Climate adaptation for rural water and sanitation systems in the Solomon Islands: A community scale systems model for decision support

Delivering water and sanitation services are challenging in data poor rural settings in developing countries. In this paper we develop a Bayesian Belief Network model that supports decision making to increase the availability of safe drinking water in five flood-prone rural communities in the Solomon Islands. We collected quantitative household survey data and qualitative cultural and environmental knowledge through community focus group discussions. We combined these data to develop our model, which simulates the state of eight water sources and ten sanitation types and how they are affected by season and extreme events. We identify how climate and current practices can threaten the availability of drinking water for remote communities. Modelling of climate and intervention scenarios indicate that water security could be best enhanced through increased rainwater harvesting (assuming proper installation and maintenance). These findings highlight how a systems model can identify links between and improve understanding of water and sanitation, community behaviour, and the impacts of extreme events. The resultant BBN provides a tool for decision support to enhance opportunities for climate resilient water and sanitation service provision.

Rural:urban inequalities in post 2015 targets and indicators for drinking-water

Disparities in access to drinking water between rural and urban areas are pronounced. Although use of improved sources has increased more rapidly in rural areas, rising from 62% in 1990 to 81% in 2011, the proportion of the rural population using an improved water source remains substantially lower than in urban areas. Inequalities in coverage are compounded by disparities in other aspects of water service. Not all improved sources are safe and evidence from a systematic review demonstrates that water is more likely to contain detectable fecal indicator bacteria in rural areas. Piped water on premises is a service enjoyed primarily by those living in urban areas so differentiating amongst improved sources would exacerbate rural:urban disparities yet further. We argue that an urban bias may have resulted due to apparent stagnation in urban coverage and the inequity observed between urban and peri-urban areas. The apparent stagnation at around 95% coverage in urban areas stems in part from relative population growth - over the last two decades more people gained access to improved water in urban areas. There are calls for setting higher standards in urban areas which would exacerbate the already extreme rural disadvantage. Instead of setting different targets, health, economic, and human rights perspectives, We suggest that the focus should be kept on achieving universal access to safe water (primarily in rural areas) while monitoring progress towards higher service levels, including greater water safety (both in rural and urban areas and among different economic strata).