A systematic review of outcomes and lessons learned from general, rural, and country-specific Water Safety Plan implementations

Abstract

Water Safety Plans (WSPs) are a comprehensive risk assessment and management approach to water delivery that were internationally recommended in 2004. WSPs consist of five implementation steps, followed by evaluation. To date, approximately 90 countries have implemented WSPs; however widespread uptake is limited by lack of documented outcomes and impacts. We conducted a systematic review to collate outcomes, impacts, and lessons learned from WSPs developed in general, rural, and three case-study country contexts. Overall, 53 documents met inclusion criteria. In general contexts, the need for institutional support during WSP implementation was highlighted. In rural applications, the need to simplify the WSP process and provide community support was emphasized. In case-study countries, we found the WSP process was selectively adapted and integrated within existing programs. In outcome and impact evaluations, financial outcomes have the clearest evidence base, while operational outcomes are documented most frequently, particularly in relation to infrastructure improvements. However, evidence is lacking on institutional and policy outcomes and impacts of WSPs. To ensure WSPs reach their potential for improving water delivery and management, support should be provided to implementers, outcomes and impacts of urban, peri-urban, and rural WSP implementations should be evaluated, and adaptation of WSPs locally encouraged.

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

“…The dilemma analysis highlighted that such an approach is important for enabling stakeholder cooperation around monitoring. Additionally, this comprehensive approach is consistent with official guidance and research studies that have recommended that rural water safety planning efforts include hazards occurring on consumers' premises 26,37,42 , since addressing such hazards requires long-term effort towards sustained behaviour change. From the RWSP perspective, however, while the benefits are recognised, there are persistent doubts about scalability of a comprehensive approach.…”

Water Safety Plan for drinking water risk management: the case study of Mortara (Pavia, Italy)

“…The human resources to carry out monitoring and analysis (which has financial implications) and the creation of good working conditions for control and monitoring are important issues for the WSP's success (Gunnarsdóttir et al, 2012;Kutane et al, 2016;Lucentini et al, 2016a;Nurali et al, 2016;Setty et al, 2017;String and Lantagne, 2016;Thompson et al, 2016). Moreover, changing the attitudes of personnel who conduct the monitoring represents a challenge that can be solved by appropriate training.…”

“…For these countries, the risk management approach applied is reported in Table 1. Thompson et al, 2016 Source: Khatri (2016); Kumpel et al (2016); Kutane et al (2016); Lucentini et al (2016a); Nurali et al (2016); Setty et al (2017); String and Lantagne (2016); Thompson et al (2016).…”

Comparative evaluation of risk management frameworks for U.S. source waters

“…They encourage tailoring the risk monitoring and management approaches to each individual water system in addition to the application of national water quality rules across all systems (Baum, Amjad, Luh, & Bartram, ). In recent years, several positive outcomes have been associated with proactive drinking water risk management programs, from financial to operational to public health benefits (Gunnarsdottir, Gardarsson, & Bartram, ; Gunnarsdottir, Gardarsson, Elliott, et al, ; Kot, Castleden, & Gagnon, ; Kumpel et al, ; Loret et al, ; Setty et al, , ; String & Lantagne, ).…”