Safe drinking water from “source to sip” consists of a series of interactions between technologies, their delivery models, their scales and costs of production, and consumer uptake and consistent use. Safe drinking water is a system, not a product or an intervention.
It seems unlikely that household treatment and safe storage systems—with the possible exception of boiling—can be transformative at scale under current prices, delivery models, and preferences, but they are effective and protective in specific contexts.
Cost analyses for “low-cost” systems are usually reported on a partial basis, with installation costs and some operational costs included. The enabling costs of social marketing, mobilization, education, reminders, and community- or household-based unpaid labor are mentioned but not explicitly accounted for.
Delivery models and business models significantly affect costs and uptake, at all three scales of service. Yet they are rarely made explicit.
Safe water systems can be highly effective, but consumers undervalue drinking water quality and have low willingness and/or ability to pay for safety. This is a particular challenge for arsenic mitigation or avoidance, as arsenicosis is only evident after several years of exposure.
Without an in-depth of understanding of either deworming or WASH, it seems like the implementation issues for WASH may be more severe?
A few of the summary points in Safe Drinking Water for Low-Income Regions are interesting and may provide reason for a bit of pessimism:
Without an in-depth of understanding of either deworming or WASH, it seems like the implementation issues for WASH may be more severe?