Addressing piped water problems in urban settlements through Participatory Planning
Written by Dr Regina Souter
In August 2024, the urban WASH research team came together in Suva, Fiji, to undertake action research on piped water supply in urban informal settlements. Until recently, there has been an assumption that residents or urban settlements that access their drinking water from a piped water supply from the utility, were accessing a safely managed water service (using the definitions of the SDG6.1 indicator). However our urban WASH research project revealed that although most residents are indeed accessing piped utility water, these aren’t necessarily providing safe and reliable water to the households using them. Local hazards – some related to climate change – are causing damage to the pipes that convey water from connection meters on the settlement boundary, to the tap.
Drs. Regina Souter (International WaterCentre, Griffith University) and Ed Morgan (Griffith University) joined forces in Suva, Fiji, with our research partner USP-Fiji, led by Camari Koto and supported by Grace Ratidara and Viliame Salusalu. Although the water utility regularly engages with its customers, those that live in urban settlements have different engagement needs to typical urban water customers. We used action research to explore the suitability of various Participatory Planning approaches to support engagement that is more two-way, to jointly solve local piped water supply problems.
An initial, day-long workshop was held off-site, at USP, and was an important step in bringing together the participants. These included residents from the target settlement (Muslim League), and a range of actors with varying levels of responsibility for WASH: Water Authority of Fiji, Department of Water and Sewerage, Ministry of Health and Medical Services, Dept of Department of Town & Country Planning and Suva City Council. This workshop explore different Participatory Planning approaches, such as Scenario Planning, which we tested out on fictional settlements hat were representative of settlements in Suva. One task common to most of the approaches we discussed, was taking the time to explore how existing or possible alternative water service delivery models impact people’s lives. A number of government/utility participants commented that this was something not considered or discussed very much, because they assume the services they are providing have only positive impacts. This workshop day, focused on life-like, but not the actual, problems proved important for developing a rapport between participants, and giving residents a more equal voice in discussing the impacts and possible solutions to water problems.
To test our participatory planning in a real situation, a second workshop was hosted by the Muslim League settlement, with the same participants. Residents led stakeholders on a ‘community transect (inspired by Participatory Rural Appraisal methods) to build a collective understanding of the nature of the water supply problems and the main causes. Following the transect discussion of the problems, small groups identified a long list of solutions that residents could consider implementing, some with support from local actors such as the utility, but all with community-led actions. Time was given to discuss the details of such solutions, including the strengths and weaknesses, to ensure the community were well-informed about the options. The meeting closed with community leaders describing deep appreciation for the opportunity to raise awareness of the problems and explore in more detail the causes and possible solutions with a diverse mix of technical and local/onsite knowledge.
As an action research activity, we want to understand the strengths and weaknesses of adoption of such Participatory Planning approaches, and are looking forward to supporting and assessing progress on what is a critical issue – access to safe, reliable and resilient water supplies for these overlooked urban populations.