 Welcome to this second part of the masterclass thinking about complex urbanizing systems, which is part of the urbanizing deltas of the world online masterclass series, the state of the art of water research in south and southeast Asia. In this masterclass series, we have invited PhDs and postdocs from the NWO urbanizing deltas of the world research program to present their work with you. We had an unfortunate second masterclass series due to technicalities, Badrul Hassan could not present his work with you and therefore we have created this second part. Let me then also introduce you to Mr. Badrul Hassan. Badrul is a PhD searcher in the NWO urbanizing deltas of the world project, Delta MAR, and the full title is Delta MAR governance and hydrogeological prerequisites for sustainable water supply through MAR systems in urbanizing deltas, and they write that in Bangladesh. Currently he is finishing his PhD at the Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development at Utrecht University and he is soon to defend his PhD thesis. And his PhD research topic is the governance of rural drinking water systems in developing countries, focusing on coastal Bangladesh and that is also what his presentation will be about. At this moment he is also assistant professor at the Department of Political Science in the University of Dhaka in Bangladesh and there he teaches about groundwater governance, common resource management and institutional analysis. Welcome Badrul, good to have you here. Let me then also immediately give the floor to you. So, to present your work and after your work here, I and Leon Hermans, who is also with us here, will ask some questions to see if we can get some further. So, please take over and the floor is yours. Thank you very much for your nice interaction. And thanks, the organizing committee of the masterclass. Good afternoon to all of the participants from around the world, and welcome you all to the masterclass which is about community management plus model for the governance of share drinking water systems in coastal Bangladesh. The masterclass is derived from the project titled Delta Ma'ar, which is implemented in coastal Bangladesh from 2016 to 2020. It was in initiative of University of Dhaka University of Utrecht and to Delft, Agassi Water and UNICEF. This was funded by Dutch Science Foundations and UNICEF. Let's have a look at Bangladesh because it has been implemented in Bangladesh. So, Bangladesh, you know, it's a middle income country located in South Asia. It is one of the largest deltas of the world, with 180 million people, whereas freshwater scarcity is a major issue. It has been found that 25% of total population at the national level, like access to fresh drinking water. And it is more, particularly 35% in coastal areas, whereas the project has been implemented. And as a challenge of this drinking water scarcity are rapid population growth, socio-economic development, climate change impact, etc. Before starting discussing our main topic, let's have a brief look at the outline of today's masterclass. I will be starting off a masterclass with the background of the study, then of course I will be sharing with you the problem statement of my study. And I will be sharing with you the research objectives and questions. And then of course theoretical framework, which I have been followed in my study and methodology covering the research research areas, techniques and tools of data collections. And finally, I will be sharing with you the findings of my study, and which I will be ending with some sorts of suggestions and recommendations for the practitioners and the policymakers in developing countries. Background, as you know that more than 2 billion people of the world don't have access to fresh drinking water. And most of them are living in developing countries in Bangladesh, nearly on 4th of the total population still don't have access to safe drinking water. And it has been found in the study that this freshwater scarcity lies basically in the governance crisis, because it has been found that around 30 to 40% of the community drinking water systems around the developing country, particularly in Asia and Africa gets dysfunctional mainly due to the governance crisis. I have taken some of the pictures from the field, whereas I have conducted my study in the coastal areas Bangladesh, you can have a look at the pictures of the dysfunctional community drinking water system. And it, we have, I have learned that these community drinking water system get dysfunctional, even after, even since after six or six months or one year later after their installation. So, so different governance models have been experimented to ensure the long term functionality of community drinking water systems in developing country, especially until the 1980s. Pure private or public governance management have been followed in order to ensure the sustainability of drinking water systems in developing country. And later when the either state based or market based approach leads to the sub optimal performance of share drinking water systems in developing country, then since 1980s, particularly following the national, international water and sanitation decade 1980s to 90s, the community based drinking water systems approach have been followed in developing country in order to lead to the sustainability of share drinking water systems. And it has been continued smoothly, actually until the end of 20th century. But since the early 20, 20th century, when the community based approach leads to the sub optimal performance of share drinking water systems in developing countries, then the another alternative particularly hybrid approach in the form of co production community management and community management plus approach have been followed to in this regard. So problem statement. So you can have a look at the model of community management approach of drinking water systems. You can see if there is an institutions, then it leads to the collection among the end users of drinking water systems. And in the presence of institutions the end users, the provide the inputs required to operate and maintain the drinking water systems and then end users just appropriate the waters from this community based drinking water systems optimally. So, in order to just ensure the community management plus approach in place. So institution is a must. But problem is there that community management plus approach, there is a requirement of collective actions among the community. And to ensure the collective actions of among the drinking water system users, there is a requirement of institutions in place. But when there is no institution then it leads to the some sorts of dilemmas. For example, provision dilemmas and appropriation dilemmas. Provision dilemmas means the in the absence of institution and institutional arrangement, the people always tend to under provide the inputs required for management and production of drinking water systems and appropriation dilemmas means that in the lake of institutional arrangement people always tend to over appropriate the waters from the drinking water systems that ultimately leads to the that sub optimal performance of drinking water systems in the communities. Therefore, the institution is a must. So it has been found that it has been found in the literature and also empirical arena that people frequently face the difficulties to devise the institutions to be required for collective actions among themselves. So they need the support from the external agency in order to ensure the institution arrangement in their place that ultimately leads to the collective action and the resource users. So this types of arrangement have been considered by many scholars in the drinking water systems arena are either the co production by Eleanor One of the co management and very recently the co management management community management plus approach specially by Alan Bowman in 2006. The co management plus approach means the joint responsibility between the community people and also the external support agency in order to ensure the smooth operation. So, in the recent times, this community management plus approach has been promoted as a better alternative in the delivery of drinking water service. However, there is hardly any study to identify the prerequisites that ultimately leads to the success of community management in the arena of community drinking water systems. Therefore, I have conducted the study in order to identify the prerequisites that are likely to ensure the success of share drinking water systems. So I have said the research objective, general objective of my study was to identify the prerequisites that are likely to lead to the success of community management plus model in the governance of share drinking water systems in the first one of this. So I have also split the general objectives into the four specific objectives, which are that to identify the drinking water system attributes that are likely to ensure the community preference for new improved drinking water system, and secondly, to explore the socio psychological factors that affect the people's adoption and continued use of water from a new and improved drinking water system. And finally, to identify the conditions that are likely to ensure the organization and promotion of collective action among the drinking water systems users. And finally, to identify the conditions that are likely to ensure the effective collaboration between the drinking water system users and the external support entities. So to achieve those objectives, I've said the research question, the main research question of my study is, what are the prerequisites that are likely to lead to the success of community management plus approach for the governance of community drinking water system in the first place? Some research questions, where what are the drinking water system attributes that households consider when determining their overall preference for a drinking water system, and to what extent do the values assigned to these attributes vary across the different types of households? Then how do socio economic socio psychological factors affect the people's willingness to adopt and continued use of new and improved drinking water system? What are the conditions that explain variation in collective action among the drinking water system and users? And finally, what are the conditions that explain variation in collaboration between the drinking water system users and the government agency or local end use? This is the critical framework. Drawing insights from different literature, for example, the common political resource, public administration, economics, sociology, political science, I have developed a critical framework, which are basically based on four pillar. Firstly, household preference, success of community management plus approach, and then consideration of local context, third pillar of collective action among the users of drinking water system, and finally collaboration with the collaboration between the drinking water system users and the external support entities. So these are the four pillars which are likely to lead to the success of community management plus approach. Naturally, of course I have followed the mixed approach in Mestari, both quantitative and qualitative approach. And I have actually selected the two cases to particularly to community drinking water system. Bangladesh. Firstly, ponson filter. You can have a look at the picture. This is the ponson filter system from which the women are collecting water with pot. And ponson filter system is basically a community based drinking water systems supplying the fresh water to the community people in the coastal Bangladesh. And in that PSS systems, water is first collected from the pond, and then this water is pumped into a raised filter chamber through which later water then trickled down. And finally, the people collected the fresh water from that filter chamber using the tap. So this is another community based drinking water system that is in place in coastal Bangladesh, which is managed aquifer recharge, MAR, MIR. So MAR is almost a similar technology to the PSS. So here you can see the water firstly collected either from pond or the rainwater from the roof top. And then this water is pumped into the raised filter chamber. And then from this, that chamber, water actually goes down to the underneath of the surface through few wells, five or six wells. Then people actually collect the fresh water using the hand pump to well drinking water systems in Bangladesh. So according to the national policies and guidelines, the public agency, particularly Department of Public Health Engineering, install the PSS in collaboration of the local government institute, particularly Upozala Portion and Union Portion. Upozala Portion actually coordinate the whole process of implementation of community drinking water system in coastal Bangladesh. And the Union Portion support the DPHE, I mean, Department of Public Health Engineering, and also the Upozala Portion in selecting the sites based on the necessity of drinking water systems in the localities. So after the installation of community based drinking water systems in coastal Bangladesh, then the responsibility of operational maintenance goes to the community people who are supposed to drinking water system by themselves. And according to the DPHE and Union Portion also provides some sorts of extra supports to the community people when there is a requirement of major repairing of those drinking water systems. So in such areas, you can have a look at the picture of map of Bangladesh and from you can have a look at the, at the areas which is indicated by three colors. So this is the area where I conducted my study and you can have a look at the part of the maps, whereas I have conducted my study. And finally, I have selected the three districts from the coastal area, namely Koluna, Shatkira and Bhagat. Because these areas are characterized by the scarcity of drinking waters, and also the variation in the performance of those community drinking water systems, and also the low socioeconomic systems in those areas. In one study it has been found that 87% of homes and filters become dysfunctional or non functional due to the maintenance issues cost and lack of user friendliness data collection methods. So as you know that I have said the four sub research question and for to collect the data for each of those study, I have followed the different tools and techniques. For example, for the sub research question one, and two, I have collected the data using two households survey, and also the secondary, using the secondary literature of course, and for sub research question three and four, I have collected the data for using the group discussions and the key information interview with the stakeholders, for example, the public agency and union position. Here's the findings of the study. And in my study I have conducted the four fieldwork for each of the four chapters for sub research question. So for the, the first sub research question indicates the community preference, which of course you know that it's a part of a theoretical framework I shared with you that the success of community management plus approach depends on four pillars first one, the community preference. In my study, analyzing the data through the conditional logic regression model, I found that community preference depends on the disaster resilience, health risk, reliability, test of drinking water systems which are of course the attributes of shared drinking and then the socioeconomic condition, for example, household size, location of the households where they are living, and also of course the households income also influence the variation in, in case of the community preference for new and improved drinking water system. And local context, local context, of course the matter, the preference and perceptions of community for the new drinking water systems. So local context I found in my study. So perceived risk, cost, taste, self efficacy and form and number of alternative drinking water options available in the respective communities that are also influenced the community preference and also adoption of the community. So the new drinking water systems. Then collective actions, collective action I found in my study, collective action depends on the large group size, which of course the new actually findings which is exclusive findings because you know, in the existing literature, the researchers suggest that the small group size actually influence the organization and promotion of collective action. But in my study, I found that the large group size actually influence the organization of collective actions. And then of course interdependency among the community people, which also likely to ensure the collective actions among the community people. And then dependency on the resource systems. I found that in the communities where the people are more truly more dependent on the drinking water system, they're more likely to engage into collective actions for the maintenance and operation of those drinking water systems. And locally devised rules. Of course, this is actually important conditions that I found in my study. These actually increase the likelihood of collective action among the community people. And whereas the people are people themselves devise the institution I mean rules and policies for operating and managing the system, they're more likely to engage into collective action, the community. And then collaboration with public agency is also another important condition. Whereas I found that the, there is effective collaboration between the community people and the external agency particularly the DPHE public agency. There is a more likeness to engage into collective action. And finally, the collaboration between the community people and the external agency depends on the trust between the external support agency and the community people. In the community where there is a more trust between two parts between two partners, the community people are more likely to engage into collaboration with the external support agency. And transparency, of course, it appears as a major conditions in collaboration between the two partners, I mean public agency and the community people, where there is an open transparent policy making rules making and what's going on people if people are well informed regarding the information and data what's going on about the installation and implementation of drinking water system. So whereas I found that people are more likely to engage into collaboration with the external support agency. And finally, inclusive decision making. It also appears another important condition, which actually influence the effective collaboration between the public agency and the community people, because people when people are engaged are called upon to participate in the decision making process about the planning and the implementation process of share drinking water system in the community. So, the people are more likely to engage into collaboration between the external support agency, particularly public agency. So, based on those findings of my four chapters in my study, I have come up with the model of the prerequisites of the success of community management plus approach, which is basically depends the community management plus approach success basically depends on community preference I mean people preference and perception that that should be considered as the point of departure for planning and implementation of a new drinking water systems in the communities. And because where there is a people preference, actually, if there is an element with the local people's preference, it actually helps to increase the commitment of the people to the governance and effectiveness of the sub to the governance of the drinking water systems in the community. And of course, I found that people's preference vary from the local context, so she could make context psychological context. So that's why I found another pillar that there are no penacea that only that I cannot consider only one model as a blueprint, there is no penacea. So it varies from context to context. That's why so local context should be considered in order to understand that what are the local people's difference, what their needs, and that are basically varied based on their socioeconomic psychological conditions. So that's why I come up with in my model that local context should be taken into account while planning and implementation of a new drinking water systems. And then, of course, there should be the collective there should be collective action among the community people, but the empirical evidence suggests that people give due to the decreasing of volunteerism and also the heterogeneity among the people in terms of political ideology, and also the plans, socioeconomic status, so people are less likely to engage into collective action these days, unless until there is a some kinds of external intervention external support in place in the community level. So whether it should it can be in the form of monitoring in the form of financial support in the form of motivation, encouragement, so in the community so the external support should be in place in order to facilitate the collective action among the community people in order to, in order to ensure the smooth functioning of share drinking water systems. So I come up with the conclusion that if there is there are four pillars goes together, then it is more likely to ensure the success of permanent management plus approach. Finally, I would like to come up with some sorts of suggestion and recommendation for the policymakers donors and the practitioners, those are basically involved into the planning and implementation process of share drinking water system in the community in the crystal Bangladesh, and this actually the findings can be, can be repeated can be, can be utilized in other areas of developing country with the, with more or less similar socioeconomic context of Bangladesh. I found I should, I would like to suggest those policymakers and practitioners to follow that the people's preference and perception should be first accessed before the planning and implementation of the drinking water system, because just I found in our in different areas, I have worked in different areas of that particular region, and I also found that the people's perception and difference varies from community to community. So it depends on the socioeconomic context, it depends on the psychological context. For example, just from our glance, we know well that the pond water is not actually good as much as we are just thinking it's actually, but I found from the older generation older people that they are more likely to have the pond water rather than the to well or supply water. So that's actually depends on the perception. So that's why I have come up with the suggestion that the before installation of a new drinking water system, of course, the community people's preference and the needs their perception should be accessed first. And then, as this preference varies from socioeconomic, geological and also psychological psychological context. So of course, this socioeconomic context should be taken into account while planning and implementation of drinking water system. And then, to ensure the smooth collective action among the community people for the operation and maintenance of those drinking water system. So external support should be in place in order to facilitate the community people for the collective action. And then effective collaboration. Today, in the existing policy, there is a just stipulation that in case of major repairing the external agency I mean public agency should be should actually provide the match support in case of major repairing, but there is no actually no structure of collaboration between the community people and also the public agency. Therefore, I have come up with a suggestion that there should be a formal structure, which actually indicates that how and what condition should be in place in order to ensure the smooth and effective collaboration between the public agency and the community people. And finally, that's the very important recommendation then I'd like to come up with the formal there should be a formal structure of keeping record about the scarcity of drinking water and also the availability of number and type of drinking water system in the communities. So if there is the formal structure of keeping record in place in the community, it actually helps to it, it will my, it will help to actually ensure the smooth punch functioning of drinking water system. It could also help to that remove the chance of non functionality of share drinking water system in the community, because in my study I have found that the donors, as well as the intervening agency just provide the share drinking water systems in the community without assessing the needs and also the availability of drinking water system in the particular page. If there is a fund, so they are actually very eager to use the fund, installing the new drinking water system, whether the people needs or no don't needs the drinking water systems. So that's my actually measure recommendation that I have come up in my study that there should be a formal structure of keeping records and in the about the scarcity of drinking water system and also the availability of number and types of drinking water system. And in that case, the local government Institute can play the role in this regard. So that's the end of my today's master class. Thank you. Thank you for your kind intention. Now feedback or question. Thank you, but for your interesting presentation. I do have myself also written down some questions that I have for you, which I would like to discuss with you but I'm first going to give the floor to Leo, who's here with us. Thank you for giving me the chance to first ask my questions and maybe I leave some for you. And thank you very much for sharing with us your research into this community management plus and and how that works for the for the local drinking systems in the urbanizing deltas of areas of coastal Bangladesh that is it was very interesting to hear this. I have one question that that was a bit. I'm a bit intrigued by your findings on the on the collective action where you mentioned that normally we expect that maybe smaller groups seem to have a more positive influence on collective action but you mentioned I think if I if I got it correctly that actually your findings had a larger group size may have a more positive effect on collective action. But you also mentioned later on that actually there is these groups are not necessarily homogeneous there might be actually quite some differences between the community water users. So I am I am quite intrigued by this finding maybe you you have an idea why still larger group sizes may be more positively linked to collective action in your in the communities that you have been been looking at. Thank you. Thank you, Leon, for your good question. Yeah, it's interesting questions. Yeah. In my study I have found that large larger group actually entrains the organization of collective action, because it might be the fact it might be the due to the fact that community based drinking out of systems requires the different source of inputs like money, time and the communication with the external support agency as there is, if there is a requirement if there is a requirement to arise for major repairing. So in that case, in the area in the communities that I have conducted my study, so they are much lag behind in terms of socioeconomic status you know. So some people might be able to provide the labor, but they might not be able to provide the money, and also time and also the external communication. So that's why if I found that if there is a larger group, so different types of people like duqueted uneducated so so this actually my ensue the smooth functioning of the drinking out of system and also the organization of collective action among the community people. So that I, I guess, but it requires the further study that why actually larger group that influence the collective action in the study area. Interesting and I think your explanation also makes makes perfect sense to me but it is indeed a bit counterintuitive but but it means that actually this these differences between the groups, they actually also enable them to sort of exploit the differences because they can have different contributions that maybe in smaller groups are more difficult to mobilize because they may be more uniform in what they can do and what they cannot do so that that is. Yeah, that makes sense and but it's it's interesting to indeed also then then realize that sometimes maybe heterogeneity can also be a source of collective action so that's really interesting things. And I can I ask something else is that it's okay. Yeah, yeah, of course, and I was also thinking in relation to this question because there might also be maybe some sort of an optimum here so that there's smaller and bigger is maybe a little bit better but too big is also losing then the cohesion within the within the community for collective action but yes I was also intrigued by this. Please continue. Yeah, so that's nice. The other the other thing I was also wondering about you didn't really talk a lot about it but you, you mentioned obviously the important role of the, let's say the external support structures and the, and the actors or the stakeholders that are active there. And you mentioned, for instance, the public department of public health engineering, the local village councils I think the Union Parishat and the Upazilla Parishat. And I think there is also often a role for for some NGOs sometimes to be played in supporting them. So, how these entities among themselves interact with each other to to offer also sort of a streamlined support and and and does it matter how they interact with each other. Did you look into that. Very good question Leon, very good question. Yeah, it's, there is actually rules guidelines in place that stipulates the engagement of external support external agency. It might be the public agency, DPHE I mean particularly, and the Union Parishat I mean local government institute, Union Parishat and Upazilla Parishat, and also the local NGOs. And also the national policy, national policy, there is, there are the stipulation of engagement of those entities into the installation and also implementation of drinking water system. But unfortunately, there is a lack of formal structure of the coordination among themselves. In fact, I would like to suggest in my study. So there should be a coordination structure, and also the clear guidelines rules, indicating the rules and responsibilities of all the stakeholders I mean actors in the drinking water systems provision and supply. So I another suggestion in my study. So, there is a lacking currently in our country context. Yeah, okay thank you and then I'm also interested to hear yaps view on your presentation and the questions that that you triggered with with him so I'll stop here but thank you. And thank you for the question answer gift. I actually had written down similar questions and now but I also have another one. And that relates. So what is your supply planning that you first need to assess the preferences of the community members. And yet then next you tell, like that you told that the elderly preferred for example pond, what's a phone pond. And to me that is basically that they preferred the system that they are already using or are very much aware of, which from an outsider's perspective might not the best kind of water supply system either for their health or for environmental sustainability or. My question is basically, though if the preferences of the different people in these communities are actually based on the systems that they know. How could we then contribute to increase their knowledge on the difference with the supply options. So to to create their to enlarge their knowledge base, basically to to further enhance their. Yeah, their choices and preferences. Yeah. Thank you very much for your nice question. Yeah, I shared in my lecture that the people's perception just varies from man to man, which are basically dependent on the perception, perception and also local context norms values. So you have been correctly, correctly pointed out that some people those were older generation, they have been used to have the pond water, and they have been using those water from time from generation to generation that's why they are not willing to come out of this that cycle. So the new generation those who are conscious those are aware about the health hygiene. So they're more likely to use the fresh I mean supply or the another hygienic drinking water systems. So that's why I, I come up with the recommendation that, of course, that the donor or the policymaker should actually the asses the people's preference, and also the perception that varies from local context, I mean sushi economic, geological and psychological context. That's why, of course, there is a little bit concerned about the lack of consciousness among the community people as they are sushi economically backward. So that's why I come up with the suggestion that the policymaker should also invest some time, some energy and also money to make them aware about the hygiene and their health condition. Yes, thank you and and is this maybe also not sometimes dense because you also mentioned a lot of these systems are developed with external support. So is this same kind of preference thinking or bias also not seen among the NGOs, then that are introducing this so so how to deal with that as a local authority maybe responsible also for public health and what to supply. So, if I understand properly your question then I like to that local NGOs are basically engage into engage to provide the provide the some sorts of supports in terms of awareness building capacity building. So, in my study, I found that NGOs are found effective to actually provide those kinds of external supports to the community level, and local authority, I mean, but, but there is some source of licking of formal structure whereas there is a clearly mentioned that what NGO and how NGOs could play their part in making the community people aware about the new and into drinking order systems. So that's a lacking in our national policy. And there is a just worth saying that and you should support the public agency I mean DPHE but there is a licking of structure or rules that how and what types of NGO can actually give that kinds of support to the public agency. So that is also another requirement to consider by the policymaker while planning and implementation of drinking order systems. And then I think a final question. What is your, what is it maybe in one sentence what is your main message that you want to share with the community around drinking what supply in rural communities for delivering a sustainable flow of water supply for these communities. Based on my study and my field experience, I should convey the message that the policymaker and practitioners donors while planning and implementation of community drinking water system, they should of course, consider the local preference and also local context, apart from thinking of collective action among the community people, because currently there is a policy, you know, there is a actually requirement in our policy that after installation of the drinking water system by the public agency, then the operation and maintenance should be performed by the community people, but they are not, they are not actually thinking that whether and how much they are capable to operate and maintain by themselves. So that's why the external support should be in place in order to make the drinking water system more durable and functional. Thank you for that final message. I'm going to thank you for your very interesting presentation. I've enjoyed it very much. And with these words, I'm also going to thank Leil for his contribution and participation in this discussion. So thank you both. And I am then also telling to the people who have watched this video to join us. Next time again in our other masterclass series or rewatch some of the previous recorded masterclasses in this series. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, both of you, Ian, and Leon. Thank you. Thank you.