sustainability, Markets and Policies?Conclusions and Recommenda
tions. Paris.
Parikh, J., and K. Parikh. 2004. "The Kyoto Protocol: An Indian perspective." Interna
tional Review for Environmental Strategies 5 (1): 127-144.
Rondinelli, D.A. 1976. "International Requirements for Project Preparation: Aids or
Obstacles to Development Planning?" Journal of the American Institute of Planners
42 (3): 314-326.
United Nations. 2006. The Millennium Development Goals Report. New York: United
Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
Wakeman, W. 1995. Gender Issues Sourcebook for Water and Sanitation Projects. Wash
ington, DC: UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program.
Wester, F, and V. Peters. 2000. "Qualitative Analysis: Phases, Techniques and Computer
Use." In Cross-Cultural Case Study, ed. R.G. Burgess, 139-164. New York: Elsevier
Science.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our Common
Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

To order reprints, call 1-800-352-2210; outside the United States, call 717-632-3535.

This content downloaded from

212.112.107.252 on Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:59:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms