Challenges of water and sanitation service co-production in the global South

Abstract

Co-production of water and sanitation services, especially in the global South, implies that recipients of a service play a fundamental role in managing water resources. In the context of citizen-government synergies, service recipients are more than consumers, and (co)-production alters their involvement in the service production process, with respect to their relationships with both the natural resources and the delivery process. Our hypothesis is that a meaningful understanding of coproduction for water and sanitation services is only possible through an interdisciplinary approach that takes into account natural and social dimensions. The objective is to develop a possible new conceptualization of service co-production that can foster a renewed citizenship while taking into account the risks of urban fragmentation.

A comprehensive framework for analyzing co-production of urban water and sanitation services in the Global South

“…From a techno-environmental perspective, in Global South cities, water supply co-production usually includes socio-technical arrangements either decentralized (e.g., community urban well, rainwater harvesting system) or hybrid (i.e. unofficial network extensions of centralized piped water systems, possibly integrating municipal water with new water sources and/or the use of complementary technology), which extend proportionally to the deficiencies of the centralized system (Allen et al, 2017;Bakker, 2003;Domenech, 2011;Moretto et al, 2018). Co-production of sanitation systems mainly involve on-site facilities (e.g., shared pit latrine and septic tank, biogas production system) or simplified sewerage systems connected to decentralized wastewater treatment plants (Allen, 2010;Domenech, 2011;Moretto et al, 2018;Wilderer & Schreff, 2000).…”

“…WSS services convey material products as processed 'natural resources' (Moretto & Ranzato, 2017) and are, therefore, the 'key catalysts of environmental problems' and at the same time an 'important key to solving them' (Monstadt, 2009(Monstadt, , p. 1926. A co-evolutionary dynamic between socio-spatial urban patterns and co-production arrangements can emerge (Moretto et al, 2018). Coproduction can reinforce urban fragmentation (Cabrera, 2015) when diversification of socio-technical infrastructures in the city fosters creation of urban service zones that are socially and spatially unconnected between each other (Moretto et al, 2018).…”

“…A co-evolutionary dynamic between socio-spatial urban patterns and co-production arrangements can emerge (Moretto et al, 2018). Coproduction can reinforce urban fragmentation (Cabrera, 2015) when diversification of socio-technical infrastructures in the city fosters creation of urban service zones that are socially and spatially unconnected between each other (Moretto et al, 2018). Coproduction can lead to environmental decay and overexploitation of natural resources when local socio-technical infrastructures fail to consider the circularity of the water service cycle (Moretto et al, 2018).…”

“…Coproduction can reinforce urban fragmentation (Cabrera, 2015) when diversification of socio-technical infrastructures in the city fosters creation of urban service zones that are socially and spatially unconnected between each other (Moretto et al, 2018). Coproduction can lead to environmental decay and overexploitation of natural resources when local socio-technical infrastructures fail to consider the circularity of the water service cycle (Moretto et al, 2018). It should be acknowledged that co-production does not guarantee sustainability in urban WSS service provision and cannot be considered as a 'panacea'.…”

“…Drinking water can for instance be supplied through household/compound connections from the main distribution system, based on individual requests to the water agency and an active contribution by the citizen, including capital (e.g., financial payments, materials and technological devices) and in-kind (i.e., time and work-force) contributions (Moretto & Ranzato, 2017). In group co-production, state actors collaborate with a certain group of lay actors with common goals, as in the case of a group of citizens operating and managing a shared water tap or toilet, co-funded by the local authority (Allen et al, 2017;Moretto et al, 2018). Even if this type of co-production activity leads to personal benefits, it usually also generates 'spillover effects' and social benefits (Nabatchi et al, 2017, p. 770).…”