Including water quality monitoring in rural water services: why safe water requires challenging the quantity versus quality dichotomy

The global sustainable development agenda emphasizes drinking water quality monitoring in rural areas, a need reflected in national legislation like Kenya's 2016 Water Act. Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) faces a stark disparity in safe water access between urban (50%) and rural (19%) areas, with limited rural water quality monitoring. Rural water service providers (RWSPs), often private companies or social enterprises, represent a potential avenue for increasing monitoring. However, RWSPs require cooperation with government bureaucracies and communities to operate effectively. This cooperation is vital for sustainable water supply, particularly as many RWSPs rely on a mix of public and private funding to compensate for low consumer ability to pay. The introduction of water quality monitoring presents various dilemmas, as procedures and responsibilities are often ill-defined in the absence of existing monitoring programs. This study uses dilemma analysis to explore these conflicts within and between RWSPs, bureaucracies, and communities.

Existing literature highlights the global need for improved drinking water quality monitoring, especially in rural areas of developing countries. Studies have shown a significant gap in water quality data in sub-Saharan Africa, contributing to inequalities in access to safe water. Research also emphasizes the importance of pluralist institutional arrangements in the rural water sector that account for the perspectives of multiple stakeholder groups and build compromise solutions. The concept of RWSPs as a market-based solution has been explored, acknowledging their reliance on diverse stakeholders for financial and operational sustainability. Finally, the literature on the importance of community involvement and empowerment in successful water service provision is discussed, emphasizing the need for sustainable service delivery and safe water behaviors.

This study employed a mixed-methods approach, centering on a water quality monitoring program designed and implemented collaboratively with an RWSP in Kenya. Data collection involved interviews, informal meetings, questionnaires, surveys, and document reviews. Stakeholders included county and local government (n=4), community lay water managers (LWMs) (n=58), national-level government (n=2), regulators (n=2), formal water service providers (FWSPs) in Kenya (n=6), and additional RWSPs from five SSA countries (n=5). Dilemma analysis was the core analytical approach, treating stakeholder views as "parallel rationalities" without hierarchical valuation. This methodology focuses on the issues about which differing opinions are held rather than the opinions themselves. The analysis categorized dilemmas by topic (19 topics), stakeholder group (bureaucracy, community, market), and severity (ambiguity, judgment, problem). An axial hive network visualization illustrated the interrelationships between these topics, highlighting enabling and hindering links to effective monitoring.

The analysis revealed 111 dilemmas revolving around risk minimization and moral principles, demonstrating conflicting viewpoints within and between stakeholder groups. No institutional group showed unanimous agreement on any dilemma. The identified dilemmas are grouped into 19 topics and are strongly interconnected, as depicted in a network visualization. Only nine links were identified as monitoring enablers, mostly related to effective communication strategies. In contrast, over half the links (36) were barriers to effective monitoring, including 23 within-group barriers. Crucially, 13 barrier links existed between stakeholder groups, predominantly concerning access priority, responsibility, empowerment, and entitlement to results. Contradictory assumptions about public interest in water quality emerged across all groups. Bureaucracies often assumed users did not care about quality unless directly impacted by a crisis. RWSPs similarly expressed a low perceived demand for water quality unless a recent disease outbreak occurred in the area. LWMs, while prioritizing water access over safety, highlighted disempowerment as a central concern, lacking resources and knowledge to address quality issues. Water quality monitoring was viewed as a potential threat to supply, raising concerns about resource allocation, controversy, and the need to address contamination or shut down sources. A significant finding was the unclear division of responsibility for water safety, with each group justifying inaction based on the perceived lack of action by other groups. This lack of clear responsibility hinders effective response to water quality problems.

The findings highlight the persistence of a quantity-over-quality approach in rural water provision, reinforcing a false dichotomy between water quantity and quality. This dichotomy is further strengthened by contradictory assumptions regarding public concern over water quality and fears that monitoring will threaten supply functionality. The study emphasizes the need to contextualize monitoring results, viewing quantity and quality holistically. It highlights the necessity of external support to empower LWMs and enable effective action by bureaucratic divisions and service providers. The integration of technical and institutional capacity building for water safety from project inception is crucial for effective monitoring. The results indicate a strong need to overcome the prevailing attitudes that treat the provision of water quantity and quality as separate issues. The study proposes the implementation of water safety planning, as consistent with WHO recommendations, to address the identified barriers by emphasizing a preemptive and holistic approach to risk management.

This study demonstrates the significant barriers to implementing water quality monitoring in rural water services due to a prevailing quantity-over-quality mentality and unclear responsibilities. The false dichotomy hinders cooperation between stakeholders and effective action on water safety. Integrating water safety planning early in project design, along with external support for empowerment and capacity building, is recommended to mitigate these challenges. Future research should explore the financial and logistical feasibility of scaling comprehensive communication strategies within RWSP models. Additionally, research is needed to improve understanding of stakeholder perspectives in the context of water safety and effective integration of water safety planning across all stakeholders.

The study is primarily focused on the context of a single RWSP in Kenya, which might limit the generalizability of the findings. Though efforts were made to include diverse stakeholder groups, the sample might not fully represent all the complexities and variations in rural water service contexts. The reliance on self-reported data may be subject to biases in perspectives and interpretations. Finally, the focus on the experiences of the RWSP in this study, rather than a comprehensive survey of all such programs, could limit the scope of conclusions regarding the impact of RWSPs more broadly.