Why do water quality monitoring programs succeed or fail? A qualitative comparative analysis of regulated testing systems in sub-Saharan Africa

Abstract

BackgroundWater quality testing is critical for guiding water safety management and ensuring public health. In many settings, however, water suppliers and surveillance agencies do not meet regulatory requirements for testing frequencies. This study examines the conditions that promote successful water quality monitoring in Africa, with the goal of providing evidence for strengthening regulated water quality testing programs.Methods and findingsWe compared monitoring programs among 26 regulated water suppliers and surveillance agencies across six African countries. These institutions submitted monthly water quality testing results over 18 months. We also collected qualitative data on the conditions that influenced testing performance via approximately 821 h of semi-structured interviews and observations. Based on our qualitative data, we developed the Water Capacity Rating Diagnostic (WaterCaRD) to establish a scoring framework for evaluating the effects of the following conditions on testing performance: accountability, staffing, program structure, finances, and equipment & services. We summarized the qualitative data into case studies for each of the 26 institutions and then used the case studies to score the institutions against the conditions captured in WaterCaRD. Subsequently, we applied fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) to compare these scores against performance outcomes for water quality testing. We defined the performance outcomes as the proportion of testing Targets Achieved (outcome 1) and Testing Consistency (outcome 2) based on the monthly number of microbial water quality tests conducted by each institution. Our analysis identified motivation & leadership, knowledge, staff retention, and transport as institutional conditions that were necessary for achieving monitoring targets. In addition, equipment, procurement, infrastructure, and enforcement contributed to the pathways that resulted in strong monitoring performance.ConclusionsOur identification of institutional commitment, comprising motivation & leadership, knowledge, and staff retention, as a key driver of monitoring performance was not surprising: in weak regulatory environments, individuals and their motivations take-on greater importance in determining institutional and programmatic outcomes. Nevertheless, efforts to build data collection capacity in low-resource settings largely focus on supply-side interventions: the provision of infrastructure, equipment, and training sessions. Our results indicate that these interventions will continue to have limited long-term impacts and sustainability without complementary strategies for motivating or incentivizing water supply and surveillance agency managers to achieve testing goals. More broadly, our research demonstrates both an experimental approach for diagnosing the systems that underlie service provision and an analytical strategy for identifying appropriate interventions.

Monitoring river water and sediments within a changing Ethiopian catchment to support sustainable development

“…However, like Ethiopia, many of the sub-Saharan countries have not developed national water and sediment quality standards. With increasing uncontrolled waste discharges and anthropogenic inputs into sub-Saharan rivers, the problem of metal pollution is a major concern (Peletz et al 2018 ; Abdel-Satar et al 2017 ). The problem is critical as more river waters are intensively used for irrigation and storage and the dilution capacity of the rivers for pollutants is diminishing (Abdel-Satar et al 2017 ).…”

Capacity challenges in water quality monitoring: understanding the role of human development

“…This may, in particular, challenge poorly equipped environments in their water quality monitoring, so that the written regulations which simulate a functioning enabling environment are not effective in ensuring monitoring takes place (e.g. Peletz et al 2018).…”

“…staff retention, knowledge, motivation and leadership), funding of monitoring activities and the availability of technical equipment (e.g. Beck et al 2010;Behmel et al 2016;Delaire et al 2017;Ferrero et al 2019;Irvine et al 2016;Peletz et al 2018;Rahman et al 2011;Steynberg 2002;. Most of these water quality monitoring studies focus, however, on specific uses such as drinking water (e.g.…”

“…Ferrero et al 2019;Steynberg 2002) or specific regions such as Africa (e.g. Delaire et al 2017;Peletz et al 2018), Europe (Beck et al 2010;Poikane et al 2015), developing countries in general (Rahman et al 2011) or the tropics (Irvine et al 2016).…”

Improved Response to Water Shortage: A Discrete Choice Experiment Study in Langata Sub County, Nairobi City-Kenya

“…These water vendors are only in a rent seeking sort of festival, but remain unaccountable to the resulting negative implications on their customers [86] [87]. In order to transform the informal water market enterprise, the consumers ought to make a choice using mobile phone application run quality tracking system [88]. Since such a system has no shelf price; a non-market valuation method was used to market the bundle of choice options as earlier suggested by scholars such as [89] [90] [91] [92].…”