research priorities under sustainable development goal 6 and … · regina souter, international...
TRANSCRIPT
Research Priorities under Sustainable Development Goal 6 and
Research and Learning Challenges among Global Partners of
Sanitation and Water for All (SWA)
September 2017
Prepared by:
Karen Setty and Jamie Bartram
The Water Institute, University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill
In collaboration with the Research and Learning (R&L) Constituency Working Group:
Sarah Dickin, Stockholm Environment Institute
Lotten Hubendick, Stockholm International Water Institute
Alejandro Jiménez, Stockholm International Water Institute
Sara Marks, Eawag-Sandec
Patrick Moriarty, IRC WASH
Eddy Perez, University of Colorado (formerly Emory University)
Regina Souter, International WaterCentre
Erma Uytewaal, IRC WASH
Vidya Venkataramanan, UNC Water Institute
Juliet Willetts, University of Technology Sydney
And the SWA secretariat:
Clarissa Brocklehurst, SWA and UNC Water Institute
Amanda Marlin, SWA
ii
This document was prepared by The Water Institute at UNC as part of the project Sanitation and Water for All (SWA) Global Policy Research Agenda.
The Water Institute at UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Rosenau Hall, CB #7431 135 Dauer Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7431
Phone +1-919-966-7302 http://www.waterinstitute.unc.edu
SWA Secretariat c/o UNICEF
Three United Nations Plaza New York, New York, 10017 [email protected]
http://sanitationandwaterforall.org/
Authors:
Karen Setty, Jamie Bartram
Reviewers and Editors:
Sarah Dicken, Mats Leifels, Patrick Moriarty, Juliet Willetts
This document can be downloaded from http://waterinstitute.unc.edu/.
Please use the following reference when quoting this document:
Setty, K. and J. Bartram. 2017. Research Priorities under Sustainable Development Goal 6 and Research and Learning Challenges among Global Partners of Sanitation and Water for All (SWA). The Water
Institute at UNC, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
© University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Disclaimer:
The findings, suggestions and conclusions presented in this publication are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed in any manner to The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill or Sanitation and Water for All.
iii
About The Water Institute The Water Institute at UNC provides international academic leadership at the nexus of water, health
and development. Through research, we tackle knowledge gaps that impede effective action on
important WaSH and health issues. We respond to the information needs of our partners, act early
on emerging issues, and proactively identify knowledge gaps. By developing local initiatives and
international teaching and learning partnerships, we deliver innovative, relevant and highly-
accessible training programs that will strengthen the next generation ’s capacity with the knowledge
and experience to solve water and sanitation challenges. By identifying or developing, synthesizing
and distributing relevant and up-to-date information on WaSH, we support effective policy making
and decision-taking that protects health and improves human development worldwide, as well as
predicting and helping to prevent emerging risks. Through networking and developing partnerships,
we bring together individuals and institutions from diverse disciplines and sectors, enablin g them to
work together to solve the most critical global issues in water and health.
About Sanitation and Water for All SWA is a global partnership of over 170 country governments, private sector and civil society
organizations, external support agencies, research and learning institutions and other development
partners working together to catalyze political leadership and action, improve accountability and use
scarce resources more effectively. Partners work towards a common vision of sanitation, hygiene
and water for all, always and everywhere.
About the Authors Karen Setty
Karen is working toward her PhD, focused on evidence-based decision making in the WaSH sector.
Her primary research interests include drinking water risk management and the WaSH
science/policy/practice interface. She previously studied Environmental Biology at the University of
Dayton and earned a Master’s in Environmental Science and Management specializing in Water
Resources Management from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Her group thesis focused
on implementation of sustainable water resources practices in a peri-urban region of Chiapas,
Mexico. Karen volunteered with Engineers Without Borders in Araypallpa, Peru and worked for
several years as a science writer at the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project.
Jamie Bartram
Dr. Bartram works at the interfaces of water (including sanitation and hygiene) and health –
especially the links between science, policy and practice, in both developing and developed
countries. His interests include technologies for urban sanitation renewal; management systems for
drinking-water safety and rural drinking-water supply; emerging issues (including water scarcity and
climate change) and their impacts on system sustainability; health system activities on water and
sanitation; and sector capacity issues such as monitoring, the costs and impacts of interventions and
effective regulation and financing.
iv
Contents Abbreviations, Acronyms and Names ................................................................................................ vi
Executive summary ........................................................................................................................... 1
Background/Justification................................................................................................................ 1
Methods ........................................................................................................................................ 1
Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Representativeness.................................................................................................................... 1
Research: What critical evidence would accelerate progress on SDGs for the WaSH sector? ........ 2
Learning: What evidence resources and delivery methods best support decision-making? ..........3
Challenges: Is lack of scientific evidence a key barrier to work/decisions, or are other obstacles a
more frequent concern? ............................................................................................................ 4
How do respondent characteristics produce differences in responses? ...................................... 4
Overarching themes .................................................................................................................. 4
Recommendations .........................................................................................................................5
Taking action: How can SWA partners best respond to evidence needs? .....................................5
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6
Research Questions ...................................................................................................................... 8
2. Methods ................................................................................................................................... 8
Overview of Methods ................................................................................................................... 8
Survey Development and Testing .................................................................................................. 8
Survey Translation ........................................................................................................................12
Identification of Survey Respondents ............................................................................................12
Survey Deployment...................................................................................................................... 13
Privacy and Security ..................................................................................................................... 13
Data Cleaning and Analysis ........................................................................................................... 13
Quality Assurance and Quality Control.......................................................................................... 14
3. Results ..................................................................................................................................... 14
Response Rate ............................................................................................................................. 14
Summary of Research Priorities (Collective Research Agenda) ..................................................... 15
Proposed Research Agenda...................................................................................................... 16
Summary of Learning and Communication Challenges .................................................................. 20
Summary of Funding and Stakeholder Interaction Dynamics .........................................................21
v
Summary of Respondent Characteristics .......................................................................................21
4. Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 22
Overarching Themes .................................................................................................................... 22
Lack of information in some areas may impede progress on Goal 6 ........................................... 22
Regular follow-up to publications or training can support implementation of new concepts ..... 22
Proximate-to-distant support networks can maximize efficiency .............................................. 22
Existing accountability mechanisms for WaSH professionals may de lay progress ...................... 23
Changing cultural norms (including our own) is difficult ............................................................ 23
Relationship to Building Blocks and Collaborative Behaviors......................................................... 24
Study Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 25
5. Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 25
Potential Solutions or Best Practices ............................................................................................ 25
Recommendations for Future Work ............................................................................................. 27
6. References ............................................................................................................................... 29
7. Appendix 1: Full Questionnaire Transcript – SWA Country Partners ........................................... 32
8. Appendix 2: Full Questionnaire Transcript – SWA Research and Learning Partners ................... 40
9. Appendix 3: Full Questionnaire Transcript – All Other SWA Partners .........................................47
10. Appendix 4: Results by Question........................................................................................... 55
Research ...................................................................................................................................... 55
Learning ......................................................................................................................................63
Funding and Stakeholder Interactions .......................................................................................... 72
Respondent Characteristics ..........................................................................................................79
vi
Abbreviations, Acronyms and Names
CSO – Civil society organization
GLAAS – Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-Water
MDGs – Millennium Development Goals
R&L – Research and Learning (constituency of SWA)
SDGs – Sustainable Development Goals
SWA – Sanitation and Water for All
UNC – University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
UNICEF – United Nations Children’s Fund
WaSH – Water, sanitation, and hygiene
WHO – World Health Organization
1
Executive summary
Background/Justification
Given the transition from United Nations Millennium Development Goals to Sustainable
Development Goals in 2016, a research needs assessment was undertaken by the Research and
Learning (R&L) constituency of Sanitation and Water for All (SWA), a global partnership working
toward universal water and sanitation access. It focused on identifying high priority areas where
more information, or better information synthesis, would aid achievement of Goal 6 of the SDGs:
“Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.” It further sought to
identify information access and learning challenges applicable to the provision of water, sanitation,
and hygiene (WaSH) services, especially for professionals from government, civil society, external
support agencies, and the private sector. Identifying desirable modes of research and learning
support, as well as barriers to knowledge application, can help the R&L constituency better support
progress on Goal 6.
Methods
The main survey technique was a web questionnaire, developed by a working group of the R&L
constituency and administered to representatives of SWA partner organizations. Three different
versions targeted representatives from (1) countries, (2) R&L, and (3) all other SWA constituencies
(external support agencies, civil society, and private sector). Questionnaires were administered
between May and October 2016. The “countries” and “all other” versions were translated into
French and Spanish, the working languages of SWA, to enhance accessibility. They consisted of a mix
of 20-24 multiple choice and fill-in questions regarding Goal 6 targets, recent and future information
needs, decision-making challenges, approaches to gathering information, information access
challenges, learning and training challenges, funding and stakeholder relationships, and professional
background. Quantitative and qualitative data was analyzed by question, participant, and
constituency sub-groupings to identify patterns and inductively generate themes.
Findings
Representativeness
Although demographic questions were not required, the survey incorporated the views of 76
respondents working in approximately 36 countries across six world regions (excluding South and
Central America). Reflecting SWA’s membership, roughly 47% of all responses came from African
locations, followed by Europe (17%), Asia (16%), North America (12%), the Middle East (5%) and
Australia/Oceania (3%). This sample represents at least 10% of the active SWA participants from up to
half of all SWA partner organizations. Thirty responses came from the country constituency, six from
the R&L Constituency, and forty from all other constituencies. Respondents cited diverse
educational backgrounds and professional roles; however, the majority of respondents came from
technical fields such as engineering or natural sciences. The survey is likely to have undersampled
2
government ministers/officials and their advisors (n=4), although managerial and technical support
staff were well represented.
Research: What critical evidence would accelerate progress on SDGs for the WaSH sector?
About 15% of respondents indicated they had no knowledge gaps, but most respondents did voice
concerns about working in Goal 6 target areas. Untreated wastewater and fecal sludge management
engendered least confidence among the targets of Goal 6, followed by ending open defecation,
addressing inequalities, achieving universal access, and building national capacity. A proposed
research agenda was prepared by combining participants’ quantitative rankings (based on
confidence in knowledge/ability to perform work in this area) and qualitative suggestions. The
research agenda is intended to provide a starting point for addressing demand-based knowledge
needs via the collective contributions of members of the R&L constituency. The structure of the
ranked research themes based on Goal 6 targets with relevant subcategories is shown below, with
additional detail in the full report. Subcategories correspond to areas where respondents felt more
information would benefit their current or upcoming work or decision areas.
Structure of Proposed Research Agenda
1. Managing untreated wastewater/fecal sludge
a. Strategic planning/prioritization
b. Monitoring and evaluation
c. Affordability (e.g., subsidies, tariffs)
d. Appropriate technologies
e. Sustainable/ecological solutions
f. Resilience/security/climate change
2. Ending open defecation
a. Appropriate technologies
b. Monitoring and evaluation
3. Addressing inequalities among sub-populations
a. Gender equality
b. Equality/non-discrimination
c. Monitoring and evaluation
4. Achieving universal access
a. Sector coordination/collaboration
b. WaSH in public places
c. Universal access/remote areas
5. Building national capacity
a. Sector coordination/collaboration
b. National policy/strategy/human rights law
6. Financing
a. Equality/non-discrimination
b. Resilience/security/climate change
7. Improving levels of service
a. Water quality/safety
3
b. Equality/non-discrimination
c. Monitoring and evaluation
8. Ecosystem sustainability/resource conservation
a. Strategic planning/prioritization
b. Sustainable/ecological solutions
9. Strengthening local community participation
a. Equality/non-discrimination
b. Reaching poorest populations
Results indicated information generation, information synthesis, and communication are all vital
among WaSH professionals. At an individual level or within specific local contexts, researchers are
likely able to discern whether answers to a given research question are (1) currently missing but
feasible to obtain, (2) available but lacking synthesis or communication, or (3) intractable. A
secondary exercise to map evidence gaps within the WaSH literature and compare these to the
suggested research agenda could be beneficial to discern which of these categories apply to each
priority area on a larger scale or across different regions.
Learning: What evidence resources and delivery methods best support decision-making?
Country respondents first relied on proximate informational resources such as the internet or
personal contacts to address questions, with secondary use of more distant resources such as
contacts within a professional network. Country constituency respondents reported national or
multilateral information sources as the most useful for addressing WaSH questions. Universities and
news outlets, in contrast, were seen as relatively minor information sources. For universities ,
traditional outlets (e.g., scientific journal publications) may not be an effective means of
communicating with a diverse audience, and these parties may be more reliant on intermediary
knowledge brokers who translate, synthesize, and communicate findings. Partnership networks and
communications departments, for example, were heavily relied upon for disseminating information.
The nature of informational resources mattered as well. Reference to one’s particular country or
situation, expert analysis or critique, and executive summaries or synopses were highly valued
communication tools. Interestingly, lengthy or technical information was a less frequent complaint
than information that was too brief or general. The value placed on executive summaries, though,
suggests both brief and technical information should be packaged together, along with accessible
backup interpersonal support. Because funding availability was a prime factor in decision making,
reports should detail information on costs and potential financing avenues when delivering WaSH
recommendations.
Finally, SWA constituencies differed widely in reporting their current states of training access and
ongoing learning needs. Those in the “countries” and “all other” constituencies desired additional
learning and training opportunities while perceiving external barriers to participating (e.g., not
receiving a notice or invitation). The R&L constituency instead seemed oversaturated with learning
and training opportunities, and were primarily limited by a lack of time. Information synthesis (e.g.,
4
via seminars or lectures) was highly valued, especially among the “countries” and “all other”
constituencies, although these groups may receive fewer educational event notices than the R&L
constituency. More or broader funding opportunities, peer discussion fora, and training
courses/continuing education (onsite preferred) were also commonly suggested to meet existing
learning needs.
Challenges: Is lack of scientific evidence a key barrier to work/decisions, or are other obstacles a more
frequent concern?
While about 13% of respondents reported no difficulty obtaining WaSH information, about 87%
reported one or more barriers to both seeking information and using it to inform decisions,
suggesting that synthesizing evidence and applying it in practice remain important hurdles.
Information was often perceived as conflicting, unreliable, inaccessible, or outdated, especially
among the “countries” and “all other” constituencies, suggesting the R&L group may be more
practiced than others at identifying and consolidating reliable information. Other top-ranked barriers
to decision making including (1) lack of financial resources or funding, (2) lack of political traction,
and/or (3) lack of technical or human resources to pursue alternatives.
Moreover, funding and stakeholder relationships revealed accountability imbalances among
different constituencies. Interestingly, research topics were often limited by the high specificity of
funding opportunities, which are formulated by funders such as external support agencies or civil
society organizations. This mechanism likely serves to increase research relevance to the wider
WaSH community. Partnerships and stakeholder involvement were critical to receiving funding;
however, stakeholders (e.g., country-level decision makers) were not always included in the research
process, especially at project startup, which may limit relevance for this audience.
How do respondent characteristics produce differences in responses?
In some cases, priority knowledge areas differed among constituencies. For example, menstrual
hygiene management and gender equality ranked much higher as a recent decision area or
information need among respondents from the “all other” constituencies as compared to the
“countries” or R&L constituencies (question 6). In question 4, the R&L respondents overlooked
some information needs important to other constituencies, including budgeting/costing and donor
management. These findings suggest that development of a research agenda by researchers alone
may not suffice to meet needs across all sectors (Bryant et al., 2014). Since economics and finance
information needs figured prominently among the global research priorities, collaboration among
constituencies or expansion of the R&L constituency to include these types of researchers might
benefit practical achievement of the SDGs.
Overarching themes
In consolidating the survey results, several key messages became apparent:
• Lack of information in some areas may impede progress on Goal 6.
• Regular follow-up to publications or training can support implementation of new concepts.
5
• Proximate-to-distant support networks can maximize efficiency.
• Existing accountability mechanisms for WaSH professionals may delay progress.
• Changing cultural norms (including our own) is difficult.
Recommendations
Taking action: How can SWA partners best respond to evidence needs?
This project sought to inductively explore research and learning needs rather than explicitly diagnose
or confirm a pre-existing theory or belief. As such, it should be considered a starting point for
problem identification and development of future initiatives. The questionnaire responses (detailed
in Appendix 4) suggest some areas where partnership networks such as the SWA R&L constituency
might play an important role in bridging the gaps among researchers, knowledge brokers, decision
makers, practitioners, and others. These include:
• Fostering an enabling environment in which WaSH professionals have access to a variety of
established reference material and layers of interpersonal support;
• Opening up interactive seminars or webinars that offer up-to-date expert interpretation and
information synthesis to both peer scientists and end users, potentially with messages
tailored to different audiences;
• Helping WaSH professionals to easily connect with others in their extended professional
network, for example via personal referral or access to specific listservs of experts, when
issues or questions cannot immediately be addressed by more proximate resources, or when
preparing project proposals that require partnerships;
• Developing accountability mechanisms (e.g., grant criteria requesting evidence of past
accountability to stakeholders) that tie project follow-up, downward accountability, and
applied (demand-driven) research to enhanced opportunities for future funding and
publication;
• Promoting stakeholder involvement (or conscientious exclusion if warranted) in a consistent
manner throughout all WaSH research or implementation projects and stages;
• Facilitating communication and dissemination pathways for individual SWA partners’ WaSH
programs or research or educational activities, from and across all constituencies (e.g.,
through specialized, moderated, cross-constituency, opt-in listservs); and
• Assisting the country constituency, in particular, with increased opportunity for interpersonal
interaction among their peer SWA-affiliated country colleagues, especially to debrief and
discuss how to implement new information or guidance.
6
1. Introduction
The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) replaced the Millennium Development
Goals at the end of 2015 (United Nations General Assembly, 2015). Within the 17 ambitious SDGs, Goal
6 seeks to “Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.” Some
subcomponents of other goals also address needs related to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WaSH).
In particular, the following foci of Goal 6 set an agenda for the WaSH professionals to work toward
between 2015 and 2030:
• (6.1) By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water
for all.
• (6.2) By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and
end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in
vulnerable situations.
• (6.3) By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and
minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of
untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally.
• (6.a) By 2030, expand international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing
countries in water- and sanitation-related activities and programmes, including water
harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse
technologies.
• (6.b) Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and
sanitation management.
Thus, 2016 represented a critical time for WaSH professionals to collaboratively determine what
research and learning actions would best support achievement of the SDGs, as well as what factors
might hinder achievement. While many people gained access to sanitation facilities over the past few
decades, progress has been outpaced by population growth, leaving many remaining unserved
households (WHO and UNICEF, 2014). Inadequate water supplies and poor sanitation and hygiene
remain strong contributors to disease and deaths in developing nations, especially among children
under five (UN-Water and WHO, 2014a). Efforts to improve these conditions are plagued by multiple
challenges, ranging from weak political support and national capacity to gaps in monitoring and lack
of human resources (WHO and UNICEF, 2014; WASH Impact Network, n.d.).
Sanitation and Water for All (SWA) was established in 2009, in part to address inefficiencies in WaSH
sector coordination and drive progress toward the MDGs. SWA is a global partnership of more than
100 entities working together to catalyze political leadership and action, improve accountability, and
use scarce resources more effectively within the WaSH arena (SWA, 2017). Partners work toward a
common vision of universal access to safe water and adequate sanitation. Multiple professional
groups are represented, including country governments, civil society organizations, multilaterals,
development banks, foundations, private businesses, and universities. Partners are grouped into five
SWA constituencies: countries, external support agencies, civil society, research and learning, and
the private sector.
7
SWA’s research and learning (R&L) partners seek to strengthen the evidence base for the WaSH
sector (SWA, 2017). Country partners consist of low and middle-income country governments
supporting their own domestic implementation of WaSH goals. Country partners currently come
predominantly from Africa. Other SWA partners mobilize and allocate WaSH resources, influence
political agendas, implement WaSH programs or projects from international to regional levels, and/or
conduct business in support of SWA objectives. SWA membership is fairly representative of key
global WaSH actors; however, it is a relatively young organization (founded in 2009) and new
members are recruited and added on an ongoing basis. SWA’s three priority areas include political
prioritization, country processes, and evidence-based decision-making (SWA, 2017). For the latter
area, SWA recognizes that decision-makers require high-quality, up-to-date information to make
appropriate and timely decisions about WaSH investments.
Part of the gap in using evidence in WaSH programming stems from differences among actors,
constituencies, and norms of practice. Policy makers and their senior advisors have the closest
interactive experience with how evidence is used to make decisions in their home countries, but they
may not be fully aware of future needs or able to communicate them easily to a research and
development support arm. On the other hand, independent researchers are often driven by a
different set of motivations, wherein appropriate timing, funding availability, and scientific
advancement may take precedence over meeting the needs of end users (Smith, An, & Kawachi,
2013; DFID, n.d.; Kolsky, n.d.). Considering the breadth and diversity of global WaSH actors, broad
representation of stakeholders from multiple disciplines should be considered in setting research
agendas (Bryant et al., 2014).
Further, directly performing needs assessments may lead to inadvertently truncated agendas, since
end users often focus on the most pressing and achievable short-term needs at the expense of larger
long-term and sometimes more critical issues (Boyd, 2016). Likewise, pushing researchers to satisfy
only client needs may compromise the scientific process and neutrality of the outcome (Poch et al.,
2017). Though better linking scientific evidence to policy outcomes is a common goal both
domestically and abroad, less effort focuses on best practices to achieve this issue (Cash et al., 2003;
Zients, 2012). Best practices for harvesting evidence needs and matching them to research agendas
(Huberman, 1994; Viergever et al., 2010) could be adopted to enhance progress toward WaSH goals.
In collaboration with SWA R&L partners, this survey effort sought to develop a participatory global
WaSH research agenda that meets a need for short-term guidance within the SWA R&L constituency,
serving as a basis for matching demand-driven evidence needs to scientific entities capable of
fulfilling those needs. The survey additionally examines similarities and differences among WaSH
constituencies as an opportunity to explore how scientific evidence generally supports, or fails to
support, learning and policy development. It seeks to characterize effective means for science
communication and knowledge integration. A follow-up study involving brief follow-up interviews
will be dedicated to better understanding the role evidence plays in WaSH decision making.
8
Research Questions
1. What evidence would accelerate progress on SDGs for the WaSH sector? How/why might it
be helpful?
a. Is new research or research synthesis necessary?
2. What type of evidence resources and delivery methods best support decision-making?
a. What characteristics make resources highly used or trusted?
b. What types of resources are not being used for decision making?
3. Which barriers (e.g., lack of scientific evidence) limit decision making?
4. Do different SWA constituencies produce different responses?
5. How can SWA partners best respond to evidence needs?
2. Methods
Overview of Methods
This study sought to reverse map research priorities critical to pursuit of Goal 6. The methods aimed
to draw out critical information about knowledge gaps and barriers, the most valuable types of
informational resources, and evidence use across groups. Steps in the research development process
included:
• Establish a working group of SWA R&L partners;
• Agree on approach, methods, and timeline;
• Develop a web questionnaire for the “countries” constituency;
• Issue an invitation to SWA country partners to participate and allow two weeks for survey
responses;
• Synthesize results and refine two additional versions of the survey to gather input from other
SWA constituencies, keeping questions as consistent as possible for comparability;
• Issue an invitation for SWA partners from other constituencies to participate and allow two
weeks for survey responses;
• Clean and analyze both quantitative and qualitative data;
• Develop initial research agenda and report on research and learning challenges;
• Request review on the draft research agenda and full survey report from the R&L survey
working group, full R&L constituency, and SWA secretariat, especially regarding
interpretation of potential solutions or best practices;
• Revise and reach consensus, producing a final global WaSH research agenda and report on
learning challenges for working purposes.
Survey Development and Testing
The survey was conducted in a series of three web questionnaires using Qualtrics software on a
platform hosted by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It began with a brief set of
frequently asked questions giving background and consent information, followed by optional
9
introductory text citing some key differences between the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
and SDGs. The questionnaires consisted of five or six sections, moving from research priorities to
research and learning challenges, funding and stakeholder interactions, and finally to respondent
characteristics. At the conclusion of the questionnaires, respondents had the option to provide a first
name and method of contact to volunteer for a follow-up interview. They also had an option to
nominate a potential new member for the R&L constituency as part of a larger recruitment effort.
The final confirmation screen provided a referral to sign up for the free UNC Water Institute’s WaSH
policy research digest distribution list along with thanks for completing the questionnaire.
Survey questions and response categories were drafted based on the study’s research questions
(Table 1). The survey questions sought to avoid unnecessary analytical leaps, focusing instead on real
experiences and uncertainties. An example of how question 1 was adapted to match the Goal 6
targets is shown in Table 2Table 2. Questions targeted a mix of qualitative and quantitative
information that could help define important themes. They consisted of primarily closed-ended
questions multiple choice questions, typically with an “other” fill-in category, followed by an open-
ended question to request elaboration and conclude each section.
Table 1. Research questions mapped to country survey sections.
Research Question Information
Sought
Survey
Section
Survey Question(s)
1. What critical
evidence would
accelerate progress on
SDGs for the WaSH
sector?
Ranking and
description of
what is
unknown
1. Introduction
and Targets
2. Information
for Decision-
Making
How confident are you in your
knowledge/ability to work in each of
the following target areas of Goal 6?
Do you have any specific knowledge
gaps or areas of concern related to
achieving Goal 6?
When you made WaSH-related
decisions over the past six months, in
which of these areas (related to
governance and human resources/
finance and information
systems/technical areas) would more
information have been helpful?
What was the primary topic
of the WaSH-related decision (or
decisions) you made over the past six
months?
10
1a. Is new research or
research synthesis
more vital
3a. Is scientific
evidence a key enabler
of decisions, or are
other barriers a more
frequent concern?
3b. What are barriers?
Prevalence of
challenges
related to
information
versus other
aspects of
decision
making
3. Limitations
to Decision-
Making
5. Learning
and Training
Needs
Which (informational/other)
challenges did you experience when
seeking information to make WaSH-
related decision/s over the past six
months?
Based on these limitations, what
knowledge or information might have
helped with your decision/s?
Which challenges did you experience
when seeking WaSH-related training
or educational opportunities over the
past six months?
How willing would you be to interact
with WaSH researchers (e.g., to help
plan studies and share new
information)?
2. What type of
evidence resources
and delivery methods
best support decision-
making?
2a. What
characteristics make
resources highly used
or trusted?
2b. What types of
resources are not
being utilized for
decision making?
Ranking and
description of
preferred
information
sources and
formats
4. Approaches
to Gathering
Information
Which organizations typically
offer useful (e.g., accessible,
understandable, relevant, and/or
sufficient) information for addressing
your WaSH-related questions?
Which actions/informational formats
are typically useful for addressing
your WaSH-related questions?
What would make the WaSH-related
information you accessed over the
past six months more useful?
4. Do certain
characteristics of
interviewees produce
differences in
responses?
Identification
with
constituency;
educational
field
6. Your
Professional
Background
What is your educational
specialization?
Which category best describes your
current workplace/professional
responsibilities?
11
5. How can SWA
partners best respond
to evidence needs?
Themes from
all questions;
specific
requests
4. Approaches
to Gathering
Information
5. Learning
and Training
Needs
What new resources, if any, would
you like to have available for
addressing your WaSH-related
questions?
Do you have any other advice or
comments?
Table 2. Example of question development regarding SDG target areas.
Text of SDG 6 and Targets (UN, 2016) Text of final survey questions
Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable
management of water and sanitation for all
Q1. How confident are you in your
knowledge/ability to work in each of the
following target areas of Goal 6?
6.1. By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access
to safe and affordable drinking water for all
A) Achieving universal access
B) Improving levels of service
6.2. By 2030, achieve access to adequate and
equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end
open defecation, paying special attention to the
needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable
situations
C) Addressing inequalities among sub-
populations
D) Ending open defecation
6.3. By 2030, improve water quality by reducing
pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing
release of hazardous chemicals and materials,
halving the proportion of untreated wastewater
and substantially increasing recycling and safe
reuse globally
E) Managing untreated wastewater
6.4. By 2030, substantially increase water-use
efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable
withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address
water scarcity and substantially reduce the number
of people suffering from water scarcity
(Omitted from Q1 for brevity after pilot
testing; write-in option under Q2: Do you
have any specific knowledge gaps or areas
of concern related to achieving Goal 6?)
6.5. By 2030, implement integrated water
resources management at all levels, including
through transboundary cooperation as appropriate
(Omitted from Q1 for brevity after pilot
testing; write-in option under Q2)
6.6. By 2020, protect and restore water-related
ecosystems, including mountains, forests,
wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes
(Omitted from Q1 for brevity after pilot
testing; write-in option under Q2)
6.A. By 2030, expand international cooperation and
capacity-building support to developing countries in F) Building national capacity
12
water- and sanitation-related activities and
programmes, including water harvesting,
desalination, water efficiency, wastewater
treatment, recycling and reuse technologies
6.B. Support and strengthen the participation of
local communities in improving water and
sanitation management
G) Strengthening local community
participation
Questions were reviewed for content, length, language, and clarity by the Research and Learning
constituency’s survey work group and an expert from the Odum Institute for Social Science Research
at UNC. After initial development, they were uploaded to Qualtrics and underwent live pilot testing
by the R&L work group and external reviewers, including international students and an information
technology specialist at the UNC Water Institute. Feedback from the alpha and beta testers was
incorporated into the survey design, leading to preparation of a final version. The final surveys
consisted of 20-24 questions and were estimated to take 15-20 minutes to complete for a non-native
English speaker, or approximately 8-10 minutes for a native speaker. Recruitment email text was also
drafted, and was reviewed along with the questionnaire by the UNC Office of Human Research Ethics
(IRB). Full text English-version questionnaires are transcribed in appendices 1-3.
Survey Translation
The SWA Secretariat provided translation support for both questionnaires and recruitment text,
from English into French and Spanish, the standard working languages of SWA. The provided
alternate language text was added to Qualtrics, where the user interface offered a drop-down
translation option at the top of each page of the survey. Invitation and reminder emails also showed
French and Spanish translations below the main text in English. The R&L survey and recruitment
messages, in contrast, were offered in English only at the working group’s request.
Identification of Survey Respondents
The first questionnaire targeted representatives of SWA partner countries, including ministers, their
advisers, and support staff. This questionnaire was then revised to solicit feedback from other SWA
partners, including (a) researchers, and (b) “all other” civil society organizations, multilaterals,
private businesses, and funding organizations. The pooled of sampled respondents was self-selected
from within SWA’s existing partner representatives, and may not be fully representative of the
whole partnership network. In particular, low quality or intermittent internet access may have played
a role in limiting the pool of respondents.
13
Survey Deployment
A printed pre-survey announcement was made available at the March 15-17, 2016 SWA Sector
Ministers’ meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to help engage the country constituency. The SWA
Secretariat then distributed electronic invitations to participate to their existing email lists to allay
any concerns about unapproved information sharing. Email text and a link to the web questionnaires
were provided to the SWA secretariat for distribution, including one invitation email and two
reminder emails. The R&L recruitment messages, instead, were distributed directly from the research
team via an existing internal listserv. The country survey was deployed first in May 2016, and the R&L
and “all other” constituency surveys were co-deployed from late September to early October 2016.
Privacy and Security
Invitations provided an anonymous link to reach the questionnaire. Respondents had the option to
provide a first name and contact method only if interested in participating in a follow-up interview.
Otherwise, respondents remained anonymous aside from automated IP address and geolocation
collection by Qualtrics. The information provided was used only for the purpose of research and
viewed only by the research team. Responses were confidential, and no personally identifiable
information was shared in data, summary reports, or presentations. Survey data was de-identified
for data sharing and storage purposes, with identifiers in separate codebooks. Researchers abided
by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's level II data security procedures as recommended
by the Office of Human Research Ethics Internal Review Board (IRB #15-5808, Exempt).
Data Cleaning and Analysis
Both full and partial questionnaire responses were received. Partial responses including replies to at
least three questions were included, while those with fewer than three answers were excluded from
the dataset. Questions left blank (whether seen or unseen by the respondent) were excluded from
the analysis. It was clear that one respondent submitted two duplicate responses, so only the first
submission was retained. Late submissions were permitted, although interpersonal follow-up
recruitment led to only one additional survey response.
Data were downloaded in Excel and related questions were matched across the three different
constituency questionnaires. Sections and questions differed slightly on each of the three survey
versions, but responses to related questions were grouped into four primary categories for analysis:
research, learning, funding and stakeholder interactions, and respondent characteristics. Responses
in French were translated to English; no responses were received in Spanish. Quantitative (multiple
choice) questions were graphed in Excel while qualitative data (open-ended question responses)
were inductively coded using line-by-line in vivo codes, and tallied by constituency and frequency to
identify trends. Themes were generated via writing and discussion.
14
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Data analysis methods were spot-checked by a member of the survey working group, while other
members provided oversight and review throughout the research process. The working group, R&L
constituency, SWA secretariat, and some external subject-area experts also had an opportunity to
review and suggest revisions to the final report. Conventional qualitative content analysis and
description generally followed the methods of Hseih and Shannon (2005) and Kim et al. (2016) with
some elements of grounded theory (Charmaz, 1996). Researchers delayed the literature review to
reduce bias, and attention was paid to verifying that final conclusions were rooted in the data.
3. Results
Response Rate
In total, 30 responses were received from the country constituency, six responses from the Research
and Learning Constituency, and 40 responses from all other constituencies, for a grand total of 76
responses. Survey respondents were working in about 36 countries across six world regions
(excluding South and Central America). Identifiers were not requested to ensure confidentiality, but
it appears roughly half of overall responses and close to two-thirds of the country responses came
from Sub-Saharan Africa, mirroring the current membership of SWA. Others likely came from Europe
(17%), Asia (16%), North America (12%), the Middle East (5%) and Australia/Oceania (3%). Sixty-one of
the included surveys (80%) were completed through to the final submission page, while 15 (20%)
were included as partial responses. Response rates were in the good-to-high range for a web-
delivered survey, averaging 10% of those on SWA’s mailing lists. This estimated value was likely higher
in reality, since some included email addresses may have been duplicates, no longer active, or for
non-WaSH professionals (e.g., caterers) who were not expected to respond to the survey.
This sample represents at least 10% of active SWA participants from up to half of all SWA partner
organizations. The estimated ratios of responses per organization in each constituency ranged from
0.33 to 0.73. Respondents were not limited to one individual per agency; therefore, actual ratios may
be lower. At most, it appears that up to six respondents came from the same country on a given
survey. Because the “All Other” survey was distributed to multiple constituencies and not everyone
answered the constituency affiliation question, the breakdown for this survey is extrapolated from
those who did mark a response. The smallest constituencies, private sector and R&L, had the lowest
ratios of responses per member organization. The “All Other” survey had the lowest estimated
response per email addresses.
Table 3. Response rates for three survey deployments (Country, R&L, and All Other).
Constituency Responses Partner
Orgs2 Ratio
Addresses % Responders
Country 301 53 0.57 227 13.2%
Research & Learning 6 18 0.33 41 14.6%
15
All Other 40 80 0.50 491 8.1%
External Support (includes multilateral
organizations) 16 22 0.73 135 11.9%
Civil Society (national, international or
regional levels) 22 52 0.42 319 6.9%
Private Sector 2 6 0.33 37 5.4%
Total 76 151 0.50 759 10.0% 1Numbers in bold are actual values, others are estimates since not all survey takers responded to the constituency affiliation
question. 2Estimated as of November 2016. New partners are recruited on an ongoing basis.
Summary of Research Priorities (Collective Research Agenda)
Only about 15% of respondents reported no areas of concern or knowledge gaps related to Goal 6
(Q2), and even some of these individuals were less than “very confident” on multiple target areas
(Q1). Based on a weighted sum of the selected categories in question 1 (very confident=3, somewhat
confident=2, not confident=1, unsure=0) and top written-in answers in question 2 (named as a
knowledge gap or area of concern=1, unnamed=2.5), the need for research under each target SDG
area (portions of the framework engendering the least confidence) was prioritized (Table 4).
Table 4. Weighted ranking of uncertainty around Goal 6 targets from question 1, including top written-in concerns from
question 2 (n=76). The lowest weighted sum corresponds to the least confidence.
Weighted Sum
of Rankings1 Rank Theme Goal 6 Reference
135 1 Managing untreated
wastewater/fecal sludge
Target 6.3
169 2 Ending open defecation Target 6.2
172 3 Addressing inequalities among sub-
populations
Targets 6.1 and 6.2
“equitable”
173 4 Achieving universal access Targets 6.1 and 6.2 “for all”
“universal”
174 5 Building national capacity Target 6.A
182.5 6 Financing (added by respondents)
183 7 Improving levels of service Targets 6.1 and 6.2 “safe”
“adequate”
185.5 8 Ecosystem sustainability/resource
conservation
Targets 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6
186 9 Strengthening local community
participation
Target 6.B
1Rankings were not assessed for statistical differences; the greatest separation occurs between ranks 1 and 2.
16
Within each of these target areas, subcategories were pulled from top recent information needs
named in questions 3, 4, and 5, including strategic planning/prioritization, sector
coordination/collaboration, monitoring and evaluation, and affordability (e.g., subsidies, tariffs),
reaching poorest populations, and appropriate technologies. Additional subcategories came from
top recent and prospective work areas described under questions 6 and 7, including equality/non-
discrimination, WaSH in public places, WaSH finance/business models, resilience/security/climate
change, sustainable/ecological solutions, and universal access/remote areas. Subcategories not
directly relevant to the main target areas were excluded for brevity, while greater emphasis was
placed on subcategory inclusion under the first target area (“managing untreated wastewater/fecal
sludge”). A research agenda was constructed by drafting full questions corresponding to many of
the recent and high-priority prospective work areas either inferred or qualitatively described under
questions 6 and 7 under a single umbrella framework. The framework was ordered using
quantitative rankings in questions 1-5, although some separations in the rankings are very small.
Proposed Research Agenda
1. Managing untreated wastewater/fecal sludge (Q1, Rank 1; Q2, Rank 1)
a. Strategic planning/prioritization (Q3, Rank 1)
i. Which approaches to safe wastewater fecal sludge disposal or
geographical/population priorities will have the greatest impact on reducing
fecal pollution and disease transmission by 2030?
b. Monitoring and evaluation (Q4, Rank 1)
i. Can changes in global raw sewage or fecal discharge be quantified over time?
What are the key drivers of this change?
c. Affordability (e.g., subsidies, tariffs) (Q4, Rank 2)
i. What cost-recovery mechanisms and demonstrated business models
(including cost scenarios) are available to cities or communities interested in
tackling untreated wastewater or fecal sludge discharges? (Q7R/O)
ii. What payment mechanisms or payment options engender the greatest buy-in
for new sanitation services? How can payment for sanitation services best be
stabilized over time?
d. Appropriate technologies (Q5, Rank 2)
i. Are adequate decision support tools in place to determine the best
wastewater treatment scheme for a given location, whether traditional or
unconventional? What are the key decision criteria? Have such solutions been
reliably costed?
e. Sustainable/ecological solutions (Q7R/O, Rank 3)
i. How can nutrients in wastewater/fecal sludge safely be redistributed and
reused for crop production? (Q6)
f. Resilience/security/climate change (Q7R/O, Rank 3)
i. Can risk management approaches such as sanitation safety planning help
control environmental impacts from accidental sewage/sewerage release?
2. Ending open defecation (Q1, Rank 2)
a. Appropriate technologies (Q5, Rank 2)
17
i. Which marketing or behavior change approaches have been the most
successful and why might they succeed or fail in a different context? (Q7R/O)
b. Monitoring and evaluation (Q4, Rank 1)
i. What is the nature and magnitude of the links between WaSH improvements
and community health status? (Q6, Q7R/O)
3. Addressing inequalities among sub-populations (Q1, Rank 3)
a. [Gender] Equality/non-discrimination (Q7R/O, Rank 1)
i. What are the public health and economic benefits of menstrual hygiene
management? (Q7R/O) How can stigmas about menstrual hygiene
management be tackled?
b. Equality/non-discrimination (Q7R/O, Rank 1)
i. Which individuals/populations experience a disproportional burden from
negative outcomes linked to WaSH-related stunting? (Q7R/O) Can better
prevention and treatment mechanisms be developed to reduce these
impacts?
c. Monitoring and evaluation (Q4, Rank 1)
i. Can disaggregated data be generated to ensure equality, nondiscrimination,
and targeting of services? (Q7R/O)
4. Achieving universal access (Q1, Rank 4)
a. Sector coordination/collaboration (Q3, Rank 2)
i. Are government accountability measures for WaSH achievements working?
Are any countries falling through the cracks?
ii. What bottlenecks prevent actors from putting collaborative behaviors into
practice? (Q7R/O)
b. WaSH in public places (Q7R/O, Rank 2)
i. What options are available for increasing access to improved public sanitation
facilities (including menstrual hygiene management) in heavily populated
areas versus more remote, rural areas? (Q7R/O)
c. Universal access/remote areas (Q7R/O, Rank 3)
i. What conventional or unconventional WaSH options are available for serving
remote populations? (Q7R/O) Have any been proven more successful than
others? What decision criteria are recommended?
5. Building national capacity (Q1, Rank 5; Q2, Rank 3)
a. Sector coordination/collaboration (Q3, Rank 2)
i. How can WaSH targets be integrated with programming on other targets,
such as food and energy security? (Q7R/O)
b. National policy/strategy/human rights law (Q6, Rank 1)
i. Are emergency management or response plans in place to address recent or
future WaSH-related disease epidemics? (Q6)
6. Financing (Q2, Rank 2)
a. Equality/non-discrimination (Q7R/O, Rank 1)
i. How should WaSH services be financed in the case of extremely poor,
marginalized, or transient peoples?
b. Resilience/security/climate change (Q7R/O, Rank 3)
18
i. Given economic, political, and climate uncertainty, what financing options or
portfolio of options are most resilient? How can dips or lags in financing best
be weathered?
7. Improving levels of service (Q1, Rank 6)
a. Water quality/safety (Q6, Rank 3)
i. What benefits can be gained from proactive risk management approaches
such as water safety planning? (Q6)
b. Equality/non-discrimination (Q7R/O, Rank 1)
i. Where can we find successful case studies of scaling up high quality WaSH
services in an equitable manner? How were these services delivered? (Q7R/O)
c. Monitoring and evaluation (Q4, Rank 1)
i. How might demographic trends hinder the ability to maintain and improve
WaSH service levels? (Q7R/O)
ii. What is the long-term cost-effectiveness and health impact of communal
water points versus in-home piped access? (Q7R/O)
8. Ecosystem sustainability/resource conservation (Q2, Rank 4)
a. Strategic planning/prioritization (Q3, Rank 1)
i. Do all new WaSH services consider ecological sustainability, including
different scenarios of climate change? If not, why not? (Q7R/O)
b. Sustainable/ecological solutions (Q7R/O, Rank 3)
i. How can existing WaSH facilities and water/wastewater treatment processes
be retrofit to enhance efficiency and reduce environmental impacts?
9. Strengthening local community participation (Q1, Rank 7)
a. Equality/non-discrimination (Q7R/O, Rank 1)
i. How can communities include diverse citizens in WaSH decisions, especially
young people and women? (Q7R/O) What are the benefits of diversity and
inclusion?
b. Reaching poorest populations (Q5, Rank 1)
i. What behavior change mechanisms work across diverse slum environments?
(Q7R/O)
Notably, slightly different pictures were seen when inferring priorities from indirect questions about
actual recent information needs (used to develop the structure above) and directly asking about
future research priorities (which requires more cognitive leaps). The survey was originally designed
to avoid future projection, but question 7 was added to the R&L and “all other” questionnaire
versions to see how the responses compared. This offers a hypothetical comparison between two
possible methods of research agenda construction. For example, relying solely on the ranking of
responses about high future priorities under question 7 (R&L and All Other; copied below)
downplays the need for research or evidence on fecal sludge management and open defecation,
mentioned only about 4% or 2% of the time (respectively), whereas other survey questions showed
these were quite clearly areas of concern for in-country WaSH professionals and others. These
examples illustrate a subtle disconnect between how research may be planned and how it is
eventually viewed or used.
19
Table 5. Future research priorities reported by R&L and “all other” constituencies in question 7 (n=34) differ from overall
research priorities inferred using questions 1 through 7.
Frequency Theme
8 Equality/non-discrimination
6 WaSH in public places
5 WaSH finance/business models
5 Resilience/security/climate change
5 Sustainable/ecological solutions
5 Universal access/remote areas
4 Water quality/safety
4 WaSH education/knowledge sharing
4 Investment/capacity building
4 Urban WaSH/slums
4 Utility management/service delivery
3 Cost/benefit
3 Sludge management
3 Behavior change/latrine usage
3 Health/economic impacts
2 Open defecation
2 Accountability/collaborative
behaviors
2 Community-led programming
2 Measuring progress
1 Stunting
1 Private sector engagement
1 Menstrual hygiene management
1 Shared vs. household services
1 Integration with other goals
1 Service levels
1 Political instability
1 Innovation (technological, etc.)
1 Policy
Naturally, research priorities discussed here are not a panacea, and not all research topics will align
with the vision and mission of every research organization (although significant demand might
suggest the organization’s scope be revisited!). This study was a needs -harvesting exercise, wherein
multiple recipients of the information (e.g., diverse SWA partners) seek to tackle different
components of problems and thereby collectively drive the post-2015 WaSH agenda forward.
Further, other information sources might confirm or contradict some of the information produced by
this mode of data collection, from this particular sample of global WaSH professionals. Each
20
individual researcher or decision maker must judge which high priority topics best fit within their
organization’s portfolio, whether the timing is appropriate, and whether the effort can be
successfully undertaken with the resources at hand (e.g., Oxman et al., 2006). Additional peer-review
of this research agenda and follow-up interviews can help improve interpretation of the survey
results. Periodic updates of research priorities are recommended with progressive movement
through the SDG era.
Summary of Learning and Communication Challenges1
The results demonstrated greater confidence in WaSH information among the R&L group as
compared to others. This could signify that challenges remain in science communication and building
confidence in interpreting evidence among non-scientists. It may also stem from differences in
perception based on geography or profession-specific culture. Respondents often relied on the
internet or personal or professional contacts to address questions, demonstrating the important role
of partnership networks such as SWA in knowledge integration.
National or global-level information tended to dominate in terms of use for addressing WaSH
questions, while universities and the media were relatively minor sources. Respondents suggested
reference to one’s particular country/situation, expert analysis/critique, and executive
summaries/synopses were valued communication tools. Information synthesis (e.g., via seminars or
lectures) was also highly valued, especially among the country constituency, which may be a more
infrequent target of advertising for such events. Interestingly, lengthy or technical information was a
less frequent complaint than information that was too brief or general, suggesting that both brief
and technical information should be packaged together, along with accessible backup interpersonal
support. Because funding availability was a prime factor in decision making, reports should detail
information on costs and potential financing avenues when delivering WaSH recommendations.
A busy schedule and not receiving a notice were the most frequent barriers to participation in
training and educational events. Responses to some questions were quite constituency-specific,
indicating that tailored approaches would help to meet the different needs and current positioning
of different subsets of WaSH professionals. More (or less restrictive) funding opportunities, peer
discussion fora, and training courses/continuing education (onsite preferred) were also commonly
suggested to meet existing learning needs. Aside from information-related challenges, important
barriers reported as limiting WaSH work or decision-making included a lack of financial
resources/funding, lack of political traction, and lack of technical or human resources.
1 Summary information is reported for brevity. Full results by question can be found in Appendix 4.
21
Summary of Funding and Stakeholder Interaction Dynamics
WaSH funding is commonly provided by multilaterals and private foundations, and used to support
research or work activities among civil society organizations and universities. National government
agencies act as both sponsors and recipients of WaSH research/activity funding, which serves to
redistribute resources among nations. Funders bridge the research-practice divide both by
influencing research topics and disseminating findings. The topic of research proposals often must
closely match pre-determined funding categories, which may limit the range of research topics
pursued. Proposals are typically denied funding if they lack advance planning of scientific methods or
established partnerships with stakeholders, which may help to ensure relevance to end users. The
broader political climate is also a key driver of funding, and those seeking funding may hav e to adapt
to trends over time.
Respondents appeared somewhat confident that current WaSH work matches well with existing
needs. Approaches recommended to improve this match included building capacity through
increased human resources or training, and creating space for reflection time or after-action review
among end users of the information. Stakeholders are often involved in WaSH programs and
projects, especially among the R&L constituency, although this was not necessarily true across all
respondents or all stages of work. Reported stakeholder involvement showed a somewhat
inconsistent pattern from the beginning to end stages of work, and responses differed between the
R&L and “all other” constituencies. Partnership networks were seen as playing a significant role in
information dissemination. Most country respondents were very willing to interact with researchers,
for example to plan studies or share information, although some indicated hesitancy that could be
explored through interviews. Respondents from “all other” constituencies also reported regular
interaction with researchers, typically once every few months or once a month.
Summary of Respondent Characteristics
No R&L respondents and few country respondents reported a business, economics, or finance
background, which suggests that these skills and training may more commonly reside among civil
society, external support, and private sector partners. Economics and finance information needs
figured prominently among the global research priorities, and collaboration among constituencies or
expansion of the R&L constituency to include these types of researchers might benefit practical
achievement of the SDGs. Demographic information also reflected the need for the R&L
constituency’s current goal to increase representation from regional or national universities within
globally southern countries. Most respondents held senior positions, but government
officials/ministers were underrepresented. Managerial and technical support staff, who are heavily
involved in day-to-day activities, were well represented.
22
4. Discussion
Overarching Themes
Lack of information in some areas may impede progress on Goal 6
Only about 15% of respondents cited no knowledge gaps or areas of concern related to Goal 6 (Q2).
Some of the Goal 6 areas with least confidence in questions 1 and 2 (e.g., managing untreated
wastewater and ending open defecation) are also common current work areas in question 6, and
form the foundation for meeting pressing future needs (e.g., equality/nondiscrimination) named in
question 7. This suggests that knowledge gaps are potentially a critical barrier to tackling Goal 6.
Improved processes are needed to mobilize, synthesize, and effectively share information about
best practices for management of untreated wastewater, septage, and fecal sludge. Further, once
solutions are identified, determining how to finance them appears to be an equally prominent
challenge. Practical concerns about financing may not be heard or considered evenly with other
WaSH research priorities, which typically focus on WaSH access or public health goals and give less
attention to practical long-term cost-effectiveness.
Regular follow-up to publications or training can support implementation of new concepts
Multiple formats of information should be packaged cohesively to meet the needs of end users. This
includes summary/interpretation, access to lengthier technical information, and interpersonal
support on a level the viewer can easily apply to his or her context. End users of WaSH research
would benefit from simplified guidelines (e.g., stepwise approaches) and implementation support
that enables periodic follow-up to training or new guidance (Acosta et al., 2013). This would increase
retention and the possibility that recommendations are integrated into ongoing practice.
Researchers are primarily motivated to engage in outreach in the form of traditional academic
exercises, such as publishing scientific literature or presenting at conferences. While well -
intentioned, these means of information dissemination are less accessible and comprehensible to
some constituencies. Driven by funding requirements and overbooked schedules, researchers often
have little time left over to invest in communicating with a broader audience. Scientifically trained
individuals or institutions can act as knowledge brokers to bridge the divide between evidence
production and its application.
Proximate-to-distant support networks can maximize efficiency
Country-level WaSH professionals tend to rely on faster or more proximate resources before
reaching further to resolve questions and problems. Specificity of WaSH information and
recommendations to context and region are critical. WaSH professionals can best support end users
of information by setting up a communications infrastructure that reaches from local counterparts to
global experts (Figure 1). In this way, up-front accessible local support is connected to more broad-
reaching resources for problem solving. Creating such information pathways might be achieved by
simply rearranging existing resources, without costly investment in standalone support services. This
could improve the enabling environment and increase the chances of in-country WaSH professionals
23
being able to implement interventions successfully. Informational resource banks, such as WaSH
libraries, could also be organized geographically to demonstrate, for example, how effective a given
intervention is likely to be in a given location.
Figure 1. Example model for a network of backup interpersonal support for in-country WaSH decision-makers
(“implementers”).
Existing accountability mechanisms for WaSH professionals may delay progress
Regular audits, reviews, and other accountability mechanisms are a cornerstone of efficiency in most
professions. Examining the funding and stakeholder interaction questions added to the R&L and “all
other” questionnaire versions, though, indicates that WaSH professionals belonging to different
constituencies have relatively uneven accountability relationships with other constituencies, which
agrees with existing literature (e.g., Kolsky, n.d.; Quevauviller, 2010; Sarewitz & Pielke, 2007). Scopes
of work for the R&L and “all other” constituencies are often narrowly defined by donors
(multilateral, foundation, or aid organizations). University researchers receive most funding, but are
more likely to be held accountable to funders and other researchers rather than country-level
decision makers. They are also minor disseminators of information. Post-project accountability
mechanisms and emphasis on information exchange might ensure research recommendations reach
and benefit a wider audience. Country-level decision makers, in turn, may interact only sporadically
with researchers and research projects. Positive feedback from external stakeholders could be
considered, for example, in funding and publication opportunities.
Changing cultural norms (including our own) is difficult
Study results show that evidence use in decision making may be hampered by funding, professional
siloes, and communication mechanisms. Addressing these issues from all sides requires examining
Global
Regional
LocalImplementers
Trained Peer Supporters
In-Country Trainers
In-Country Researchers/
Program Managers
R&L Partners
24
common behaviors, including those within the R&L constituency. Best practices must be rigorously
maintained to create widespread impact. If engagement with a given group of stakeholders, for
example, is considered optional, then it will likely continue to be overlooked. If high priority is placed
on engagement, this trend will likely continue over time as an engrained practice. Setting research
agendas is one example where increased transparency might help identify who is missing from the
process and enhance targeting of multiple layers of needs (e.g., long versus short term, practical
versus theoretical). Becoming informed about different perspectives requires (the sometimes time
intensive task of) will require asking questions, rather than assuming all important viewpoints have
already been raised. Reflecting the “regular follow-up” point above, while it may be easy to voice
commitment to a best practice, change is more difficult to carry out in reality. Regular opportunities
for self-reflection, peer conversations, and accountability mechanisms can make it easier for WaSH
R&L professionals and others to achieve desired changes.
Relationship to Building Blocks and Collaborative Behaviors
SWA has already made substantial progress toward addressing deficiencies related to global WaSH
dynamics. SWA partners agree to “collaborative behaviors” that can improve how constituencies
work together, including:
Enhance government leadership of sector planning processes;
Strengthen and use country systems;
Use one information and mutual accountability platform; and
Build sustainable water and sanitation sector financing strategies.
The first item promotes a government-led, multi-stakeholder cycle of WaSH planning, monitoring,
and learning. The R&L constituency is working to enhance this process in part by recruiting more
globally southern members of the constituency, who can provide proximate, in-country support for
WaSH learning. The second item recognizes that strong country systems, such as public financial
management, HR management, statistics, procurement, and contract management, form the
foundation for robust WaSH service provision. Many of these concepts were reflected in the
prominence of multiple responses to questions 4 and 5 citing governance, human resources, finance,
and information systems needs.
Item three reflects the trend found in question 10 (countries), in which most users look to
consolidated sources of national or multi-national information to address WaSH questions. Mutual
accountability was also raised as a current/future issue in questions 6 and 7, and reflected in some of
the funding and stakeholder dynamics and the study at large, which seeks to enhance consideration
of multiple voices in setting research priorities. The fourth behavior, specific to WaSH financing, was
frequently reported as a critical knowledge gap or area of concern on question 2, suggesting that
further evidence provision in this area is desired. This appeared to be felt more acutely by
constituencies other than R&L, raising the question of the R&L constituency’s role in this area.
25
SWA also supports governments in developing the “building blocks” for effective and efficient WaSH
services in thematic areas such as policy and strategy, institutional arrangements, dialogue and
coordination, sector finance, performance monitoring and review, and capacity development. WaSH
learning is specifically part of institutional arrangements (e.g., established relationships between
research and government institutions and other stakeholders), planning/monitoring/review (e.g.,
monitoring and evaluation for continuous quality improvement), and capacity development (e.g.,
collective engagement of multiple stakeholders in continuing education). The latter items rings true
with the survey results, which showed a strong desire for additional learning and training
opportunities among non-R&L constituency members.
Study Limitations
Possible limitations or biases in the survey include self-selection and social desirability bias (the
tendency to report things as you wish them to be seen, rather than as they are). The sample likely
excluded those with poor internet access and those who do not use email regularly to communicate,
especially in developing countries. Few government ministers were included in the sample, although
many high-level managerial and technical support personnel responded. Social desirability bias was
likely reduced by the anonymous nature of the survey; however, these issues have not been
explored via data triangulation, participant observation, or other cross-checking mechanisms. A
small degree of misclassification was possible, as some respondents (about 5%) reported current
professional affiliations that did not match their expected constituency. This was most prevalent for
the country constituency, which may reflect the extensive effort SWA regularly puts into establishing
and maintaining partner relationships despite personnel changes. Minimal bias stemmed from the
R&L group’s participation in the survey development process, affecting only two respondents.
5. Conclusions
In a world with limited resources, complex global interactions, and vast political and cultural
differences, research and learning is clearly not the only challenge to achievement of Goal 6. In
response to question 2 about knowledge gaps or areas of concern, one country survey respondent
wrote, “It is not about knowledge as such but about universal acceptance of initiatives like CLTS
within the communities and the politicians and provision of resources to meet the targets of SDGs.
Sanitation strategies have to be developed and presented to the high level for ownership and
collective responsibility in the country for achievement of these demanding targets.” This
recognition that all are stakeholders poses a clear challenge. The goal of this effort, though, was to
determine how the R&L constituency and SWA can best do their part to accelerate progress.
Potential Solutions or Best Practices
Based on the differences seen among constituencies, improved, evidence-based mechanisms for
determining and vetting research priorities are recommended to enhance spending efficiency and
contribute to speedier progress toward global development goals. Along with this study, other
information collection and decision models might be recommended as a starting point for research
agenda construction (e.g., Doyle et al., 2005; Bryant et al., 2014; Elder et al., 2016). The most
26
important aspect of these designs, though, is to transparently attract and capture the viewpoints of
diverse WaSH stakeholders. A secondary comparison of the proposed research agenda to evidence
maps based on literature review may also be helpful (Rehfuess et al., 2016). For example, R&L
members could ground-truth the research agenda in their respective locations to construct new
dialogue about what evidence may or may not be needed in a given country or regional context.
In addition to SWA’s efforts to define building blocks and collaborative behaviors, guidance is also
needed on best practices for promoting efficient exchange at the WaSH science-policy-practice
interface (Setty, in prep). For example, one respondent from a civil society organization cited absent
or weak downward accountability and “unhealthy competition for resources and visibility” as
challenges in the SDG era (All Other Q8). Alongside country members, research and learning
organizations may also suffer from weak downward accountability mechanisms, since the primary
drivers of successful academic research are obtaining funding and publishing scientific literature.
Commitments to support learning and progressive actions of others have fewer or more indirect
rewards. Simplistic linear models that assume research will be taken up and used by policymakers
upon publication have been replaced with a more complex and nuanced understanding (Nutley et
al., 2007; De Goede et al., 2012; Cairney, 2016; Georgalakis, 2016) based on multi-way communication,
translation, and mediation best achieved via regular, structured, interpersonal interaction (Cash et
al., 2003; Gupta, 2014).
The survey aimed to explore research and learning needs rather than explicitly diagnose or confirm a
pre-existing theory or belief. It should be considered a starting point for problem identification and
future improvement. Even so, it suggests some areas where partnership networks such as the SWA
R&L constituency could play an important role in bridging the gaps among researchers, knowledge
brokers, decision makers, practitioners, and others. These might include:
• Fostering an enabling environment in which WaSH professionals have access to a variety of
established reference material and layers of interpersonal support (Countries Q7,11-14; R&L
Q14; All Other Q9);
• Opening up interactive seminars or webinars that offer up-to-date expert interpretation and
information synthesis to both peer scientists and end users, potentially with messages
tailored to different audiences (Countries and R&L Q15; All Other Q11);
• Helping WaSH professionals to easily connect with others in their extended professional
network, for example via personal referral or access to specific listservs of experts, when
issues or questions cannot immediately be addressed by more proximate resources, or when
preparing project proposals that require partnerships (Countries Q11; R&L Q13; All Other Q15-
16);
• Developing accountability mechanisms (e.g., grant criteria requesting evidence of past
accountability to stakeholders) that tie project follow-up, downward accountability, and
applied (demand-driven) research to enhanced opportunities for future funding and
publication (R&L Q8-9,16; All Other Q8,13-15);
27
• Promoting stakeholder involvement (or conscientious exclusion if warranted) in a consistent
manner throughout all WaSH research or implementation projects and stages (R&L Q11-12; All
Other Q17-18);
• Facilitating communication and dissemination pathways for individual SWA partners’ WaSH
programs or research or educational activities, from and across all constituencies (e.g.,
through specialized, moderated, cross-constituency, opt-in listservs) (Countries Q17; R&L
Q10; All Other Q15,19); and
• Assisting the country constituency, in particular, with increased opportunity for interpersonal
interaction among their peer SWA-affiliated country colleagues, especially to debrief and
discuss how to implement new information or guidance (Countries Q12-14; All Other Q10,12;
R&L Q17).
Recommendations for Future Work
Because of the fairly shallow nature of anonymous survey data, a second phase of this study will
undertake in-depth one-on-one interviews with respondents who volunteered to participate in
follow up research. Interviews will primarily be conducted with representatives of different SWA
partner countries who hold decision-making or advisory roles. Interviews may also be conducted
with respondents who volunteered from the R&L and “all other” constituencies, with slightly
different questions tailored to these groups. The interview guide will follow a different structure
compared to the web survey, exploring a recent decision-making experience and whether and how
the process was limited or could have been improved. Potential country interview focal areas (and
follow-up areas based on the survey results – in italics) include:
Part I:
• What are the main ways you are exposed to scientific research? o How often do you interact with researchers? o Which stages of research are you usually involved in?
o Do you have enough opportunities to encounter research in your daily life or work? o Would you ever hesitate to get involved in research? Why or why not?
• What kind of decisions are you responsible for (e.g., drinking water, sanitation, public health,
finance, and/or programming)?
• How do you generally make decisions? Who else is involved? Is there a clear system in place
or is it a fairly unstructured process? What is a typical timeline?
• In general, what value or importance is placed on using evidence to make policy decisions in your country? What is your opinion on the value of evidence in making decisions?
Part II:
• In the past few months, have you been involved in any decisions in the area of water,
sanitation, or hygiene policy in your country?
• What was the issue under consideration? o How might an issue rise to your attention?
• What was your role in this decision?
• Could you describe the process you underwent in more detail?
o Where was key information found to help you make your decision?
28
o Did any of the SWA collaborative behaviors or building blocks come into play?
• What was the outcome of this decision? o What would you change about this process if you could?
This research priority-setting exercise and learning challenges survey should be considered in the
context of other parallel efforts to investigate the most pressing information needs relevant to
transitioning into the SDG era, for WaSH and other global goals. One broad consultative exercise
encompassing all SDGs found the most relevant WaSH-related research question to be, “What
evidence is there that private sector finance has played a major role in the provision of basic services
such as access to water, sanitation or energy, for the poorest quintile in lower-income countries?”
(Oldekop, et al., 2016). The GLAAS process enables countries to discuss and identify national water
and sanitation priorities and barriers to service provision (UN-Water and WHO, 2014b). The WASH
PaLS program, recently initiated by United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
seeks to strengthen USAID’s WASH programming at a country level and enhance global learning and
adoption of the evidence-based programmatic foundations needed to achieve of the SDGs. A survey
on Incentives for Engagement in Implementation Research and Delivery Science (IRDS) was also
recently conducted by the TRAction project (Translating Research into Action), funded by USAID.
Finally, the World Health Organization’s and UNICEF’s Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) has
introduced new, more ambitious indicators for monitoring drinking water and sanitation access in
the SDG era (JMP, 2017).
29
6. References
Acosta, J., M. Chinman, P. Ebener, P.S. Malone, S. Paddock, A. Phillips, P. Scales, and M.E. Slaughter.
(2013). An intervention to improve program implementation: findings from a two-year cluster
randomized trial of Assets-Getting To Outcomes. Implementation Science 8:87. doi:
10.1186/1748-5908-8-87
Boyd, I. (Dec 2016). Take the long view (Comment). Nature 540(22/29), 520–521.
Bryant, J., R. Sanson-Fisher, J. Walsh, and J. Stewart. (2014). Health research priority setting in
selected high income countries: a narrative review of methods used and recommendations
for future practice. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 12:23.
Cairney, P. (10 March 2016). The politics of evidence-based policymaking. The Guardian.
Cash, D.W., W.C. Clark, F. Alcock, N.M. Dickson, N. Eckley, D.H. Guston, J. Jäger, and R.B. Mitchell.
(2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100(14), 8086–8091.
Charmaz, K. (1996). The search for meanings – Grounded Theory. In J.A. smith, R. Harré, & L. Van
Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking Methods in Psychology (pp. 27–49). London: Sage Publications.
CHSRF. (2000). Health services research and evidence-based decision making. Ottawa, Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/migrated/pdf/mythbusters/EBDM_e.pdf.
De Goede, J., M.J.H. Van Bon-Martens, K. Putters, and H.A.M. Van Oers. (2012). Looking for
interaction: quantitative measurement of research utilization by Dutch local health officials.
Health Research Policy and Systems 10:9.
Department for International Development (DFID). (n.d.). Maximizing the benefits of water research
to international development – What researchers/research programmers can do. SPLASH
Briefing Notes: 1 and 2. Retrieved from: http://splash-
era.net/downloads/SPLASH_Briefing_note_01.pdf and http://splash-
era.net/downloads/SPLASH_Briefing_note_02.pdf.
Doyle, J., E. Waters, D. Yach, D. McQueen, A. De Francisco, T. Stewart, P. Reddy, A.M. Gulmezoglu,
G. Galea, and A. Portela. (2005). Global priority setting for Cochrane systematic reviews of
health promotion and public health research. J Epidemiol Community Health 59, 193–197. doi:
10.1136/jech.2003.019547
Elder, M., M. Bengtsson, and L. Akenji. (2016). An Optimistic Analysis of the Means of
Implementation for Sustainable Development Goals: Thinking about Goals as Means.
Sustainability 8:962. doi: 10.3390/su8090962
Georgalakis, J. (5 Apr 2016). Networks of academics help turn research into action. The Guardian.
Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-
network/2016/apr/05/networks-of-academics-help-turn-research-into-
action?CMP=share_btn_tw.
Gupta, J. (2014). Global scientific assessments and environmental resource governance: towards a science-policy interface ladder. In M. Ambrus, K. Arts, E. Hey, & H. Raulus (Eds.), The Role of
`Experts’ in International and European Decision-Making Processes (p. 148-). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hsieh, H.F., & Shannon, S.E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health
30
Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Huberman, M. (1994). Research Utilization: The State of the Art. The International Journal of
Knowledge Transfer and Utilization 7(4), 13–33.
Joint Monitoring Program (JMP). (2017). Safely managed drinking water - thematic report on
drinking water 2017. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Kim, H., J.S. Sefcik, and C. Bradway. (2016). Characteristics of Qualitative Descriptive Studies: A
Systematic Review. Research in Nursing & Health, September 30, epub ahead of print.
Kolsky, P. (n.d.). The Process of Applied Research in the Water and Sanitation Sector. London School
of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Retrieved from:
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/garnet/actiwp1.html.
Nutley, S.M., I. Walter, and H.T.O. Davies. (2007). Using Evidence: How research can inform public
services. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
Oldekop, J.A., et al. (2016). 100 key research questions for the post-2015 development agenda.
Development Policy Review 34(1), 55–82.
Oxman, A.D., H.J. Schünemann, and A. Fretheim. (2006). Improving the use of research evidence in
guideline development: 2. Priority setting. Health Research Policy and Systems 4:14.
Poch, M., Comas, J., Cortés, U., Sànchez-Marrè, M., Rodríguez-Roda, I. (2017). Crossing the death
valley to transfer environmental decision support systems to the water market. Global
Challenges, 1(1700009), 1–10. doi: 10.1002/gch2.201700009
Quevauviller, P. (Ed.). (2010). Water System Science and Policy Interfacing. Cambridge, UK: RSC
Publishing.
Rehfuess, E.A., S. Durão, P. Kyamanywa, J.J. Meerpohl, T. Younge, and A. Rohwere. (2016). An
approach for setting evidence-based and stakeholder-informed research priorities in low- and
middle-income countries. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 94, 297–305. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.15.162966
Sanitation and Water for All. (2017). Partners. Retrieved from
http://sanitationandwaterforall.org/partners/
Sarewitz, D., & Pielke, R. A. (2007). The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and
demand for science. Environmental Science and Policy, 10(1), 5–16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.001
Setty, K. (n.d.). The Science-Policy Interface: The Example of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WaSH).
In prep.
Smith, L., J. An, and I. Kawachi. (2013). Section 4.2 Translating evidence to policy. In C. Guest, W.
Ricciardi, I. Kawachi, & I. Lang, Oxford Handbook of Public Health Practice (pp. 276–282).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
United Nations. (2016). Sustainable Development Goals: 17 Goals to Transform Our World. Retrieved
from: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/water-and-sanitation/
United Nations General Assembly. (2015, October 21). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September
2015. A/RES/70/1. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/summit.
31
UN-Water and World Health Organization (WHO). (2014a). UN-water global analysis and assessment
of sanitation and drinking-water (GLAAS) 2014 report: investing in water and sanitation:
increasing access, reducing inequalities. Geneva, Switzerland.
UN-Water and World Health Organization (WHO). (2014b). Investing in water and sanitation:
increasing access, reducing inequalities: special report for the Sanitation and Water for All
(SWA), high level meeting (HLM) 2014. Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and
Drinking-Water (GLAAS). Geneva, Switzerland.
Viergever, R.F., S. Olifson, A. Ghaffar, and R.F. Terry. (2010). A checklist for health research priority
setting: nine common themes of good practice. Health Research Policy and Systems 8:36.
WASH Impact Network. (n.d.). Taking Learning Beyond the Hotel Conference Room: How local
WASH organizations implement new ideas. Retrieved from:
http://washinnovations.r4d.org/uploads/uploadsOneSheet.pdf.
World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF. (2014). Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation –
2014 update. Retrieved from
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/112727/1/9789241507240_eng.pdf?ua=1.
Zients, J. D. (2012, May 18). Memorandum: Use of Evidence and Evaluation in the 2014 Budget.
Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget. Retrieved from
http://www.scienceofsciencepolicy.net/sites/default/files/attachments/OMB%20m-12-
141%20%282%29_0.pdf.
32
7. Appendix 1: Full Questionnaire Transcript – SWA Country Partners
(Questions did not appear numbered or lettered. Numbering and lettering is shown for reference only.)
Welcome!
Please select a language and click below to proceed to the questionnaire.
What? This questionnaire identifies water, sanitation, and hygiene (WasH) research priorities for
achieving Sustainable Development Goal 6, and related communication preferences.
How? It has six sections and should take about 20 minutes to complete. Please answer questions
based on your expertise, and leave blank any questions you do not feel comfortable answering.
Responses are confidential and no personal information will be included in summary reports.
Who? The survey is being conducted by the Water Institute at The University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill (UNC) and the Research & Learning constituency of Sanitation and Water for All (SWA). If
you have any questions or concerns, please contact Karen Setty ([email protected]).
--------page break--------
SECTION 1: Introduction and Targets
Background (Optional): Sustainable Development Goal 6 aims to "ensure availability and sustainable
management of water and sanitation for all." Unlike previous global goals, it:
• Seeks access for all people to improved water sources and sanitation, regardless of wealth,
geography, gender, social class, age, and disability.
• Considers safety and security to be an important part of water and sanitation service
provision.
• Encourages both international cooperation and local community participation to help build
capacity for domestic water and sanitation management.
33
Q1 How confident are you in your knowledge/ability to work in each of the following target areas of
Goal 6? (select one category for each row)
Very
Confident Somewhat Confident
Not Confident
Unsure
A) Achieving universal
access
B) Improving levels of
service
C) Addressing inequalities
among sub-populations
D) Ending open defecation
E) Managing untreated
wastewater
F) Building national capacity
G) Strengthening local
community participation
Q2 Do you have any specific knowledge gaps or areas of concern related to achieving Goal 6? (please
describe)
--------page break--------
SECTION 2: Information for Decision-Making
Q3 When you made WaSH-related decisions over the past six months, in which of these areas
(related to governance and human resources) would more information have been helpful? (choose
all that apply)
Accountability
Human resources
Institutional change
Participatory approaches
Performance review
Sector coordination/collaboration
Strategic planning/prioritization
Other (please describe) ____________________
34
Q4 When you made WaSH-related decisions over the past six months, in which of these areas
(related to finance and information systems) would more information have been helpful? (choose all
that apply)
Affordability (e.g., subsidies, tariffs)
Budgeting and costing
Cost-benefit analysis
Donor management
Investment planning
Market finance (e.g., capital markets)
Monitoring and evaluation
Public finance
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q5 When you made WaSH-related decisions over the past six months, in which of these technical
areas would more information have been helpful? (choose all that apply)
Appropriate technologies
Behavior change
Children's feces
Climate change
Community-led total sanitation
Disabled access
Eliminating open defecation
Emergencies and/or outbreaks
Fecal sludge
Food hygiene
Handwashing
Household water treatment
Improved service levels/"service ladders"
Cross-cultural approaches
Marketing for sanitation
Menstrual hygiene
Reaching poorest populations
Reliability of service
Security for girls and women
Temporary/emergency services
Utilities in small towns
WaSH impact on stunting/nutrition
WaSH in health care facilities
WaSH in rapidly growing cities
WaSH in schools
Other (please describe) ____________________
35
Q6 What was the primary topic of the WaSH-related decision (or decisions) you made over the past
six months? (please describe)
--------page break--------
SECTION 3: Limitations to Decision-Making
Q7 Which challenges did you experience when seeking information to make WaSH-related decision/s
over the past six months? (choose all that apply)
Could not find/access information
Different sources of information conflicted
Information was not available for my region/situation
Information was not trustworthy/reliable
Information was outdated
Information was too brief or general
Information was too lengthy or technical
None
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q8 Which other challenges did you experience when making WaSH-related decision/s over the past
six months? (choose all that apply)
Lacked adequate financial resources to consider alternative(s)
Lacked cultural acceptance of alternative(s)
Lacked political traction for alternative(s)
Lacked technological alternative(s)
Lacked time/capacity to evaluate alternative(s)
None
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q9 Based on these limitations, what knowledge or information might have helped with your
decision/s? (please describe)
--------page break--------
SECTION 4: Approaches to Gathering Information
Q10 Which organizations typically offer useful (e.g., accessible, understandable, relevant, and/or
sufficient) information for addressing your WaSH-related questions? (choose all that apply)
Global monitoring organizations (e.g. JMP, GLAAS)
International civil society (non-governmental) organizations
Local civil society or community organizations
Multilateral organizations (e.g., World Bank, WHO, UNICEF)
36
National monitoring agencies
News outlets
Other government ministries or departments
Partnership networks (e.g., SWA)
Private companies/consultants
Universities (foreign)
Universities (local)
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q11 Which of these actions are typically useful for addressing your WaSH-related questions? (choose
all that apply)
Ask a colleague/advisor in my office
Call someone in my professional network
Email a group of people (e.g., a listserv)
Email someone in my professional network
Initiate a new study/survey
Organize a meeting or conference call
Search the Internet
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q12 Which of these informational formats are typically useful for addressing your WaSH-related
questions? (choose all that apply)
Book/report
Memorandum, bulletin, or flyer
News (e.g., television, radio, newspaper)
Online course/training module
Online discussion forum
Scientific or professional journal article
Seminar/lecture
Social media post (e.g., LinkedIn, Twitter)
Tool or worksheet
Webinar (virtual seminar/lecture)
Website
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q13 What would make the WaSH-related information you accessed over the past six months more
useful? (choose all that apply)
An introduction (e.g., written, video)
Discussion with my colleagues
Email, mail, or social media alerts
37
Executive summary/synopsis
Expert analysis/critique
Reference to my country/situation
Translation for a non-specialist audience
Translation into another language
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q14 What new resources, if any, would you like to have available for addressing your WaSH-related
questions? (please describe)
--------page break--------
SECTION 5: Learning and Training Needs
Q15 Which challenges did you experience when seeking WaSH-related training or educational
opportunities over the past six months? (choose all that apply)
Did not receive notice/invitation
None offered
Not relevant to my region/situation
Too busy to participate
Too expensive
None
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q16 How willing would you be to interact with WaSH researchers (e.g., to help plan studies and share
new information)? (select one)
Very willing
Somewhat willing
Somewhat unwilling
Extremely unwilling
Q17 Other Comments
Do you have any other advice or comments? (if so, please describe)
--------page break--------
SECTION 6: Your Professional Background
Q18 What is your educational specialization? (can select more than one)
Business/Economics/Finance
Engineering
Humanities (e.g., Languages, Geography)
38
Journalism
Political Science
Medicine/Public Health
Natural Science/Mathematics
Sociology/Anthropology
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q19 Which category best describes your current workplace? (select one)
Ministry of Finance
Ministry of Health
Ministry of Water
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q20 Which category best describes your current professional responsibilities? (select one)
Minister
Adviser in minister's office
Director/manager
Technical staff
Other (please describe) ____________________
--------page break--------
Thank you for completing this questionnaire!
Your feedback is important to helping us understand evidence needs to achieve Goal 6, ensuring
availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.
The following steps are optional. When ready, please click below to submit your responses.
Q21 May we contact you for a short follow-up interview (about 30 minutes)? If so, please enter your
first name and preferred contact method. (Note: Information will be kept confidential.)
First name
E-mail address
Phone
SkypeTM
39
Q22 Would you like to nominate a WaSH-related research and learning institution/s in your country to
join the Sanitation and Water for All partnership? (Note: Information will only be used by SWA to
reach out to potential new partners.)
Institution
Location
Name of contact (if available)
Contact information (if available)
40
8. Appendix 2: Full Questionnaire Transcript – SWA Research and Learning
Partners
(Questions did not appear numbered or lettered. Numbering and lettering is shown for reference only.)
Welcome!
Please click below to proceed to the questionnaire.
What? This questionnaire identifies water, sanitation, and hygiene (WasH) research priorities for
achieving Sustainable Development Goal 6, and related communication preferences.
How? It has five sections and should take about 15 minutes to complete. Please answer questions
based on your expertise, and leave blank any questions you do not feel comfortable answering.
Responses are confidential and no personal information will be included in summary reports.
Who? The survey is being conducted by the Water Institute at The University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill (UNC) and the Research & Learning constituency of Sanitation and Water for All (SWA). If
you have any questions or concerns, please contact Karen Setty ([email protected]).
--------page break--------
SECTION 1: Introduction and Targets
Background (Optional): Sustainable Development Goal 6 aims to "ensure availability and sustainable
management of water and sanitation for all." Unlike previous global goals, it:
• Seeks access for all people to improved water sources and sanitation, regardless of wealth,
geography, gender, social class, age, and disability.
• Considers safety and security to be an important part of water and sanitation service
provision.
• Encourages both international cooperation and local community participation to help build
capacity for domestic water and sanitation management.
41
Q1 How confident are you in your knowledge/ability to work in each of the following target areas of
Goal 6? (select one category for each row)
Very
Confident Somewhat Confident
Not Confident
Unsure
A) Achieving universal
access
B) Improving levels of
service
C) Addressing inequalities
among sub-populations
D) Ending open defecation
E) Managing untreated
wastewater
F) Building national capacity
G) Strengthening local
community participation
Q2 Do you have any specific knowledge gaps or areas of concern related to Goal 6? (please describe)
--------page break--------
SECTION 2: Recent and Future WaSH Research Needs
Q3 In which of these areas (related to governance and human resources) would more information
have been helpful to your work over the past six months? (choose all that apply)
Accountability
Human resources
Institutional change
Participatory approaches
Performance review
Sector coordination/collaboration
Strategic planning/prioritization
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q4 In which of these areas (related to finance and information systems) would more information
have been helpful to your work over the past six months? (choose all that apply)
42
Affordability (e.g., subsidies, tariffs)
Budgeting and costing
Cost-benefit analysis
Donor management
Investment planning
Market finance (e.g., capital markets)
Monitoring and evaluation
Public finance
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q5 In which of these technical areas would more information have been helpful to your work over
the past six months? (choose all that apply)
Appropriate technologies
Behavior change
Children's feces
Climate change
Community-led total sanitation
Disabled access
Eliminating open defecation
Emergencies and/or outbreaks
Fecal sludge
Food hygiene
Handwashing
Household water treatment
Improved service levels/"service ladders"
Cross-cultural approaches
Marketing for sanitation
Menstrual hygiene
Reaching poorest populations
Reliability of service
Security for girls and women
Temporary/emergency services
Utilities in small towns
WaSH impact on stunting/nutrition
WaSH in health care facilities
WaSH in rapidly growing cities
WaSH in schools
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q6 On what primary topics did you seek WaSH-related information over the past six months? (please
describe)
43
Q7 From your perspective, what will be the most pressing WaSH-related research needs in coming
years? (please describe)
--------page break--------
SECTION 3: Communication and Interaction
Q8 Which organizations typically sponsor your research or educational activities? (choose all that
apply)
Companies or corporations
Foundations or aid organizations
Government agencies (domestic/federal)
Government agencies (domestic/state or regional)
Government agencies (foreign)
Multilateral organizations (e.g., World Bank, WHO, UNICEF)
Private donors/individuals
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q9 If you submit proposals for funding, are the requests for proposals typically open-ended or topic-
specific? (choose one)
Very open-ended
Somewhat open-ended
Somewhat topic-specific
Very topic-specific
Not applicable
Q10 Who typically disseminates the outcomes of your research or educational activities? (choose all
that apply)
Donors
Independent media
Internal communications department
Partnership networks
Scientific community
Stakeholders
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q11 How often are stakeholders involved in your research or educational activities? (choose one)
>90% of the time
70-90% of the time
30-70% of the time
44
10-30% of the time
<10% of the time
Unsure
Q12 At which stages are stakeholders typically involved in your research or educational activities?
(choose all that apply)
Scoping
Design
Implementation
Analysis/Interpretation
Dissemination
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q13 What would help better match your research and educational activities to the needs of end
users? (please describe)
--------page break--------
SECTION 4: Research and Learning Challenges
Q14 Which challenges did you experience when seeking WaSH-related information over the past
six months? (choose all that apply)
Could not find/access information
Different sources of information conflicted
Information was not available for my region/situation
Information was not trustworthy/reliable
Information was outdated
Information was too brief or general
Information was too lengthy or technical
None
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q15 Which challenges did you experience when seeking WaSH-related training or educational
opportunities over the past six months? (choose all that apply)
Did not receive notice/invitation
None offered
Not relevant to my region/situation
Too busy to participate
Too expensive
None
Other (please describe) ____________________
45
Q16 What obstacles might affect your ability to undertake research or educational activities? (choose
all that apply)
Broader political climate
Lack of funding
Lack of interest among higher-ups
Lack of partnership opportunities
Lack of technical or human resources
Lack of stakeholder buy-in
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q17 What new resources, if any, would help to specifically address these needs? (please describe)
Q18 Other Comments
Do you have any other advice or comments? (if so, please describe)
--------page break--------
SECTION 5: Your Professional Background
Q19 What is your educational specialization? (can select more than one)
Business/Economics/Finance
Engineering
Humanities (e.g., Languages, Geography)
Journalism
Political Science
Medicine/Public Health
Natural Science/Mathematics
Sociology/Anthropology
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q20 What is the scale or scope of your current workplace? (select one)
Local/regional
National
International
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q21 Which category best describes your current professional responsibilities? (select one)
Director/administrator
Project manager
Research/technical staff
46
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q22 Did you participate in the Research and Learning survey working group? (select one)
Yes
No
Unsure
--------page break--------
Thank you for completing this questionnaire!
Your feedback is important to helping us understand evidence needs to achieve Goal 6, ensuring
availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.
The following steps are optional. When ready, please click below to submit your responses.
Q23 May we contact you for a short follow-up interview (about 30 minutes)? If so, please enter your
first name and preferred contact method. (Note: Information will be kept confidential. )
First name
E-mail address
Phone
SkypeTM
Q24 Would you like to nominate a WaSH-related research and learning institution/s to join the
Sanitation and Water for All partnership? (Note: Information will only be used by SWA to reach out to
potential new partners.)
Institution
Location
Name of contact (if available)
Contact information (if available)
47
9. Appendix 3: Full Questionnaire Transcript – All Other SWA Partners
(Questions did not appear numbered or lettered. Numbering and lettering is shown for reference only.)
Welcome!
Please select a language and click below to proceed to the questionnaire.
What? This questionnaire identifies water, sanitation, and hygiene (WasH) research priorities for
achieving Sustainable Development Goal 6, and related communication preferences.
How? It has six sections and should take about 20 minutes to complete. Please answer questions
based on your expertise, and leave blank any questions you do not feel comfortable answering.
Responses are confidential and no personal information will be included in summary reports.
Who? The survey is being conducted by the Water Institute at The University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill (UNC) and the Research & Learning constituency of Sanitation and Water for All (SWA). If
you have any questions or concerns, please contact Karen Setty ([email protected]).
--------page break--------
SECTION 1: Introduction and Targets
Background (Optional): Sustainable Development Goal 6 aims to "ensure availability and sustainable
management of water and sanitation for all." Unlike previous global goals, it:
• Seeks access for all people to improved water sources and sanitation, regardless of wealth,
geography, gender, social class, age, and disability.
• Considers safety and security to be an important part of water and sanitation service
provision.
• Encourages both international cooperation and local community participation to help build
capacity for domestic water and sanitation management.
Q1 How confident are you in your knowledge/ability to work in each of the following target areas of
Goal 6? (select one category for each row)
Very
Confident Somewhat Confident
Not Confident
Unsure
A) Achieving universal
access
B) Improving levels of
service
C) Addressing inequalities
among sub-populations
48
D) Ending open defecation
E) Managing untreated
wastewater
F) Building national capacity
G) Strengthening local
community participation
Q2 Do you have any specific knowledge gaps or areas of concern related to achieving Goal 6? (please
describe)
--------page break--------
SECTION 2: WaSH Information Needs
Q3 In which of these areas (related to governance and human resources) would more information
have been helpful to your work over the past six months? (choose all that apply)
Accountability
Human resources
Institutional change
Participatory approaches
Performance review
Sector coordination/collaboration
Strategic planning/prioritization
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q4 In which of these areas (related to finance and information systems) would more information
have been helpful to your work over the past six months? (choose all that apply)
Affordability (e.g., subsidies, tariffs)
Budgeting and costing
Cost-benefit analysis
Donor management
Investment planning
Market finance (e.g., capital markets)
Monitoring and evaluation
Public finance
Other (please describe) ____________________
49
Q5 In which of these technical areas would more information have been helpful to your work over
the past six months? (choose all that apply)
Appropriate technologies
Behavior change
Children's feces
Climate change
Community-led total sanitation
Disabled access
Eliminating open defecation
Emergencies and/or outbreaks
Fecal sludge
Food hygiene
Handwashing
Household water treatment
Improved service levels/"service ladders"
Cross-cultural approaches
Marketing for sanitation
Menstrual hygiene
Reaching poorest populations
Reliability of service
Security for girls and women
Temporary/emergency services
Utilities in small towns
WaSH impact on stunting/nutrition
WaSH in health care facilities
WaSH in rapidly growing cities
WaSH in schools
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q6 On what primary topics did you seek WaSH-related information over the past six months? (please
describe)
Q7 From your perspective, what will be the most pressing WaSH-related evidence needs over the
next several years? (please describe)
--------page break--------
SECTION 3: Information Gathering Challenges
Q8 What obstacles might affect your ability to undertake WaSH-related activities? (choose all that
apply)
Broader political climate
50
Lack of funding
Lack of interest among higher-ups
Lack of partnership opportunities
Lack of technical or human resources
Lack of stakeholder buy-in
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q9 Which challenges did you experience when seeking WaSH-related information over the past
six months? (choose all that apply)
Could not find/access information
Different sources of information conflicted
Information was not available for my region/situation
Information was not trustworthy/reliable
Information was outdated
Information was too brief or general
Information was too lengthy or technical
None
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q10 What would make the WaSH-related information you accessed over the past six months more
useful? (choose all that apply)
An introduction (e.g., written, video)
Discussion with my colleagues
Email, mail, or social media alerts
Executive summary/synopsis
Expert analysis/critique
Reference to my country/situation
Translation for a non-specialist audience
Translation into another language
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q11 Which challenges did you experience when seeking WaSH-related training or educational
opportunities over the past six months? (choose all that apply)
Did not receive notice/invitation
None offered
Not relevant to my region/situation
Too busy to participate
Too expensive
None
Other (please describe) ____________________
51
Q12 What new informational or training resources, if any, would you like to have available for
addressing WaSH-related questions? (please describe)
--------page break--------
SECTION 4: Funding Activities
Q13 If your organization funds WaSH research or activities, which types of organizations do you
typically sponsor? (choose all that apply)
Civil society organizations
Community-based organizations
Government agencies (federal)
Government agencies (state or regional)
Private companies or corporations
Universities
Other (please describe) ____________________
Not applicable
Q14 If your organization funds WaSH research or activities, are the requests for proposals typically
open-ended or topic-specific? (choose one)
Very open-ended
Somewhat open-ended
Somewhat topic-specific
Very topic-specific
Other (please describe) ____________________
Not applicable
Q15 If your organization funds WaSH research or activities, why might you decline to fund a certain
activity? (choose all that apply)
Broader political climate
Doesn’t match interests of donors/constituents
Doesn’t match organizational directions
Lack of plans for partnership/stakeholder involvement
Lack of knowledge/trust in applicant’s organization
Lack of scientific rigor or pre-proposal planning
Other (please describe) ____________________
Not applicable
Q16 What would help better match your organization's WaSH-related work to existing
needs? (please describe)
52
--------page break--------
SECTION 5: Communication and Interactions
Q17 How often are stakeholders involved in your WaSH-related work? (choose one)
>90% of the time
70-90% of the time
30-70% of the time
10-30% of the time
<10% of the time
Unsure
Q18 At which stages are stakeholders typically involved in your WaSH-related work? (choose all that
apply)
Scoping
Design
Implementation
Analysis/Interpretation
Dissemination
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q19 Who typically disseminates the outcomes of your WaSH-related work? (choose all that apply)
Donors
Independent media
Internal communications department
Partnership networks
Scientific community
Stakeholders
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q20 How often do you interact with WaSH researchers (e.g., to help plan studies and share new
information)? (select one)
Once a week
Once a month
Once every few months
Once a year
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q21 Other Comments
53
Do you have any other advice or comments? (if so, please describe)
--------page break--------
SECTION 6: Your Professional Background
Q22 What is your educational specialization? (can select more than one)
Business/Economics/Finance
Engineering
Humanities (e.g., Languages, Geography)
Journalism
Political Science
Medicine/Public Health
Natural Science/Mathematics
Sociology/Anthropology
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q23 Which category best describes your current workplace? (select one)
Civil society organization (or network)
Community-based organization (or network)
External support or funding agency
Private sector organization (or network)
Other (please describe) ____________________
Q24 Which category best describes your current professional responsibilities? (select one)
Director/administrator
Project manager
Technical staff
Other (please describe) ____________________
--------page break--------
Thank you for completing this questionnaire!
Your feedback is important to helping us understand evidence needs to achieve Goal 6, ensuring
availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.
The following steps are optional. When ready, please click below to submit your responses.
Q25 May we contact you for a short follow-up interview (about 30 minutes)? If so, please enter your
first name and preferred contact method. (Note: Information will be kept confidential.)
First name
E-mail address
54
Phone
SkypeTM
Q26 Would you like to nominate a WaSH-related research and learning institution/s to join the
Sanitation and Water for All partnership? (Note: Information will only be used by SWA to reach out to
potential new partners.)
Institution
Location
Name of contact (if available)
Contact information (if available)
55
10. Appendix 4: Results by Question
Because some questions were particular to the survey version, the source of questions is labeled as
applicable. Many multiple-choice responses were not exclusive, and respondents were asked to
“choose all that apply”; therefore, the sum of all response frequencies may exceed the number of
respondents (n). The results are broken down into four categories: Research; Learning (which also
contains some indications of relevant research needs); Funding and Stakeholder Interactions
(intended to explore mechanisms for congruence of research activities and information needs); and
Respondent Characteristics.
Research
Question 1: How confident are you in your knowledge/ability to work in each of the following target
areas of Goal 6? (n=76)
Overall, managing untreated wastewater was the target area of Goal 6 that engendered least
confidence, suggesting this could be an area of weakness in WaSH research and programmatic
efforts. This deficit of confidence was sharpest for the country constituency, with only 4 out of 29
(14%) of respondents agreeing they were “very confident,” compared to 40% for the next lowest
category. The reasoning for this could be further explored through interviews. Ending open
defecation had the next highest percentage of respondents who felt “not confident” or “unsure.”
This was true among a full half of research and learning constituency respondents, although the
sample size was small (n=6). Building national capacity demonstrated a split response for the R&L
constituency, where respondents were either very confident or not confident/unsure. The rate of
usage of the “unsure” category was low overall (1.1%) and differed slightly among constituencies; it
was greatest for the Country respondents (2.9%), followed by R&L respondents (2.4%), with no usage
among “all other” respondents.
Figure 2. Overall response regarding target areas of Goal 6 (n=76).
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
A) Achieving Universal Access
B) Improving levels of service
C) Addressing inequalities among sub-populations
D) Ending open defecation
E) Managing untreated wastewater
F) Building national capacity
G) Strengthening local community participation
Overall confidence in knowledge/ability to work in target areas of Goal 6
Very Confident Somewhat Confident Not Confident Unsure
56
Figure 3 (a-c). Responses regarding target areas of Goal 6 by constituency (countries n=30, R&L n=6, and other n=40).
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
A) Achieving Universal Access
B) Improving levels of service
C) Addressing inequalities among sub-populations
D) Ending open defecation
E) Managing untreated wastewater
F) Building national capacity
G) Strengthening local community participation
Confidence in knowledge/ability to work in target areas of Goal 6 (Countries)
Very Confident Somewhat Confident Not Confident Unsure
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
A) Achieving Universal Access
B) Improving levels of service
C) Addressing inequalities among sub-populations
D) Ending open defecation
E) Managing untreated wastewater
F) Building national capacity
G) Strengthening local community participation
Confidence in knowledge/ability to work in target areas of Goal 6 (R&L)
Very Confident Somewhat Confident Not Confident Unsure
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
A) Achieving Universal Access
B) Improving levels of service
C) Addressing inequalities among sub-populations
D) Ending open defecation
E) Managing untreated wastewater
F) Building national capacity
G) Strengthening local community participation
Confidence in knowledge/ability to work in target areas of Goal 6? (Other)
Very Confident Somewhat Confident Not Confident Unsure
a
b
c
57
Question 2: Do you have any specific knowledge gaps or areas of concern related to Goal 6? (n=39)
About 15% of respondents indicated they had no knowledge gaps (e.g., “the objectives are clear”),
but most respondents did voice concerns. As described in question 1, managing untreated
wastewater was confirmed as the theme of top concern. One country survey respondent wrote, “I
have specific knowledge gaps in the management of untreated wastewater and improving the level
of access especially within the context of [country] where we don't have treatment works.
Wastewater is indiscriminately disposed of in settlements, open fields, and waterways. I certa inly
would require some measure of capacity building on how to tackle such situations. ”
Other prominent themes cited as knowledge gaps or concerns included financing (which is not a
target area of Goal 6, but a potentially important driver of progress), ecosystem sustainability and
resource conservation (which is integral to Goal 6, but was dropped from question 1 for brevity
following survey pilot testing), capacity building and human resources (which engendered limited
uncertainty in question 1), and how to effectively define and monitor the safety of water and
wastewater (again not an explicit target of Goal 6, but a necessary precursor to measuring success).
These are described in Table 6 in order of frequency mentioned. Some respondents named more
than one knowledge gap or concern, so the total of frequency (50) is greater than the sample size.
Table 6. Knowledge gaps or areas of concern related to Goal 6 (n=39).
Frequency Theme
12 Managing wastewater/sludge/septage
5 Financing
4 Ecosystem sustainability/resource conservation
4 Capacity building/human resources/work effort
3 What is "safe" water/wastewater?
3 Monitoring
3 Universality/sanitation coverage
2 Inequality
2 Interdependency with other SDGs (e.g., poverty reduction)
1 Political ownership
1 Ability to use tools (e.g., WaSH Bottleneck Analysis Tool)
1 Intra-country coordination
1 Vulnerable populations (e.g., drought-affected areas)
Question 3: When you made WaSH-related decisions over the past six months, in which of these
areas (related to governance and human resources) would more information have been helpful?; In
which of these areas (related to governance and human resources) would more information have
been helpful to your work over the past six months? (n=70)
Response selection frequency ranged from 31 to 46 across response categories, demonstrating that
all provided categories held informational value. The top two needs were strategic
58
planning/prioritization (selected by 46 of 70 or 66% of respondents) followed by sector
coordination/collaboration (selected by 44 of 70 or 63% of respondents). “Other” written-in
responses included translating the human right to water and sanitation into practice, education and
training, private sector participation, and institutional strengthening. Stratifying by constituency
reveals that one category was never selected by R&L respondents (participatory approaches), while
the top two responses (strategic planning/prioritization and sector coordination/collaboration) were
under-selected compared to other constituencies. This may be an artifact of the low sample size for
the R&L constituency (n=6). These information types may also be more familiar or accessible to
researchers or perceived as outside the scope of scientific research.
Figure 4. Governance and human resources information needs related to recent work/decision areas (n=70).
Question 4: When you made WaSH-related decisions over the past six months, in which of these
areas (related to finance and information systems) would more information have been helpful? In
which of these areas (related to finance and information systems) would more information have
been helpful to your work over the past six months? (n=68)
Again, responses were split fairly evenly across response categories and across constituencies,
demonstrating that all categories offered some value as areas of research and learning. No category
held an overwhelming majority. The top two needs selected were monitoring and evaluation
(selected by 63% of respondents) followed by affordability (e.g., subsidies, tariffs) (selected by 59% of
respondents). Written-in responses cited the need for enhanced information or skill development in
several areas where standardized methods may already exist, including value for money calculations
(especially cost-benefit analysis for investments in menstrual hygiene management), life cycle costs,
proven financing modalities, cost sharing and recovery, and estimating/comparing unit costs of
different WaSH options. Differences across constituencies were again evident, as the R&L responses
overlooked the information needs for budgeting and costing and donor management that were
important to the larger group. As in question 3, this could be an artifact of low sample size (n=6) or
0 10 20 30 40 50
Other
Participatory approaches
Human resources
Performance review
Institutional change
Accountability
Sector coordination/collaboration
Strategic planning/prioritization
Governance and Human ResourcesInformation Needs
Country R&L Other
59
indicative of the perception that such information is more accessible or falls outside the scope of
R&L activities. This would be an interesting nuance to explore in follow-up interviews.
Figure 5. Finance and information systems information needs related to recent work/decision areas (n=68).
Question 5: When you made WaSH-related decisions over the past six months, in which of these
technical areas would more information have been helpful? In which of these technical areas would
more information have been helpful to your work over the past six months? (choose all that apply)
(n=68)
All categories were selected as areas where more information would have been helpful to WaSH
decision making or work activities, with rankings shown in Figure 6. The highest ranked categories
were reaching poorest populations and appropriate technologies. Many rankings agreed among
constituencies, although several did not. Community-led total sanitation and disabled access, for
example, were a higher priority for country constituency respondents. Rankings for the R&L
constituency are hard to discern due to low sample size, but several technical areas were not
selected by any respondents (e.g., reaching poorest populations, eliminating open defecation,
marketing for sanitation, and WaSH in schools). This may be an artifact of low sample size (n=6).
“Other” written-in categories included WaSH options for scattered settlements in arid regions and
sustainable/ecological solutions.
0 10 20 30 40 50
Other
Donor management
Market finance (e.g., capital markets)
Cost-benefit analysis
Public finance
Budgeting and costing
Investment planning
Affordability (e.g., subsidies, tariffs)
Monitoring and evaluation
Finance and Information SystemsInformation Needs
Country R&L Other
60
Figure 6. Technical information needs related to recent work/decision areas (n=68).
Question 6: What was the primary topic of the WaSH-related decision (or decisions) you made over
the past six months? On what primary topics did you seek WaSH-related information over the past six
months? (please describe) (n=44)
This question aimed to identify an actual recent decision area or work focus, to determine what
areas have been deemed important under the current transitional climate from MDGs to SDGs. The
top responses, mainly driven by the country constituency, involved development of national
policies/strategies and ending open defecation. Respondents cited planning documents such as joint
sector reviews, national sector development plans, and national open defecation plans. Again, we
observed a prevalence of wastewater and sludge management themes, which was more driven by
“all other” constituencies. One respondent characterized his/her recent focus as “urban sanitation,
inclusive of behavior change, fecal sludge management, balancing coverage versus equity, and
[supporting] scale-up with a pro-poor focus.” Another cited “practical design guidelines for fecal
sludge treatment plants suitable for low-income settings.” Interestingly, menstrual hygiene
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Other
Children's feces
Food hygiene
Cross-cultural approaches
Temporary/emergency services
Security for girls and women
Community-led total sanitation
Emergencies and/or outbreaks
Handwashing
Utilities in small towns
Disabled access
Fecal sludge
WaSH impact on stunting/nutrition
WaSH in rapidly growing cities
Reliability of service
Household water treatment
WaSH in schools
Marketing for sanitation
WaSH in health care facilities
Eliminating open defecation
Menstrual hygiene
Climate change
Improved service levels/"service ladders"
Behavior change
Appropriate technologies
Reaching poorest populations
Technical Information Needs
Country R&L Other
61
management and gender equality were cited prominently only among the “other” constituencies,
indicating these information needs may be underestimated by the R&L and country constituencies.
Degree of specificity of responses varied; one fairly large focal area covered “effective participation
of all WaSH stakeholders in design, planning, implementation, and evaluation .” Many narrower focal
areas were also provided, for example, evidence linking school WaSH facilities or menstrual hygiene
management to school attendance, finance mechanisms related to decentralization (such as
different types of performance contracts), emergency planning in response to widespread disease
outbreaks, and practical design guidelines for fecal sludge treatment plants in low-income settings.
Response themes are ranked by frequency below.
Figure 7. Topics of recent work/decision areas (n=44).
0 2 4 6 8 10
Cost/benefit analysis
Health impact assessment
Climate change resilience
Sanitation marketing
Household water treatment
Service levels
Affordability
Donor management
WaSH in health care facilities
Enabling environment/capacity building
Stakeholder participation
WaSH in small towns
Hygiene/handwashing
Nutrition/stunting
Behavior change
Urban sanitation
Peri-urban/slum services
Sustainability/environmental protection
WaSH in schools
Monitoring
Sector review/Institutional change
Water-related disease
Menstrual hygiene management/gender
Accountability/finance
Water quality/safety/security
Equity/inclusion/vulnerable populations
Wastewater or sludge management/reuse
Open defecation/CLTS
National policy/strategy/human rights…
Primary Topics of Recent Work/Decisions
Country R&L Other
62
Question 7 (R&L and Other): From your perspective, what will be the most pressing WaSH-related
research needs in coming years? From your perspective, what will be the most pressing WaSH-
related evidence needs over the next several years? (n=34)
This question was not included in the country constituency questionnaire due to concerns about the
reliability of future projection questions, but was added to the second round of surveys to test how a
direct professional assessment of future prospects would compare to recent, actual information
needs. Responses overlapped with previous questions to some degree, but the question also
seemed to encourage thinking beyond the categories provided for other questions. Some
information needs rose to higher prevalence, reflecting gaps left when the MDGs ended, including
the combined pressures of financing WaSH services given economic uncertainty, achieving
equality/nondiscrimination via universal access (including hard-to-reach places), and WaSH services
outside the household (such as schools, health care facilities, workplaces, and other public places).
One respondent wrote, “Most of the urban poor are still underserved, and with the growing
economic crisis, it will be difficult to talk about universal access...” Some specific examples of
suggested future research questions captured these remaining hurdles and included:
• How can we maintain and improve service levels in the face of political change/instability,
climate change, economic and demographic changes, changes in social norms, and natural
resource over-exploitation or degradation?
• How can we integrate WaSH targets with other targets, such as food security, energy
security, and gender equality?
• Can disaggregated data be generated to ensure equality, nondiscrimination, and targeting of
services?
• What bottlenecks prevent actors from putting collaborative behaviors into practice?
• What behavior change mechanisms work across diverse slum environments?
• What are the potential health and economic impacts of menstrual hygiene management in
schools and work environments?
• Where can we find demonstrated business models for fecal sludge management at a city
scale (including cost scenarios)?
New areas not previously mentioned included WaSH education and social awareness, utility
management, business models, and technological innovation. All themes are ranked by frequency
below. Although sample sizes differed, responses generally agreed between the R&L and “all other”
constituencies. One prominent category, WaSH finance/business models, was not mentioned by the
R&L respondents, reinforcing the observation in question 4 where the R&L group overlooked some
practical needs such as budgeting and costing and donor management. When compared to recent
work areas in question 6, some areas became more or less prominent in future terms.
Resilience/security/climate change and service delivery, for example, were seen as more pressing in
the future.
63
Table 7. Pressing future research/evidence needs suggested by respondents (n=34).
Frequency Theme
8 Equality/non-discrimination
6 WaSH in public places
5 WaSH finance/business models
5 Resilience/security/climate change
5 Sustainable/ecological solutions
5 Universal access/remote areas
4 Water quality/safety
4 WaSH education/knowledge sharing
4 Investment/capacity building
4 Urban WaSH/slums
4 Utility management/service delivery
3 Cost/benefit
3 Sludge management
3 Behavior change/latrine usage
3 Health/economic impacts
2 Open defecation
2 Accountability/collaborative behaviors
2 Community-led programming
2 Measuring progress
1 Stunting
1 Private sector engagement
1 Menstrual hygiene management
1 Shared vs. household services
1 Integration with other goals
1 Service levels
1 Political instability
1 Innovation (technological, etc.)
1 Policy
Learning
Question 7 (Countries)/Question 14 (R&L)/Question 9 (All Other): Which challenges did you
experience when seeking information to make WaSH-related decision/s over the past six
months? Which challenges did you experience when seeking WaSH-related information over the past
six months? (n=62)
The most prevalent response, driven by the country constituency, was “different sources of
information conflicted.” Surprisingly, this was not mentioned at all on the R&L survey, indicating that
scientists and end users may have different perceptions about the nature/agreement of different
information sources or be more skilled at navigating these issues. The R&L respondents also failed to
64
identify trustworthiness/reliability as a challenge, whereas it was clearly a perceived challenge for
countries and other constituencies. The following three reasons cited that information was too brief
or general, could not be found/accessed, or was outdated. On a positive note, some respondents
from all constituencies (13%) reported no challenges when seeking WaSH-related information.
Additional fill-in responses included time pressure, networking opportunities, harmonization of
national and global WaSH reporting, spread of information across multiple sources/databases, and
difficulty identifying the “signal” among background noise.
Figure 8. Challenges reported in seeking WaSH information (n=62).
Question 8 (Countries): Which other challenges did you experience when making WaSH-related
decision/s over the past six months? (n=27)
Assuming adequate information was available, this question explored other reasons affecting
decisions. Only one respondent reported no challenges. Lacked adequate financial resources to
consider alternative(s) was the top response, followed by lack of political traction. No write-in
answers were added.
Figure 9. Challenges (unrelated to information needs) in WaSH decision making (n=27).
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Information was too lengthy or technical
None
Other
Information was not trustworthy/reliable
Information was not available for my region/situation
Information was outdated
Could not find/access information
Information was too brief or general
Different sources of information conflicted
Challenges in Seeking WaSH Information
Country R&L Other
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Other
None
Lacked cultural acceptance of alternative(s)
Lacked technological alternative(s)
Lacked time/capacity to evaluate alternative(s)
Lacked political traction for alternative(s)
Lacked adequate financial resources to consider…
Other Decision Challenges (Countries)
65
Question 16 (R&L)/Question 8 (All Other): What obstacles might affect your ability to undertake
research or educational activities? What obstacles might affect your ability to undertake WaSH-
related activities? (n=37)
Mirroring the country responses on question 8 above, lack of funding was the top response among
R&L and “all other” constituencies, followed by lack of technical or human resources. Written-in
answers included lack of time (which was also sometimes reported by the country constituency),
unhealthy competition for resources, silos that hamper inter-sectoral collaboration, inadequate
community capacity, and absent or weak downward accountability (accountability to the population
served). Rankings matched between the R&L and “all other” constituencies; however, two
categories (lack of interest among higher-ups and lack of stakeholder buy-in) were not selected by
R&L respondents, suggesting this group may be less subject to managerial or stakeholder influence,
or experience a greater degree of cooperation. It could also be an artifact of small sample size, and
would be interesting to explore in follow-up interviews.
Figure 10. Obstacles to undertaking WaSH research, educational, or other work activities (n=37).
Question 9 (Countries): Based on these limitations, what knowledge or information might have
helped with your decision/s? (n=15)
Only about half of the country respondents gave answers to this question, intended as an open-
ended follow up to question 8. Results reflected the challenges of funding, political will, and
information resources, mirroring some of the top response categories in question 8. The prominent
themes were:
1. Knowledge of fundraising mechanisms (e.g., how to connect with development partners and
meet funding commitments) (frequency=8);
2. How to strengthen political will as well as knowledge of the political economy (relevant
actors and their degrees of influence) (frequency =5);
3. Access to reliable data/information (e.g., evaluation of interventions, sector performance,
management information systems, decision support systems) (frequency=4); and
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Other
Lack of partnership opportunities
Lack of stakeholder buy-in
Broader political climate
Lack of interest among higher-ups
Lack of technical or human resources
Lack of funding
Obstacles to Undertaking Activities (R&L and Other Constituencies)
R&L Other
66
4. How to obtain and support new/alternative technologies (frequency=2).
Question 10 (Countries): Which organizations typically offer useful (e.g., accessible, understandable,
relevant, and/or sufficient) information for addressing your WaSH-related questions? (choose all that
apply) (n=24)
Multilateral organizations such as the World Bank, World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF, the
WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme, and the UN-Water Global Analysis and Assessment of
Sanitation and Drinking-Water (GLAAS) were highly ranked sources of useful information
(frequency=21-22). They were followed by national monitoring agencies (frequency=17), wherein one
respondent specified the bureau of statistics. If pooled, “national monitoring agencies” and “other
government ministries or departments” took the top position (frequency=29). Overall, these sources
reflect a predominance of national or global level information rather than regional, state, or local
information sources, which may reflect the respondents’ professional scope/roles or the provided
response categories. One respondent did cite “engagement and involvement of communities” as a
useful information source.
SWA was also highly ranked (frequency=15), demonstrating the importance of the partnership
network as a communication pathway. If pooled, civil society organizations also reached a frequency
of 15, with local or community organizations contributing 60% of the responses (frequency=9).
Universities (especially local universities) were a relatively minor source of useful information
(frequency=5-6 or 11 if pooled). This may be because results from university-affiliated studies are
often disseminated through other means, such as a multilateral funder. It might also be indicative of
the lack of strong within-country research programs, since foreign universities provided useful
information more often than local universities. If so, this affirms the recruitment effort in the R&L
constituency to be more inclusive of globally southern partners that could serve as within-country
research and learning supports. News outlets ranked lowest (frequency=2), perhaps due to
neutrality or reliability concerns.
67
Figure 11. Sources of useful WaSH information (n=24). Note: Pooled data categories were not included in the question
response categories, and are shown only for comparison.
Question 11 (Countries): Which of these actions are typically useful for addressing your WaSH-related
questions? (n=23)
All response categories for this question were well used. The relative ranking of responses reflected
proximity/ease of access. The most popular selection was to search the internet. Second,
respondents would refer to their personal contacts, working either within the same office or
remotely. They would thirdly reach out to a wider professional network. Initiating a new survey or
study was not out of the question, as it was cited by 35% of respondents. Fill-in responses included
using SurveyMonkey®, networking generally, and participating in national WaSH coordination fora.
Figure 12. Useful actions for addressing questions cited by the country constituency (n=23).
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
News outlets
Private companies/consultants
Universities (local)
International civil society (non-governmental)…
Universities (foreign)
Local civil society or community organizations
Universities (pooled)
Other government ministries or departments
Civil society organizations (pooled)
Partnership networks (e.g., SWA)
National monitoring agencies
Multilateral organizations (e.g., World Bank, WHO,…
Global monitoring organizations (e.g. JMP, GLAAS)
National sources (pooled)
Offer Useful Information for Addressing WaSH-related Questions (Countries)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Other
Initiate a new study/survey
Email someone in my professional…
Call someone in my professional network
Email a group of people (e.g., a listserv)
Ask a colleague/advisor in my office
Organize a meeting or conference call
Search the Internet
Actions Useful for Addressing Questions (Countries)
68
Question 12 (Countries): Which of these informational formats are typically useful for addressing
your WaSH-related questions? (n=23)
Most of the suggested information formats were selected some of the time, suggesting that
multiple media types are effective for transmitting WaSH information. The most-cited response
category was a seminar/lecture, which typically often involves passive listening with an opportunity
for questions, along with visual displays (e.g., PowerPoint) created by a subject matter expert.
Including virtual “webinars” in this category brought the frequency to 34. The high value placed on
this format should be interpreted by those offering seminars/lectures as an incentive to facilitate
widespread advertising, remote viewing opportunity, and recording for later access whenever
possible.
Modes of independent learning, such as reviewing a website or reading articles, books, or reports,
were likewise a popular information format. In fact, pooling categories (shown in orange below)
gave web sources a combined frequency of 39 and publications a combined frequency of 37,
suggesting both print and Internet content are highly valued. The results are somewhat
contradictory to the indication in question 10 (countries) that university sources (of which scientific
or professional journal articles the main publication outlet) are less frequently used, although this
may indicate that within the category, professional journals are used more often by country
representatives than scientific articles. No fill-in categories were offered.
Figure 13. Useful information formats for addressing WaSH questions within the country constituency (n=23). Note:
Pooled data categories were not included in the question response categories, and are shown only for comparison.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Social media post (e.g., LinkedIn, Twitter)
Tool or worksheet
Memorandum, bulletin, or flyer
News (e.g., television, radio, newspaper)
Online course/training module
Online discussion forum
Webinar (virtual seminar/lecture)
Book/report
Scientific or professional journal article
Website
Seminar/lecture
Seminar/lecture (pooled)
Publications (pooled)
Web (pooled)
Useful Information Formats (Countries)
69
Question 13 (Countries)/Question 10 (All Other): What would make the WaSH-related information you
accessed over the past six months more useful? (n=54)
The ranking of results for this question agreed fairly well between the country constituency and all
other constituencies. (It was not asked of the R&L constituency to reduce length, since they are
generally seen as providers rather than recipients of information.) The top three responses were
reference to my country/situation, expert analysis/critique, and executive summary/synopsis. This
suggests a market for challenge-specific or nationally specific information, as well as expert
synthesis, for example through seminars/lectures as mentioned in question 12 (countries) or the
WaSH policy research digest offered by UNC. Executive summary or synopses of lengthier reports
are also highly valued and should be seen as a best practice for WaSH communications, although
according to questions 7 (countries), 14 (R&L), and 9 (all other), brief or general information should
be supplemented by access to additional detail.
The country constituency valued discussion with colleagues more highly (selected by 70% of
respondents) than “all other” constituencies (selected by 29% of respondents). This may indicate
that higher value is placed on interpersonal interaction as a source of evidence among the country
constituency, or that they experience a relative lack of opportunity for peer discussion when
compared with other WaSH professionals. Translation was a relatively minor obstacle, though still
cited by 17% of respondents.
Figure 14. Factors that would make recently viewed WaSH information more useful (n=54).
Question 15 (Countries and R&L)/Question 11 (All Other): Which challenges did you experience when
seeking WaSH-related training or educational opportunities over the past six months? (n=57)
Across all constituencies, about 21% of all respondents for this question selected “none,” indicating
they did not perceive any improvements could be made in terms of their access to WaSH-related
training or educational opportunities. Still, almost 4 in 5 respondents did perceive some barrier. The
top two responses to this question were “too busy to participate” and “did not receive
notice/invitation” (both frequencies=23). When comparing responses across constituencies, the “too
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Other
Translation into another language
Translation for a non-specialist audience
An introduction (e.g., written, video)
Discussion with my colleagues
Email, mail, or social media alerts
Executive summary/synopsis
Expert analysis/critique
Reference to my country/situation
What Would Make Information More Useful?
Countries Other
70
busy” category was dominated by R&L and “all other” constituencies, showing that these groups
feel more acutely overscheduled, possibly due to constituency-specific or regional culture.
The second challenge relates to enhancing targeted advertising, essentially a marketing function,
since sending notices or invitations to as broad an audience as possible could have the undesired
effect of overwhelming people with irrelevant opportunities. No R&L respondents felt they had not
received a notice or invitation to a training or educational event. This suggests the R&L constituency
may be oversaturated by training/educational notices, while others (e.g., from government, civil
society, or nonprofit sectors) who would be interested in participating are not being targeted at the
same rate.
One-third of respondents cited cost as a barrier, while others indicated there was no relevant
training being offered. Other challenges filled in included lack of sponsorship (e.g., to participate in
conferences), late notification, and webinars scheduled at extreme hours (likely stemming from time
zone differences). Finally, training opportunities were never perceived by country respondents as
“not relevant to my region/situation,” perhaps because this group was less likely to receive
undesired notices. This would be interesting to explore in interviews.
Figure 15. Barriers to seeking WaSH educational or training opportunities by constituency (n=57)
Question 14 (Countries)/Question 17 (R&L)/Question 12 (All Other): What new resources, if any, would
you like to have available for addressing your WaSH-related questions? What new resources, if any,
would help to specifically address these needs? What new informational or training resources, if any,
would you like to have available for addressing WaSH-related questions? (n=29)
This question drew diverse responses from a little fewer than half of all respondents, comprising a
somewhat lengthy wish list of resources that might resolve some of the challenges raised in
questions 7, 8, and 15 and help to accelerate WaSH progress. Some responses were specific to a
particular sector; for example, the country respondents placed a greater emphasis on discussion fora
to exchange experience and WaSH status/coverage indicators, while the “all other” constituencies
more consistently raised access to WaSH training materials for use in schools, and urban WaSH
0 5 10 15 20 25
Other
Not relevant to my region/situation
None offered
Too expensive
None
Did not receive notice/invitation
Too busy to participate
Challenges in Seeking Training/Education
Country R&L Other
71
planning. All three groups noted the need for access to more (or less restrictive) funding/financing
opportunities. Practical online tools or standardized protocols that take the guesswork out of
establishing a basic WaSH management function were also in demand. A complete list is offered
below in order of frequency of the response theme (greatest to least):
• Financing/funding (e.g., a costed ODF plan) (frequency=6)
• Discussion fora to exchange experiences (4)
• Country indicators/status (e.g, WaSH coverage/funding) (3)
• Training courses/resources (e.g., MOOCs) (3)
• Training manuals/activities/projectors/videos for WaSH clubs in schools (3)
• Urban sanitation/urban planning and WaSH (3)
• Evaluation methods/reports for promising WaSH interventions (2)
• Strategy/initiatives to accelerate/scale up coverage (2)
• Online management tools (e.g., for assessment, planning, design, monitoring of FSM
systems/services) (2)
• Gender-inclusive WaSH programming (2)
• Proven approaches to fecal sludge management (2)
• Reaching marginalized/poorest populations (2)
• Linking international and local universities
• University seminars
• Volunteers (e.g., expats) for skill/knowledge transfer
• New approaches to community-led total sanitation/ending open defecation
• Transdisciplinary/exploratory grants
• WaSH "orientation" for political leaders (to enhance coordination and budgeting obligation)
• How to monitor sanitation facility usage
• Role of social norms in behavior change
• Designing WaSH programs to reflect available evidence
• Public/private partnerships
• Climate change and WaSH
• Sustainable, environmentally friendly, and affordable solutions
• Practical technical guidelines that can be applied in any context using local resources
• How to facilitate collective learning by government and sector partners/stakeholders
Question 17 (Countries)/Question 18 (R&L)/Question 21 (All Other): Do you have any other advice or
comments? (n=16, one response excluded)
Several diverse comments were provided for this question, which fell at the end of the survey, just
before the demographic information. The three country constituency responses to this question
centered on a desire for training courses and continuing education opportunities, as reflected in the
questions about training and educational challenges and new resources. One country respondent
indicated a willingness to share information and desire to find outlets for his or her research papers.
Within the “all other” constituencies, two respondents noted funding needs, particu larly saying
“CSOs have limited capacity to mobilize financial resources and are often lacking in up-to-date
information.” A member of the R&L constituency voiced an issue that was seen earlier in the
72
question about challenges in seeking WaSH information, in which lack of rigor in the publication
process hampers the ability of readers to distinguish facts from advocacy. All response themes are
listed below:
• Training courses/continuing education (onsite preferred) (4)
• Need funding (2)
• Willingness to help (2)
• Sanitation more difficult than water
• Have research/papers for sharing
• Research should focus on SDGs
• Harmonized/credible global monitoring
• Need policy briefs to summarize wash studies
• Lack of rigor to distinguish facts from advocacy
• Focus on individual organization evaluation/support
• Need local/international cooperation/balance
• Need up-to-date information
• Need communication/behavior change
Funding and Stakeholder Interactions
Note: These questions were adaptively generated during analysis of country constituency survey
data (following the first phase of survey deployment) and therefore most did not appear in the
country constituency survey. The questions intended to explore any potential mechanisms that
would explain differences in high-priority research or information needs across sectors.
Question 8 (R&L)/Question 13 (All Other): Which organizations typically sponsor your research or
educational activities? (n=6); If your organization funds WaSH research or activities, which types of
organizations do you typically sponsor? (n=24)
This set of questions demonstrated a primary flow of funding from multilaterals and private
foundations to universities and civil society organizations, which served as secondary sources of
useful information under question 10 (countries). State and local government agencies were never
reported as funding WaSH research and education, but were common recipients of funding. Their
exclusion may be due to the professional scope/roles of the survey respondents or the sample size.
National government agencies act as both sponsors and recipients of WaSH research/activity
funding, which serves to redistribute resources among nations. Other funding recipients mentioned
included women’s groups, schools, cooperative enterprises, consultants, multilateral organizations,
and “Country Water Partnerships” of the Global Water Partnership, which was founded in 1996 to
promote integrated water resources management.
73
Figure 16. Typical WaSH research sponsors reported by the R&L constituency (n=6).
Figure 17. Typical WaSH funding recipients reported by “all other” constituencies (n=24).
Question 9 (R&L)/Question 14 (All Other): If you submit proposals for funding, are the requests for
proposals typically open-ended or topic-specific? (n=6); If your organization funds WaSH research or
activities, are the requests for proposals typically open-ended or topic-specific? (n=20)
The responses of R&L representatives who submit proposals and other representatives who fund
proposals generally agreed. Both groups centered responses firmly on “very topic specific,”
followed by “somewhat topic specific.” No respondents chose the “not applicable” category. This
indicates that the topic of most research proposals must closely match pre-determined funding
categories, a mechanism that serves to limit the range of pursued research topics based on
perceived areas of high need or funder interests.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Other
Government agencies (domestic/state or regional)
Companies or corporations
Private donors/individuals
Government agencies (domestic/federal)
Government agencies (foreign)
Foundations or aid organizations
Multilateral organizations (e.g., World Bank, WHO,…
Sponsors of WaSH Research/Education
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Other
Government agencies (state or regional)
Private companies or corporations
Community-based organizations
Government agencies (federal)
Civil society organizations
Universities
Recipents of WaSH Research/Activities Funding
74
Figure 18. Characterization of WaSH funding proposals (n=20).
Question 15 (All Other): If your organization funds WaSH research or activities, why might you
decline to fund a certain activity? (n=20)
This question was asked only of funding organizations, and drew three clear top responses: “lack of
scientific rigor or pre-proposal planning” (frequency=13), “lack of plans for partnership/stakeholder
involvement” (frequency=11), and “broader political climate” (frequency=8). Several other response
categories were never selected, including “lack of knowledge/trust in the applicant’s organization”
and “matching the interests of donors/constituents,” although one fill-in response took a broad view
that proposals may demonstrate insufficient relevance to sector-wide information needs. This
suggests most proposals received by funding organizations lack advance planning to arrange
methods, partnerships, etc. In addition to the limitation elicited in questions 9 (R&L) and 14 (All
Other) of matching research to topic-specific funding opportunities, a secondary limitation exists
wherein extensive pre-planning work may be expected in anticipation of funding. Those seeking
funding may benefit from having personal and professional connections in place, as the burden is
typically on the funding applicant to bring important partners or stakeholders on board, rather than
being matched up by the funder or a third party. The broader political climate was also a key driver of
funding, which may force those who seek funding to adapt to trends.
Figure 19. Reasons reported by funders for deciding not to fund WaSH research or activities (n=20).
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Not applicable
Very open-ended
Somewhat open-ended
Somewhat topic-specific
Very topic-specific
Are Requests for Proposals Typically...?
R&L Other
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Doesn’t match interests of donors/constituents
Doesn’t match organizational directions
Lack of knowledge/trust in applicant’s organization
Other
Broader political climate
Lack of plans for partnership/stakeholder…
Lack of scientific rigor or pre-proposal planning
Why might you decline to fund WaSH research/activities?
75
Question 13 (R&L)/Question 16 (All Other): What would help better match your research and
educational activities to the needs of end users? (n=1); What would help better match your
organization's WaSH-related work to existing needs? (n=13)
This question was generated following the first phase of the survey (country respondents), intending
to begin exploring congruence in research and learning interests across sectors. Like question 7
(R&L/All Other), it was expected to be a bit difficult, requiring additional cognitive processing rather
than an intuitive response. Fewer respondents (only about 35%) who viewed this question answered,
which may demonstrate relative confidence that current WaSH work matches well with existing
needs. Two respondents (one from R&L and one from the other sectors) verified this sentiment, for
example by writing in “[I] think that current WASH-related work is well-matched to both country and
organizational needs.” Among respondents, the most prevalent theme was building capacity
through increased human resources or training. Another popular response was enabling reflection
time or after-action review among end users of the information. Funding and flexible partnerships
were also high on the list.
Figure 20. Suggested factors that might improve matching of research/educational funding to needs of end users (n=14).
Frequency Theme
4 WaSH training/capacity building/human resources
4 Opportunity for reflection among end users/professionals
3 Funding availability
3 Partner organizations/flexible partnerships
2 Nothing (already well-matched)
1 Technology availability
1 Knowledge of other organizations' approaches/achievements
1 High quality research
1 Research in collaboration with WaSH actors
1 Networking
Question 11 (R&L)/Question 17 (All Other): How often are stakeholders involved in your research or
educational activities? (n=6); How often are stakeholders involved in your WaSH-related work? (n=32)
The most common response to this question was that stakeholders are involved in work 70-90% of
the time. The overall sample (n=38) demonstrated a distribution skewed toward the upper
categories; just 21% of overall responses (8 of 38) were “less than 30% of the time” or “unsure.” The
R&L constituency had no responses below the category “30-70% of the time,” demonstrating greater
confidence in the perceived involvement of stakeholders in research or educational activities, but
also a wide range of equivalent responses making it difficult to pinpoint what is “typical.”
76
Figure 21. Reported rates of stakeholder involvement in WaSH research, educational, or other activities (n=38).
Question 12 (R&L)/Question 18 (All Other): At which stages are stakeholders typically involved in your
research or educational activities? (n=6); At which stages are stakeholders typically involved in your
WaSH-related work? (n=30)
Response categories were offered in a temporally progressive order from the beginning to final
stages of projects; however, overall responses to this question did not follow a clear increasing,
decreasing, or consistent pattern in stakeholder involvement over time. This may warrant follow-up
during interviews. Responses across categories ranged from 3-5 for the R&L constituency, which
does indicate fairly consistent participation among stakeholders throughout research or learning
efforts. The greatest stakeholder involvement (5) was reported for analysis and interpretation, while
the least involvement (3) was reported in dissemination. This suggests a poss ible disconnect
between stakeholders and current research dissemination practices.
For “All Other” constituencies, the responses varied from 14 -25 across categories, demonstrating
less consistent stakeholder involvement. The most prominent stages of stakeholder involvement
were implementation (25) and dissemination (23), which contrasts with the observation of
decreased stakeholder participation during the dissemination stage in the R&L responses. For this
group, the least stakeholder involvement was reported during scoping and analysis/interpretation,
which may be due to the preliminary or solitary nature of these activities; although, it runs counter to
the higher response in the R&L constituency regarding stakeholder involvement in
analysis/interpretation. Differences among constituencies may simply be an artifact of the small
sample size for the R&L constituency.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Unsure
<10% of the time
10-30% of the time
30-70% of the time
70-90% of the time
>90% of the time
How often are stakeholders involved in work?
R&L
Other
77
Figure 22. Reported stages of stakeholder involvement (n=36).
Question 10 (R&L)/Question 19 (All Other): Who typically disseminates the outcomes of your research
or educational activities? (n=6); Who typically disseminates the outcomes of your WaSH-related
work? (n=31)
Interestingly, partnership networks (31) were the most frequent dissemination mechanism for WaSH
research, educational, and other work. This response was followed by internal communications
departments (24) and stakeholders (20). The responses aligned fairly well between the two
constituency groups surveyed, although the “All Other” group had a greater separation for the
“stakeholders” category, when compared to independent media, the scientific community, and
donors. This agrees with the finding under the previous question (Question 12 for R&L, 18 for All
Other) that the “All Other” group more frequently involves stakeholders in dissemination relative to
the other constituencies. Also surprisingly, the scientific community was a minor disseminator of
research or educational activities, relative to partnership networks, internal communications staff, or
stakeholders, even among the R&L group (33% of respondents).
Figure 23. Disseminators of information from WaSH work (n=37).
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Dissemination
Analysis/Interpretation
Implementation
Design
Scoping
In which stages are stakeholders involved?
R&L Other
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Donors
Scientific community
Independent media
Stakeholders
Internal communications department
Partnership networks
Who disseminates outcomes of work?
R&L Other
78
Question 16 (Countries): How willing would you be to interact with WaSH researchers (e.g., to help
plan studies and share new information)? (n=23)
Willingness to interact with researchers was high overall, as expected; 74% reported they were very
willing. Still, some respondents (about 26%) showed hesitancy to interact with researchers.
Determining the reasoning behind these responses (e.g., time commitment, language barrier,
perceived lack of knowledge, previous bad experience) during interview follow-up would be
informative.
Figure 24. Reported willingness to interact with WaSH researchers among the country constituency (n=23).
Question 20 (All Other): How often do you interact with WaSH researchers (e.g., to help plan studies
and share new information)? (n=29, one response excluded)
This question quantified how frequently members of the “all other” constituencies interact with
researchers. Responses centered on once every few months or once a month. This implies that
interaction with researchers does occur regularly, although it may be intermittent. A minority of
responders (about 14% each) indicated they interact with researchers once a week or once a year.
Figure 25. Reported frequency of interaction with WaSH researchers among “other” constituencies (n=29).
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Extremely unwilling
Somewhat unwilling
Somewhat willing
Very willing
Willingness to Interact with Researchers
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Other: As Needed
Once a year
Once every few months
Once a month
Once a week
Frequency of Interaction with Researchers
79
Respondent Characteristics
Question 18 (Countries)/Question 19 (R&L)/Question 22 (All Other): What is your educational
specialization? (n=60)
Respondents were asked to select one or more educational specializations. In this sample of WaSH
professionals, the largest subset (31%) had an engineering background. After engineering, a fairly
evenly split among a variety of educational backgrounds was represented, with natural
science/mathematics and business/economics/finance the next most common educational
backgrounds. No respondents identified as a graduate of a journalism program. In the other
category, some respondents indicated specialization in project management, evaluation, or training
that spans disciplines, as well as agriculture and rural development.
When comparing among constituencies, country respondents tended to have either engineering,
natural science/mathematics, or medicine/public health degrees. The “all other” constituencies had
greater representation from engineering; business, economics, or finance; and political science. No
R&L respondents and few country respondents reported a business, economics, or finance
background, which may explain the inattention to some topics and reported lack of information,
respectively, under finance and information systems information needs. Since the R&L sample size
was small (n=6), it is unclear whether other R&L members do have this type of background, or
whether this sample represents the constituency well.
Figure 26. Educational background of WaSH professionals (n=60).
Question 19/Question 20 (Countries): Which category best describes your current workplace? (n=22);
Which category best describes your current professional responsibilities? (n=23)
Within the country constituency, most respondents worked in a ministry of water. Other responses
included ministries of sanitation (2) and education (1). It appears some respondents from the country
constituency may have been misclassified. Though on the SWA country constituency mailing list,
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Journalism
Other (please describe)
Humanities (e.g., Languages, Geography)
Political Science
Sociology/Anthropology
Medicine/Public Health
Business/Economics/Finance
Natural Science/Mathematics
Engineering
Educational Specialization
Country R&L Other
80
three respondents wrote in current professional affiliations with a donor (1), a multilateral (1), and
academia or a CSO (1). These differences might be due to recent job changes, and respondents likely
had past experience within the government sector (and may still have been performing in that
function for SWA purposes). Most respondents held relatively senior positions; about half identified
as directors or managers. One important shortcoming is that ministers and ministers’ advisors were
underrepresented in the survey, perhaps because these individuals have busier schedules or spend
less time interacting with email.
Figure 27. Workplace of country constituency respondents (n=22).
Figure 28. Professional responsibilities of country constituency respondents (n=23).
Question 20/Question 21 (R&L): What is the scale or scope of your current workplace? (n=5); Which
category best describes your current professional responsibilities? (n=5)
All R&L respondents indicated they work internationally, as opposed to at a local, regional, or
national level. This may be indicative of the underrepresentation of globally southern and in -country
research and learning partners, which the constituency is currently working on tackling via a
membership campaign. Several national universities were nominated in an optional component of
this survey, and this information was shared with the R&L constituency to aid recruiting efforts. A
variety of responses were provided as far as professional responsibilities, showing diversity of
respondents.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Ministry of Finance
Ministry of Health
Other
Ministry of Water
Current Workplace (Countries)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Technical staff
Director/manager
Adviser in minister's office
Minister
Professional Responsibilities (Countries)
81
Figure 29. Scope of research and learning work among the R&L constituency (n=5).
Figure 30. Professional roles of respondents from the R&L constituency (n=5).
Question 23/Question 24 (All Other): Which category best describes your current workplace? (n=30,
one response excluded); Which category best describes your current professional responsibilities?
(n=30)
This question intended to categorize the “All Other” constituency respondents into individual
constituencies, but failed to do so with a high degree of accuracy, as several respondents (25%)
skipped the question or did not answer definitively. Demographic questions should have been
mandatory, since this hampered further breakdown of the “all other” responses by constituency for
survey interpretation. In addition, the provided response categories may not have communicated all
possible constituency memberships in a straightforward way, since the SWA constituencies were
being restructured at the same time the survey was underway. For example, the community-based
organization category was originally provided (n=2), but has more recently been subsumed under
the civil society constituency (as reported below). Others wrote in an affiliation with a multilateral or
donor, which were subsumed under the external support agency category.
Based on available data, most respondents came from civil society organizations or external support
agencies. The third current SWA constituency, private sector, had less representation (at least one
respondent) but also has a smaller number of partners. Like question 19 (countries), responses to
this question revealed possible misclassification; one written-in response specified affiliation with a
research center, although this individual was not considered an R&L member for SWA’s purposes.
Many respondents (43%) held relatively senior positions, identifying as directors or administrators,
and a wide variety of professionals were represented.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Local/regional
International
Scale/Scope of Current Work (R&L)
0 1 2 3
Other (advisor)Research/technical staff
Project managerDirector/administrator
Professional Responsibilities (R&L)
82
Figure 31. Reclassified SWA constituency membership of “all other” survey respondents (n=30).
Figure 32. Professional roles of “all other” survey respondents.
Question 22 (R&L): Did you participate in the Research and Learning survey working group? (n=6)
Two of the six respondents (33%) participated in the survey working group, which may have
introduced some bias due to previous exposure to the questions; however, these individuals were
included in the sample to enhance sample size and because any such bias was expected to be
minimal. The working group preferred this approach, since they were involved in the survey planning
over several months at only a small percentage of time, and were not likely to recall earlier versions
of the questions during actual deployment.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Other
Private sector
External support agency
Civil society organization
Current Work Affiliation (All Other Constituencies)(Reclassified)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Other (advocate/advisor)
Technical staff
Project manager
Director/administrator
Professional Responsibilities (All Other Constituencies)