Your search found 7 records
1 Jimenez, A.; Molinero, J.; Perez-Foguet, A. 2009. Monitoring water poverty: a vision from development practitioners. In Llamas, M. R.; Martinez-Cortina, L.; Mukherji, Aditi. (Eds.). Water ethics: Marcelino Botin Water Forum 2007. Leiden, Netherlands: CRC Press. pp.151-170.
Drinking water ; Water supply ; Sanitation ; Water poverty ; Indicators ; Measurement ; Monitoring ; Poverty
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: 333.91 G000 LLA Record No: H042078)
2 Jimenez, A; Livsey, J.; Ahlen, I.; Scharp, C.; Takane, M. 2018. Global assessment of accountability in water and sanitation services using GLAAS [Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-Water] data. Water Alternatives, 11(2):238-259.
Water supply ; Sanitation ; Drinking water ; Accountability ; Assessment ; Enforcement ; Regulations ; Human rights ; Policies ; Donors ; State intervention ; Urban areas ; Rural areas ; Surveys
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H048799)
http://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol11/v11issue2/435-a11-2-2/file
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H048799.pdf
(0.91 MB) (936 KB)
The Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-Water (GLAAS) is one of UN-Water’s regular reports. Its focuses include aspects of investment and the enabling environment for the delivery of water, sanitation and hygiene services. Accountability refers to the mechanisms through which duty bearers, elected officials and service providers report to rights holders and other stakeholders within the service delivery framework. Accountability contributes to good sector performance and the overall sustainability of services. The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of accountability in the drinking-water and sanitation sector globally, based on the available data from the GLAAS survey of 2014. To achieve this, accountability was defined from a human rights perspective, and particularised for water and sanitation. Next the quantitative and open-ended questions from the GLAAS survey that related to this definition were analysed for all 94 responding countries. Comparisons were drawn between water and sanitation services in urban and rural settings, and regional trends were identified. The results show higher levels of accountability for water than sanitation services, and limited information on wastewater. Potential means to strengthen accountability in water and sanitation globally are seen to include improving access to information on the services provided, enacting participation policies and increasing the capacity of regulatory institutions. Particular attention should be paid to rural services. The GLAAS survey could be modified for a better understanding of the accountability mechanisms for WASH service provision.
3 Kjellen, M.; White, M.; Matthews, J.; Mauroner, A.; Timboe, I.; Burchi, S.; Dhot, N.; van Waeyenberge, T.; El Fenni, Y. R.; Lohani, A.; Newton, J.; Imamura, Y.; Miyamoto, M.; Moors, E.; de Oliveira, V. G.; Schmeier, S.; Crespo, C. C.; Gutierrez, M. T.; Welling, R.; Suhardiman, Diana; Hada, R.; Saji, M.; Jimenez, A.; Lymer, B. L.; Saikia, P.; Mathews, R.; Bernardini, F.; Koeppel, S.; Aureli, A.; Resende, T. C.; Avellan, T.; Hahn, A.; Kirschke, S. J.; Perera, D.; Loeffen, A.; Turner, R.; Pories, L.; Aldaco-Manner, L.; Daher, B.; Willemart, S.; Schillinger, J. 2020. Water governance for resilience to climate change. In UNESCO World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP); UN-Water. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2020: water and climate change. Paris, France: UNESCO. pp.150-159.
Water governance ; Climate change adaptation ; Climate change mitigation ; Resilience ; Integrated management ; Water resources ; Water management ; Water policy ; Disaster risk reduction ; Political aspects ; Institutions ; Legal aspects ; Public participation ; Decision making ; Monitoring ; Uncertainty ; Poverty
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H049605)
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/in/documentViewer.xhtml?v=2.1.196&id=p::usmarcdef_0000372985&file=/in/rest/annotationSVC/DownloadWatermarkedAttachment/attach_import_c5b09e0b-0c7e-42ef-aeb1-b1bae7544e4c%3F_%3D372985eng.pdf&locale=en&multi=true&ark=/ark:/48223/pf0000372985/PDF/372985eng.pdf#page=163
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H049605.pdf
(1.77 MB) (37.7 MB)
This chapter outlines legal, institutional and political means to support climate change adaptation and mitigation, to enhance resilience, and to reduce vulnerability through more inclusive water management, especially at the country level.
4 Bruce, A.; Brown, C.; Avello, P.; Beane, G.; Bristow, J.; Ellis, L.; Fisher, S.; Freeman, S. St. G.; Jimenez, A.; Leten, J.; Matthews, N.; Romano, O.; Ruiz-Apilanez, I.; Saikia, P.; Shouler, M.; Simkins, P. 2020. Human dimensions of urban water resilience: perspectives from Cape Town, Kingston upon Hull, Mexico city and Miami. Water Security, 9:100060. [doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasec.2020.100060]
Weather hazards ; Resilience ; Water governance ; Urban areas ; Climate change ; Disaster recovery ; Decision making ; Institutions ; Stakeholders ; Social aspects / USA / South Africa / England / Mexico / Cape Town / Kingston upon Hull / Mexico City / Miami
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H049573)
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H049573.pdf
(0.96 MB)
Resilience is a topic of extensive academic discourse as its relevance is elevated in response to climate change. There is limited research into the concept of resilience from the perspective of those in fields of practice. To address this gap, we conducted fieldwork in four cities to ask for perspectives on what enables cities to cope with water related shocks and stresses. Based on analysis of interview responses and focus group discussions, we propose key characteristics of human, societal and institutional capacity necessary for urban water resilience. We discuss findings in the context of evidence gathered in the field and prevalent work in current water resilience literature. It is our hope that this work may provide insights into the critically important human dimensions necessary for a shift towards resilience as a prevailing paradigm for urban water management.
5 Schiedek, L.; Gabrielsson, S.; Jimenez, A.; Gine, R.; Roaf, V.; Swain, A. 2021. Assessing national WaSH [Water, Sanitation and Hygiene] targets through a water governance lens: a case study of the sanitation and water for all partnership commitments. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, 9p. (Online first) [doi: https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2021.049]
Water governance ; Sanitation ; Hygiene ; Multi-stakeholder processes ; Partnerships ; Participation ; Private sector ; Sustainable Development Goals ; Policies ; Strategies ; Case studies
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H050466)
https://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/doi/10.2166/washdev.2021.049/905093/washdev2021049.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H050466.pdf
(0.55 MB) (560 KB)
Dysfunctional water, sanitation and hygiene (WaSH) systems are mainly determined by poor water governance, exacerbating inequalities and poverty. Multi-stakeholder partnerships provide an approach to more flexible and adaptive governance to explore these problems. In this article, national commitments made to improve WaSH, made through the Sanitation and Water for All (SWA) partnership's Mutual Accountability Mechanism, are examined through qualitative content analysis and guided by the SMART framework to assess the current target-setting. The analysis reveals that there are differences in the participation of the different constituencies regarding the number of stakeholders participating and their performance for measurable and time-bound commitments. This applies especially to research and learning and the private sector. Countries have prioritized commitments related to policy and strategy, efficiency and enabling conditions; further research should understand the linkages of the SWA commitments with other priority-setting processes at the national level. In sum, the commitments leave room for improvement to specify approaches to water governance in more detail and the chance to support the creation of sustainable and resilient systems with more diversified commitments from a wider range of partners.
6 Hoefsloot, F. I.; Jimenez, A.; Martinez, J.; Sara, L. M.; Pfeffer, K. 2022. Eliciting design principles using a data justice framework for participatory urban water governance observatories. Information Technology for Development, 28(3):617-638. [doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2022.2091505]
Water governance ; Observation ; Participatory approaches ; Frameworks ; Infrastructure ; Decision making ; Data management ; Urban areas ; Policies ; Communities ; Case studies / Peru / Lima-Callao
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H051365)
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02681102.2022.2091505?needAccess=true
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H051365.pdf
(2.95 MB)
Participatory urban observatories can potentially improve transparency in infrastructure governance, offer opportunities for residents’ engagement, and amplify the voice of marginalized people in urban governance. While often optimistically presented as a tool to address empowerment issues in the Global South, participatory urban observatories are critiqued for reproducing urban inequalities in the digital infrastructure. In this paper, we review the design and implementation of participatory urban observatories and dashboards in public (water) infrastructure governance and their potential to contribute to data justice. This paper responds to calls for data justice by examining how participatory urban observatories are (or are not) conducive to inclusive data practices. Additionally, we contribute to bridging the divide between data justice in theory and practice by eliciting design principles. The principles highlight the importance of creating smart city interventions collaboratively to avoid reproducing unjust systems and to imagine new ways of enacting a more just city.
7 Saikia, P.; Jimenez, A.. 2023. Governance attributes for building water resilience: a literature review. Water International, 48(7):809-838. [doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2023.2274162]
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H052421)
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/02508060.2023.2274162?needAccess=true
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H052421.pdf
(1.52 MB) (1.52 MB)
Resilience has gained prominence in many fields of research and practice globally. In the water sector, efforts to build resilience have become a central feature of water governance. However, current scholarships frame resilience interventions in socio-ecological systems through adaptive governance. There is limited knowledge about what the adaptive governance agenda means as a technical approach to water governance in achieving resilience. This paper clarifies these linkages through a review of the literature. It identifies key attributes of adaptive governance for building resilience of socio-ecological systems and suggests the benefits of better articulating ‘good governance’ with ‘adaptive governance’ to foster water resilience.
Powered by DB/Text WebPublisher, from Inmagic WebPublisher PRO