IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/devpol/v42y2024i2ne12741.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An analysis of gender inclusion in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) projects: Intention vs. reality

Author

Listed:
  • Hannah Jayne Robinson
  • Dani Barrington
  • Barbara Evans
  • Paul Hutchings
  • Lata Narayanaswamy

Abstract

Motivation Gender equality is inherently bound with Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) provision, access, and use. Gender shapes experiences of projects and services, from participation in design to ensuring access to appropriate facilities. Many observers call for active attention to gender throughout the project cycle, but there is little evidence of the extent to which this happens in practice. Purpose The article examines the extent to which evaluations of WASH implementation identify good gender‐inclusive practices. It explores the reasons for failings and suggests ways gender equality could be more actively considered and effected in WASH programming. Methods and approach Textual analysis was undertaken on World Bank and UNICEF project evaluation documents to identify how gendered elements were addressed. Practices were then categorized according to a Gender Sensitivity Framework, rating them on a sliding scale measure from “gender insensitive” to “transformative.” The perceived barriers to gendered programming were subsequently triangulated using a mixed methods survey of WASH practitioners which used self‐identified challenges to assess consensus moderation to triangulate perceived barriers to gendered programming. Findings Lack of clarity in conceptualizing gender results in poorly defined targets that are often insufficiently context specific. Consequently, project objectives are either reductionist, limiting progress on “gender” to easily quantifiable measures that fail to capture the varied lived realities of gendered experiences, or comprise vague qualitative statements that cannot be accurately assessed, leaving gender inclusion unaddressed. Policy implications Gender is a social construct that is shaped by culture. Context‐specific understanding would support more nuanced gender‐inclusion objectives that could be monitored while also correlating with people's lived realities. Regular evaluation of gender guidance would ensure organizations' understanding and conceptualization of gender reflects the fluidity of society. Policy and practice interventions that guarantee the active involvement of multiple stakeholders and diverse voices would ensure that implementation is effective and evaluation is more accurate.

Suggested Citation

  • Hannah Jayne Robinson & Dani Barrington & Barbara Evans & Paul Hutchings & Lata Narayanaswamy, 2024. "An analysis of gender inclusion in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) projects: Intention vs. reality," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 42(2), March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:42:y:2024:i:2:n:e12741
    DOI: 10.1111/dpr.12741
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12741
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/dpr.12741?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Amir Attaran, 2005. "An Immeasurable Crisis? A Criticism of the Millennium Development Goals and Why They Cannot Be Measured," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(10), pages 1-1, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joshua C. Hall, Serkan Karadas and Minh Tam T. Schlosky, 2018. "Is There Moral Hazard in the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative Debt Relief Process?," Journal of Economic Development, Chung-Ang Unviersity, Department of Economics, vol. 43(3), pages 1-24, September.
    2. Alastair Greig & Mark Turner, 2024. "Policy and hope: The millennium development goals," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 15(1), pages 66-77, February.
    3. Marco Filippo Torchio & Umberto Lucia & Giulia Grisolia, 2020. "Economic and Human Features for Energy and Environmental Indicators: A Tool to Assess Countries’ Progress towards Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-19, November.
    4. Milkana Mochurova & Stoyan Totev, 2022. "Inclusive Development – Nature, Aspects, Measurement," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 3, pages 3-16.
    5. Keith R. Skene, 2021. "No goal is an island: the implications of systems theory for the Sustainable Development Goals," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(7), pages 9993-10012, July.
    6. Ashwani Saith, 2006. "Forum 2006," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 37(6), pages 1167-1199, November.
    7. Friedman, Howard Steven, 2013. "Causal Inference and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): Assessing Whether There Was an Acceleration in MDG Development Indicators Following the MDG Declaration," MPRA Paper 48793, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Ricardo Andrade-Pacheco & David J Savory & Alemayehu Midekisa & Peter W Gething & Hugh J W Sturrock & Adam Bennett, 2019. "Household electricity access in Africa (2000–2013): Closing information gaps with model-based geostatistics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-14, May.
    9. Joana Costa & Diana Cancela & João Reis, 2021. "Neverland or Tomorrowland? Addressing (In)compatibility among the SDG Pillars in Europe," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-18, November.
    10. Cascade Tuholske & Andrea E. Gaughan & Alessandro Sorichetta & Alex de Sherbinin & Agathe Bucherie & Carolynne Hultquist & Forrest Stevens & Andrew Kruczkiewicz & Charles Huyck & Greg Yetman, 2021. "Implications for Tracking SDG Indicator Metrics with Gridded Population Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-21, June.
    11. Milkana Mochurova & Galia Bardarska & Tjasa Griessler Bulc, 2018. "Sustainable Water Resources Management (The Case of Natural Systems for Wastewater Treatment)," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 155-166.
    12. Hussam Hussein & Filippo Menga & Francesca Greco, 2018. "Monitoring Transboundary Water Cooperation in SDG 6.5.2: How a Critical Hydropolitics Approach Can Spot Inequitable Outcomes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-9, October.
    13. Sanjay G. Reddy & Ingrid Harvold Kvangraven, 2015. "Global Development Goals: If At All, Why, When and How?," Working Papers 1523, New School for Social Research, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:42:y:2024:i:2:n:e12741. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/odioruk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.