Public participation in urban water supply projects – The case of South-West Guwahati, India

Water Research 165 (2019) 114989

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Water Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/watres

Public participation in urban water supply projects e The case of South-West Guwahati, India Rakhee Das, Boeing Laishram*, Mohammad Jawed Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, 781039, India

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 25 February 2019 Received in revised form 10 August 2019 Accepted 13 August 2019 Available online 13 August 2019

Piped water supply in Guwahati covers less than 30% of the city's population for which the Government of India proposes four new water supply projects, but astonishingly, they faced vehement public protest. The reason for the protest was attributed to lack of trust and need of public representation in the governing body. Besides, public participation is not a mandatory clause in water supply projects and, hence, was not carried out a priori to the project implementation. In an effort to address this, the present study aims to develop a framework incorporating public participation as a mandatory clause in water supply projects. In doing so, secondary data was collected from studies worldwide on public participation in water supply projects and analyzed to identify critical success factors (CSFs). South-West Guwahati water supply project was taken up as a study area, and a semi-structured questionnaire was designed to generate primary data on public participation. Thematic analysis was employed to identify the CSFs from primary data influencing public participation in the project. Finally, a framework was formulated following the identified CSFs from primary and secondary data and the review of various theories on public participation. The framework is developed to achieve effective public participation in six levels viz. inform, educate, consult, involve, collaborate, and capacity building. Each level satisfies a set of CSFs and ultimately all CSFs addresses to deemphasize the effects of disincentives in water supply projects. Further, the framework was validated by 16 experts and received an exceptionally copacetic rating for all six validation aspects. Copacetic expert ratings demonstrated appropriateness, objectivity, replicability, practicality, reliability, and suitability of framework for water supply projects. © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Water supply scheme Groundwater quality awareness Public participation framework Thematic analysis Critical success factor

1. Introduction The urban water infrastructure facilities and services are dwindling worldwide under rapid population growth, rural-urban migration and unplanned spatial expansion (Ahmed et al., 2008). The stringent environmental regulations, inadequacy of technical knowledge on project, differences of opinion, political interventions, perception of risk among stakeholders and social conflicts aroused on the grounds of dissimilarities in values, beliefs, and motivations are preventing convergence of water supply projects. Such scenarios (public and authority attitudes) cause irreversible project damage through stakeholder (secondary) protests, lawsuits, project relocation, indefinite postponement and even cancellation (Huang et al., 2015). The secondary stakeholders

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R. Das), [email protected] (B. Laishram), [email protected] (M. Jawed). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.114989 0043-1354/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

(individuals, community and its advocates without any formal/ official relation with the company, i.e. public) possess little power and are mostly underestimated or neglected in commonplace (Cleland and Ireland, 2007). However, recent changes in the governmental policies on delegation and decentralization in the service sector and increased non-governmental organizations have rightly pointed the need of public inclusion as an important stakeholder in regulating decision-making process (Jami and Walsh, 2014). Until the end of the 19th century, decision making through public participation process was more of a unilateral regulatory verdict. Coining the term public participation theory, Arnstein (1969) stated that public participation activities are at the rungs of informing, consultation and tokenism levels. The citizens at these levels may indeed hear and be heard, but under these conditions, they lack the power to ensure that the authorities will note their views. The top-level of citizen power is the most powerful in the ladder, ensuring consideration of public views. In response to the limitations of Arnstein's ladder for dispute

2

R. Das et al. / Water Research 165 (2019) 114989

resolution, Connor (1988) proposed dispute solving and flexible seven staged ladder having two stages of mediation and litigation. In later years, however, public involvement principles (based on the democratic, social mobilization and social exchange theories) achieved some success (Howell et al., 1987). The focus, thus, has been on building a close public-issue relationship for improved public participation and healthy (administrative) system-citizens acquaintanceship (King et al., 1998). Further research concentrated on the rationalization of public conflicts (Beierle, 1999) and exploring mitigation measures. Leeuwis (2000), in his study, believed that participatory approaches are rarely conflict-free, and often suffers from the inability to handle conflicts. It was suggested to be solved by informing/educating the public and incorporating public values and/or choices in decision-making to promote trust in the institutions (IAP2, 2014). All these efforts to engage public were for higher public acceptance of infrastructure projects and were monotonous, non-comparable and scattered. Hence, International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) developed spectrum focusing public engagement in decisions where the government retains final authority but may inform, consult, involve, collaborate in the decision-making process (IAP2, 2014). Apart from theories on public participation, studies from various parts of the world also believed and suggested a crucial role of public (secondary stakeholders) as a potential menace for disruption to an infrastructure project development (Olander and Landin, 2008; Di Maddaloni and Davis, 2017). Public opposition due to various factor/concerns and/ or considerations has been one of the leading reasons for the failure of infrastructure projects (Belout and Gauvreau, 2004). As a result of inefficient public participation, evidences of the failure of water supply projects with massive public opposition are copious (Davis, 2005). Although there are ample efforts to develop theories enhancing public participation for timely completion of infrastructure projects and avoid public opposition, but the studies on development of a framework to achieve the same are in a nascent stage and are particularly lacking in the water sector. In this study, unpleasant past experiences and their anecdotal evidences are studied to gather/identify principles/critical success factors (CSFs) for better and easy implementation of decisions. Attempts are made to come with a decision that reflects public interests, requirements, values and can include the apprehensible public suggestion. In the view of the need of water supply sector, the study aims to develop a framework built on theories of public involvement and guidance of professional water experts for integration, analysis and public deliberation in decision making. The framework also ensures long term sustainability of the project through the incorporation of public participation in operation and maintenance (O&M) phase of the project. In order to achieve this, a qualitative research approach has been adopted to study an upcoming water treatment plant (WTP) in Guwahati. The CSFs from secondary and primary data were identified, and the framework was developed considering identified CSFs and theories on public participation. Finally, the quality of the research outcomes was assessed by validating framework through experts' interview. The validation was performed based on validation aspects such as degree of appropriateness, objectivity, replicability and overall reliability. 2. Materials and methods The case of an upcoming water treatment plant (WTP) was considered in an attempt to achieve the above-mentioned objective. The existing WTPs in Guwahati, India, serves only 30% population with compromised quality of treated water. However, the area has brimming groundwater resource at a shallow depth of 2e4 m, thereby encouraging its utilization (Das and Goswami, 2013). Despite contaminated groundwater reports and benevolent

efforts from the government in the institution of such WTP for drinking water supply, the project has been facing wide public opposition/protests since the start of construction works (Joy et al., 2017). Publications reported that the rationale for public opposition were relating to issues on public participation, tariff disclosure and information sharing on ownership of the project (government or private) (The Assam Tribune, 2013; The Telegraph., 2013). This underscored the lack of guidelines from the government over conduct of public participation in water supply projects and highlighted the need for framework development. Framework is descriptive in nature and, essentially, include multiple realities formed by personal views, context and meaning. The qualitative research methodology was adopted to provide a detailed description of the views, beliefs and meanings. For this study, primary and secondary data were collected and used as the source for research inquiry in three steps. In step 1, secondary data was collected from existing studies on public participation in water supply projects and analyzed to identify CSFs for efficient public involvement, timely completion and increased public acceptance of projects. In step 2, a semi-structured questionnaire interview was designed to gather primary data in South-West Guwahati water supply project and thematic analysis was employed. The sample size (the number of experts to be interviewed) was determined using the tool of saturation. In qualitative research, there is no hard and fast rule for getting a right sample size (Saunders et al., 2018). In the present study, saturation level was achieved in 10 interviews. The expert selection was based on a combination of referral and chain (or ‘snowball') technique. The experts and policymakers (decision-holders) were reached through proper channel in order to incorporate their views in the framework. The list of the selected experts who had participated in the study is shown in Table 1. The expert's interview questionnaire comprised of two parts. Part A focused on gathering information relating to the expert's demographic data, background and area of expertise. The Part-B was so designed such that all (9 numbers) CSF identified from the secondary data were included in the questionnaire along with the various aspects of public participation in the present study area. The aspects were legislations/laws related to public participation in water supply projects, actual practice of public participation, analysis/processing of public views, obstacles for public participation with reference to study area, relevance of groundwater quality and identified CSFs in the study area. The thematic analysis of the primary data was undertaken as suggested by Braun and Clarke (2006). In the first phase, familiarizing with data was achieved by multiple readings and listening of the interview transcripts and original interview audio recordings. The primary recorded data were transcribed and imported into Nvivo 11 software; a Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS). The transcribed data were scrutinized, read through, and segments of interest were highlighted and noted. In the second phase, the data items were again reviewed to generate initial codes with features of interest across the complete data set, gathering relevant data to each code. In the third phase, codes were given/taken under various potential themes, gathering all data relevant to each potential theme. The fourth phase commenced with an iterative process of changing, eliminating, adding and recategorizing the data set to capture the essence of the phenomenon under investigation to prepare the pre-final list of codes and finally merged into a single theme to study patterns amongst them. In the fifth phase, the themes were further defined and refined for the analysis. The sixth phase began with the set of fully worked-out themes and involved the final analysis. The final task of thematic analysis was achieved with the writing-up of the report with the data in a way to convince the reader of the analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006).

R. Das et al. / Water Research 165 (2019) 114989

3

Table 1 Experts for semi-structured interview. Sl.

Code

Office/company/institution

Position held

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

R01 R02 R03 R04 R05 R06 R07 R08 R09 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16

Guwahati Jal Board NJS Consultant Ltd., Guwahati Central Groundwater Board, Guwahati NJS Consultant Ltd., Guwahati JICA water supply project, Guwahati Public Health Engineering, Guwahati Assam Engineering College, Guwahati Assam Engineering College, Guwahati Assam Engineering College, Guwahati Tahal Group, Guwahati Public Health Engineering, Guwahati Guwahati Institute of Science and Technology, Guwahati NJS Consultant Ltd., Guwahati Public Health Engineering, Guwahati Gammon India Ltd., Guwahati NJS Consultant Ltd., Guwahati

Managing Director Senior Consultation Manager Scientist B Site Engineer Deputy Project Manager Assistant Executive Engineer Associate Professor Associate Professor Associate Professor Manager (Civil) Water Quality Consultant Assistant Professor Site Engineer Additional Chief Engineer Site Engineer Site Engineer

NJS - Nippon Jogesuido Sekkei Engineers India Pvt Ltd, JICA - Japan International Cooperation Agency.

In step 3, the framework was formulated following the identified CSFs from primary and secondary data and the review of various theories on public participation. In order to ensure that the framework is in line with the designed objective and professional uses, retrospection on various validation aspects such as degree of appropriateness, degree of objectivity, degree of replicability and overall reliability were performed. This was followed by a face to face questionnaire survey. The relevant validation aspects were also selected in a similar validation process by Ibrahim et al. (2015). The questionnaire template for framework validation comprised of three sections. The first section explained the purpose of the survey highlighting the motive of the interview, background information about the research, and instructions for completing the surveys. In the second section, a brief description of the developed framework was provided, and the third section focused on the framework validation scoring sheet along with the guideline for validation. The extent to which the framework has fulfilled the six validation aspects has been recorded on a scale of 1e5. Table 2 shows the responses concerning the extent of satisfaction for every validation aspect based on a scoring scale of 1e5, where one represented ‘poor' and five represented ‘excellent'. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. CSFs for public participation: analysis of secondary data Collection of secondary data was aimed at identifying CSFs of public participation to ensure successful implementation of water supply projects. The analysis of secondary data identified transparency, communication, public involvement, effective public

participation, contract design, the certainty of water pricing and tariff review as significant CSFs for successful implementation of water supply projects. It also manifested ways of enhancing public participation, such as multiparty planning, mediation, and negotiation with the public (Chen and Wikstrom, 2010). In many projects, the causes for dissatisfaction and public conflict/resistance were found to be grounded on issues of ineffective public participation/ involvement and fear of the increase in tariff due to private-sector involvement (Ameyaw and Chan, 2015; Easter and Hearne, 1995). It has been observed from a public participation program for a primary health care project in Cisne Dos, Ecuador that the project was terminated after six years of its execution due to non-involvement of the public leaders in the design stage of the project. The cause for this was attributed to ambiguity/complex nature in setting up the responsibilities of the public leaders. Further, the leaders were not paid for their aid in the community services and, later, they demanded payment, thereby creating unrest and dispute (Moser and Sollis, 1991). Other reasons for the failure of the projects include weak regulatory and monitoring regime, tariff uncertainty and delayed or non-payment of bills (Ameyaw and Chan, 2015). Review of many failed projects indicated that projects faced local opposition in its initial stages and later, based on input from the public, the authority made commitments to redesigned the project. Such step helped to change public perception, active public engagement, the embodiment of public views/suggestions in decision making, upsurging public acceptance and success of the project (Garfì and Ferrer, 2011). Whereas, public involvement in decision making was found to be dependent on household satisfaction and acceptance of the project (Prokopy, 2005). It has been concluded from this study that, in order to enhance public acceptance, organizing public gathering/hearing for namesake will not

Table 2 Framework validation aspects for expert interview. Validation aspect Degree of appropriateness

Description

Assess whether the framework has included the appropriate strategy in the associated processes/activities of public participation process in water supply project. Degree of objectivity Evaluate whether the framework has considered all essential and meaningful issues of public participation. Degree of replicability Assess whether the framework has encompassed the expert's propositions along with its inclusion at appropriate stage of public participation process. Degree of practicability To speculate and evaluate the capability of framework to accomplish enhancement of public involvement in water supply project. Overall reliability Appraise whether inclusion of various public participation theories in the framework would maintain the holistic decentralization process throughout the project. Overall suitability for water supply Assess whether the framework, developed through inclusion of various strategies and theories, would be appropriate for public projects participation practices for water supply infrastructure projects in South-West Guwahati.

4

R. Das et al. / Water Research 165 (2019) 114989

enhance public participation. It was further concluded that higher levels of participation are associated with good governance, measured by having a local organization, and transparency. In addition, necessary institutional arrangements for participation will be required to ensure effective public participation (Watson and Jagannathan, 1995). It was also noticed that public acceptance could be improved by information disclosure, resident supervision and residents' participation in decision-making (Zhenhua, 2013). A study from India revealed that reforms in public participation process are being carried out in India based on four cardinal principles viz. awareness generation, transparency, community participation, and social auditing (Naidu, 2002). However, the cases of failed water projects highlighted that these principles are either not effective enough or not being followed effectively. For example, a water supply project in India (Latur, Aurangabad, Mysore) had faced massive public protest and was eventually terminated (World Bank, 2014). Table 3 summarizes the CSF for the water supply project. ‘Public involvement' was found to be an important CSF, coded by the highest number of sources (i.e., 12 times). Other CSFs were viz. transparency, communication, timeliness, information on the project, regulatory governance, public influence, tariff certainty and privatization. Table 4 provides a brief description of these CSFs. These nine CSFs were found to have a significant bearing on public participation in most of the water supply projects, thereby indicating that these factors need to be considered to reduce public disapproval of the water supply project.

3.2. Experts interview: analysis of primary data The responses from the experts were coded through thematic analysis of qualitative data. The analysis evolved eleven thematic codes (themes). The themes identified from interviews were concurrent or closely matched with the CSFs identified from the secondary data. Out of these eleven themes, eight themes were found to be common with CSFs obtained from secondary data namely, communication, information on the project, public involvement, public influence, privatization, regulatory governance, timeliness, transparency. Whereas, availability of water, awareness on household groundwater, and rewards/incentives were the additional themes obtained from the primary data (expert interview). There

Table 3 Critical success factor (CSF) for public participation in a water supply project. Sl.

Sources/Authors

CSF for public participation 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Ameyaw and Chan (2015) Boudet et al. (2011) Brearley and Curry (2006) Chen and Wikstrom (2010) Ameyaw and Chan (2013) Easter and Hearne (1995) Garfì and Ferrer (2011) Grigg (1997) Watson and Jagannathan (1995) World Bank (2014) Naidu (2002) Zhenhua (2013) Prokopy (2005) Nisha (2006) Sara and Katz (2004) Narayan (1994) Singh (2007)

e ✓ ✓ ✓ e e e e e ✓ ✓ e ✓ e e e ✓

e ✓ ✓ e e e e e e ✓ ✓ e e e e e e

✓ e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

e e e e e e ✓ e e e ✓ e e e e e e

e ✓ ✓ e e ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ e ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ e

✓ ✓ e e ✓ ✓ e e ✓ ✓ e e e e e e e

e e ✓ e e e e ✓ e e e ✓ ✓ e e e e

✓ ✓ e e ✓ ✓ e e

e e e

✓ e e e e e e e

✓ e e e e e e e e e e e e

Acronyms for CSFs: 1. Transparency 2. Communication 3. Timeliness 4. Information on project 5. Public involvement 6. Regulatory governance 7. Public influence 8. Tariff certainty 9. Privatization.

were multiple, individual and commonly occurring themes pointed out by one or more interviewees and referred by various researchers (Table 5). Table 5 summarizes the themes along with the frequency of occurrence (number of times an expert refers to the particular theme). Each of the CSFs is discussed in detail for its relevance in the case of South-West Guwahati project.

3.2.1. Availability of water According to R03, one of the many reasons for lack of participation in South-West Guwahati is an abundance of groundwater. In many regions, the public seldom faces water shortage in order to opt for an alternate source of water. "Most of the places in Guwahati, people do not face water shortage that's why I think, at times, they become reluctant towards water supply projects" as referred by R03. "Since water is available here people are not that serious, unlike other states where people protest for water" quoted R15. However, R06 presented enhanced public sincerity towards water in some areas of Guwahati by virtue of depleting groundwater table. Similar views were being shared by R10 and R16 and are in line with the literature (Megdal et al., 2017). It was pointed out that engaging public in discussions on alternative approaches to address water scarcity is an important factor to improve water governance (Megdal et al., 2017). The experts’ views on groundwater availability were dissimilar. Few of them have suggested high spatial variations in groundwater in terms of quality as well as quantity in the study area. "In South-West Guwahati as it has areas where water table remains high and sometimes in some areas it goes very deep" as expressed by R05.

3.2.2. Awareness on household groundwater quality R06, R12 and R15 believed that since groundwater is abundant in Guwahati, people are less worried about water quality, they lack the knowledge to do so. "People are not at all aware about what water they are drinking either it is good or bad, whether it has arsenic, fluoride" (R08). "They are using water for their domestic purposes, so they are not concern about the water quality" as quoted by R12. Further, according to R12 in a study conducted in Guwahati, high levels of fluoride have been observed. Besides these, R11 has stated that most of the people are not aware of bacteriological contamination. R01, R02, R03, R10 and R13 felt that the people in the region were ignorant about the groundwater quality earlier, but with time, they have become much more concerned. "A common man is worried about two things in the water, one is the water quality, and the other is tariff" as expressed by R01. The most important role for this transformation goes to the media (TV and radio) for broadcasting about groundwater contamination (Li, 2016). "TV channels broadcast information about how arsenic and fluoride are affecting people" as said by R03. "The Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) had recently circulated that the groundwater contains a high concentration of lead" as expressed by R07. R03 and R05 have also observed people complaining about their groundwater contamination. "I find people complaining about the occurrence of iron in their groundwater" as informed by R03. "The public of South-West Guwahati area are well aware of their household groundwater quality as such, so many households approach our state referral laboratory to get their drinking water sample tested" as expressed by R14. R07 and R03 believed that increasing concern about the quality of household groundwater among the public has led to the installation of water filters at home, including candle filter and water purifiers. The expert's opinion on this theme ultimately means that as people can start using filters after becoming aware of groundwater quality, they can also be made to participate in public meetings for such projects.

R. Das et al. / Water Research 165 (2019) 114989

5

Table 4 CSF and its description. Sl.

Factors

Description of CSF for public participation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Transparency Communication Timeliness Information on project Public involvement Regulatory governance Public influence Tariff certainty Privatization

Building trust among participants by transparent decision-making process Communicate with participants about importance of participation and feedback in decision-making process Realistic indicators and goals must be managed along with public involvement through the process Share all detail information about the project: advantage and disadvantages Consist of representative sample of the affected public in the population Clear and visible responsibilities and actions of governmental agencies in decision-making process Public opinion/solution on issues must be taken into account in reaching a decision making public feel influential Adequate disclosure of pricing (tariff) of water services prior to project implementation Private sector involvement in implementation of water supply project

Table 5 Themes obtained from primary data analysis. Sl. Theme

Description

Experts

1 2

R03, R01, R11, R03, R15, R01, R12, R01, R11, R03 R01,

3

Availability of water Awareness on household groundwater Communication

4

Information on project

Water is available throughout the year so public are reluctant to participate To make people aware on their household groundwater conta-mination and its health hazards Provides participants with the understanding about import-ance of participation and feedback in decision-making process Share all detail information about the project: advantage and disadvantages

5

Public involvement

Consist of representative sample of the affected public in the population

6 7

Rewards/Incentives Public influence

8 9

Privatization Regulatory governance

Public sometimes need incentives to participate Public opinion/solution on issues must be taken into account in reaching a decision making public feel influential Private sector involvement in implementation of water supply project Clear and visible respons-ibilities and actions of governmental agencies in decision-making process Building trust among participants by transparent decision-making process Transparent decision-making process to build trust among participants

10 Timeliness 11 Transparency

3.2.3. Regulatory governance for public participation in water supply projects R01, R03 and R06 believed that government is now looking at public participation as an important aspect for the success of a project. R03 referred that the government is working out plans, laws and steps to make public participation as mandatory regulatory governance. "Legislation for public participation has not been implemented till now but it is in the process" as quoted by R03. However, R07 and R11 admitted lack of regulatory governance for the public participation process in water supply projects. Moreover, experts R08, R09, R12 and R13 have never came across such laws or legislations related to public participation in water supply project. "I don't know any laws related to public participation in water supply projects. So, they have not followed in real context, but some NGOs or some individuals are working as a pressure group" as specified by R09. Similar views have been shared by R16. Mansuri and Rao (2004), in their study, also believed that public participation initiatives depend crucially on enabling regulatory governance. 3.2.4. Inform public about the water supply project benefits R03 and R07 expressed that the public lacks knowledge about the pros and cons of the project. Similar observation was also by Beierle (1999) in case of environmental decision making. "In general, people in the area are unaware of the pros and cons of the project, so that they don't even know how water would be supplied or whether to every household it would be supplied or to what quantity it will be supplied" as told by R03. The experts R01, R02, R10, R13, R14, R15 and R16 suggested the institution of special social awareness wing ‘Institutional Capacity Development Consultant (ICDC)' to work on the social aspect of the project. "They use to go to each and every corner of the city and elaborate the things" quoted by R04. The experts did mention the use of Jal Board website (R05) and print and

R05, R02, R12, R04, R16 R02, R13, R02, R13,

Frequency R06, R03, R13, R05,

R08, R05, R14, R06,

R10, R06, R15, R07,

R15, R16 R07, R08, R09, R10, R16 R08, R09, R10, R13,

10 42

R03, R14, R03, R14,

R04, R05, R06, R07, R10, R11, R15, R16 R04, R05, R06, R08, R09, R10, R15

18

R03, R04, R05, R09, R12

R07 R01, R03, R05, R06, R07, R08, R09, R10, R11, R12, R13, R14, R16 R07 R04, R08, R09

35

16 1 2 1 17 2 9

electronic media (R12, R07) in awareness creation. R07 pointed out a busy public schedule as the reason for lesser participation in public meetings organized by the water supply project authority. "Due to busy schedule, the face to face interaction between the concerned authority and the public is not working or happen" as believed by R07. 3.2.5. Public involvement Most importantly R03, R08 and R09 expressed concerns over inclusion/role of public in decision-making process. "Public were not consulted at any stage. Government goes for some other agencies for the fund and after getting funds they just started construction" as stated by R08. R09 believed that there are some pressure groups who force the government to include public in a project. "The project is not inviting the community to participate instead some very small group of people who are aware of the situation are trying to pressurize the government on involving the public" as informed by R09. R01 further stated that public is not involved but some representatives (either one or two) were invited from unions and welfare association in the meetings. "The public is totally ignorant about the things like they do not know about the management part as how the government is going to do the water supply" as referred by R03. He also highlighted the fact that sometimes people show arrogance and ignorance to participate as probably they are unaware of its importance. "Some people are very much ignorant about importance of public participation, even if they have been educated towards working in this field but they show some degree of ignorance" quoted by R03. The lack of public involvement was referred as departmental failure (R03) that resulted in public complaints about the project (R10). R10 and R13 appreciated efforts of ICDC in disseminating project benefits but admitted about its marginal success.

6

R. Das et al. / Water Research 165 (2019) 114989

3.2.6. Rewards/incentives for public to participate According to R03, one of the obstacles for public participation is lack of reward for public participation programs and allocation of incentives for public to participate. Research suggests that rewards/ incentives can attract as well as motivate public to participate actively, despite their earlier unwilling mindset (Davis et al., 2009). Specifically, rewarding public enhances public attendance (Axelsson et al., 2010) and involvement programs may promote participation of individuals that would not ordinarily take part in such exercise (Lowndes et al., 2001). 3.2.7. Public influence opinion/views on the decision-making process R03 and R05 stated that public suggestion/opinion/views are considered for decision making process in reality. However, such views/opinions/suggestions have been ignored many a times while making decision. The reason for this has been quoted by R03 as "Usually, only part of the feedback is taken into consideration because of unrealistic suggestions and demands from public". 3.2.8. Privatization R07 raised concern on fear of water privatization among public which is in line with views presented by Mahalingam (2009) and deliberated as one of the prime reasons for protest for South-West Guwahati water supply project. "After protesting against privatization of water supply project, the authorities of concerned departments called on public to talk about the water supply project" quoted R07. The theme identified from the interviews has been found to be analogous to the CSFs identified from the secondary data. 3.2.9. Timeliness According to R07, public participation was never a timely organized event for the South-West Guwahati project. The concerned expert has emphasized that lack of planning to involve and inform public led to disappointment against the project. Furthermore, appropriate timings for scheduling the public meetings often conincide with the working hours of general public. (Ameyaw and Chan, 2013). 3.2.10. Communication R07 believed that there has been lack of communication amongst authority and public, right from the beginning. R08 shared wobbling communication policy with an example of reservoir construction at hilltop without informing public or institutions at foothills. "We were not able to understand from where all the mud and sand have come. They have not consulted or informed our administration. All of a sudden,the mud and sand from the hilltop has spread all over the hostel premises and roads. As a result, our hosteller students suffered. We came to know that flooding of the premises with mud and sand has been due to cutting of earth at hilltop for the reservoir of the water supply project. " quoted R08. According to R04, R05, R06, R10, R13, R15 and R16, public meetings on awareness were arranged by ICDC only after protest and were inadequate in serving the purpose. Moreover, according to R09, some of the social groups including retired engineer's forum, senior citizen's forum and certain NGOs pressurized government in organizing meetings. "Government is not inviting these groups but these group are putting pressure on them. They have arranged the meetings, invited the mayor and Jal Board authority. They are being asked questions and they are defending that these are all technical questions. So it has not been shared with the common people" quoted R09. 3.2.11. Transparency Transparency has been referred as an important theme by R07, R08 and R09. Lack of transparency, no information/document

sharing, and/or no public feedback in decision making were observed in the present water supply project (R07). Creating awareness and sharing water quality details would definitely increase transparency and build public trust on the project (R08, R09) "So many areas are being identified to have contaminations in Guwahati by academic institutions like IITG and AEC but the data have been shared with the public" as observed by R08. "Things are not transparent. Awareness on water quality among the public is very poor" quoted R09. Transparency of a project has been acknowledged as a key factor that hinders public support, if not upheld. It has been suggested that adequate opportunities should be given to the public and other stakeholders to make an effort during the decision-making process (Henjewele et al., 2013). 3.3. Recommended participatory model for water supply project After reviewing CSFs for water supply projects worldwide, collecting primary data from experts in South-West Guwahati, and reviewing the theories of public participation, a conceptual framework has been formulated as a guideline to improve public participation in water supply projects, encircling the lifecycle of a water supply project (Fig. 1). The Fig. 1 shows a typical water supply project life cycle wherein project objectives are identified with a feasibility study in first phase, steps to be taken are planned in second phase, executiong in the third phase, emphasis is given on releasing deliverables (handing over project documentation and charge) in the fourth phase and, in last phase, operation and maintenance of the facility is placed (Cleland and Ireland, 2007). The frameworks includes public participation in all phases considering their vital role in project acceptance, and wellfunctioning and efficient planning through participation and contribution (Creighton, 2005). The public participation part of framework has been inspired by Conner and IAP2 theories which have pormulgated the mandate of spreading awareness among public, educating and capacity building (training them). In addition, an unaddressed critical parameter of information sharing for effective public participation is addressed herein. The presented framework not only mandates information sharing but also authority-public collaboration in final decision-making phase for greater acceptability of the projects. It is significant to highlight that different levels of participation are incorporated in the framework and multiple CSFs are addressed at various levels. Also, one CSF might be addressed at two different levels of the framework. The beauty of flexibility in framework is that it is not mandatory that particular CSF is addressed at particular level but it might be involved/addressed at different levels of the framework. The developed framework has been designed to achieve effective public participation through six levels, namely inform, educate, consult, involve, collaborate, and capacity building. It is important to note that these are the levels of participation and not steps to be followed in sequence and any of the levels could be accomplished earlier or later according to the ground conditions, goals and promises of public participation. The selection of executive medium or tool among available ones is also not hard and fast but casespecific and need to be followed based on ground condition's feasibility. Further, the public engagement process commences with the competent authority such as urban local bodies (ULB) exploring existing conflicts, if any, and identifying an initial list of workable solutions (alternate options). This may begin by informing the public on the benefits of the project and showing preferred project details and alternatives. It should be carried out through public meetings, public affairs, and media programs (ULBs may explore additional options). Next step is to identify the public stakeholders (determined through the initial involvement of interested public) and carry out public stakeholder analysis

R. Das et al. / Water Research 165 (2019) 114989

7

Fig. 1. Framework for effective public participation in water supply project.

(identify problems and the preferences of public). Stakeholder analysis is identifying the most influential stakeholders and their potential threats and cooperation to the project. It allows decisionmaker to discover the problem and resolve it in cooperation with all interested parties/stakeholders to create an information exchangecorrelation. Early involvement of the public may be considered as preliminary contentment of the requirements of the water supply project development in rapports of public participation. This process is followed by suitable actions to inform the public about the entire decision process and its outcomes. It also helps to create an intent for change in the final decision and explore alternatives, if required. This represents the next level of the public participation process and is to be followed by educating the public on existing groundwater quality and its health impacts. Collection of a sufficient number of groundwater samples and its laboratory testing is advised at this level, in case no record on groundwater quality is available. The public feedback and queries raised during education/ awareness program are to be evaluated and investigated. It is of utmost importance that information circulation and public consultation should continue until the implementation of the final decision. However, the decision-makers may also choose to get the public participation to the level of active involvement and collaboration on each aspect of the decision, including the development

of alternatives and the identification of the ideal solution. At this level of the proposed framework, the public acceptance of the project is increased through participation. However, the primary motivation for increasing participation is public centric, i.e. not by removal of opposition but through consultative resolutions. Being a democratic society, public participation in decision-making has to be made morally justified in its own right, which is well protected through the proposed public participation framework. Henceforth, the proposed framework will help guide authority to undertake an effective and morally justified approval process for water supply projects through effective public participation. The different levels of effective public participation are further elaborated as follows. 3.3.1. Inform This level informs the public on project objectives, needs and its benefits. It also helps the public in identifying botherations, questions, doubts and disagreements regarding the project along with feasible alternatives and possible solutions (IAP2, 2014). Information is to be shared in more of a one-way channel to resolve possible conflicts in future and provisions of incentives or rewards for participation, if any, will be informed. In order to maintain transparency, basic project information such as ownership, tariff, benefits and losses from the project will be disclosed (Bruns, 2003).

8

R. Das et al. / Water Research 165 (2019) 114989

This whole exercise at this level will address a total of four CSFs, namely information on the project, tariff certainty, incentives and transparency. The tools or mediums that could be used are fact sheets, websites, open houses, media campaigns through newsletters, newspapers, radio and television, training programs, and mailings (Bruns, 2003). 3.3.2. Educate At first place in this level, the framework mandates ULB to collect and test a sufficient number of groundwater samples in the project service area followed by mandatory awareness programs on groundwater contamination and health hazards. Secondly, if there exist any public controversy, dispute, ambiguity, misconception about the project, it has to be considered with the highest priority at this level. The public is to be well informed and given fair knowledge over the issue before it gets aggravated (Bruns, 2003). This is designed to eradicate the possibility provoking/misleding the public by political/vested-interest driven elements. The top priority is given to resolve the issue at this level because once worry and anger reach high levels, educating those affected becomes almost impossible. In this level two, CSFs such as information on project and awareness on groundwater quality will be addressed using tools or mediums viz. fact sheets, websites, media campaigns through newsletters, newspapers, radio and television, door to door awareness campaign, and mailings. 3.3.3. Consult This level of public participation starts after the decision has been made with public consent and after educating them about the project as well as the groundwater quality. This level has been designed to obtain public feedbacks on ULB decisions, analysis and alternatives adopted from earlier levels (IAP2, 2014). It includes the procurement of public feedback about plans, thoughts, alternatives and/or issues, but with little communication. The main objective of consult is to "listen and acknowledge" the concerns being raised, but not inevitably take action on them (IAP2, 2014). Responding to all concerns is not made mandatory at this level as the decisions made earlier were taken with public consent. This level of the public participation framework addresses three CSFs, namely full public participation, public influence and communication. Listening and acknowledging public concerns/issues and collecting their feedback will help to promote full public participation. The information on how public inputs influenced the decision makes them feel that they are influential. This exercise of the two-way channel at this level, in fact, builds better communication between the ULB/authority and public. The tools or medium recommended for consultations at this level include public comments, focus groups, surveys, public meetings, public hearings and public comment devices (Nabatchi, 2012). The public hearing is the most commonly used way to gather public input on governmental decisions. Written comments and interviews are also recommended for the same (Bruns, 2003). 3.3.4. Involve In this level of participation, the authorities are to be working with the public, i.e. the public groups are invited to the workshops and/or deliberate polling, and their views have to be incorporated in decision-making. This level of participation is more than a consultation that just witnesses decisions taken in the project but ensures alternative arrangements on the public demand. The public influence in this level could be so high that the decision of the government/ULB can also be revised considering possible suggested alternatives. The public involvement is promoted through interactive discussion, e.g. workshops and encouraged to undertake/express concerns/grievances, and finally welcoming new

ideas. However, sometimes, technical complexity and legislative mandate may limit agencies to share information and make decisions without involving the public. CSFs such as full public participation, public influence, and communication will be taken care of through this level of public participation using recommended involvement tools/mediums such as workshops and deliberate polling. 3.3.5. Collaborate This level ensures public partnering for direct advice in decision making, developing alternatives and identifying preferred solutions (IAP2, 2014). It is framed as an enhanced two-way channel between citizens and government, where representatives have "a seat at the table" (Tambouris et al., 2007). However, this will require an active citizen partnering. In regards to CSFs, this level would further enhance ‘public influence' on the project and its ‘participation' in decision making. The recommended execution tools or mediums are citizen advisory committees, consensus building and participatory decision-making. 3.3.6. Capacity building Capacity building of staff/public through their training/education on O&M activities could help in improvement of their technical, managerial and institutional knowledge pool. This will result in better service delivery. Training is supposed to cover specific problems, implies shorter contact times, and attempts to offer directly applicable skills. Education will be aimed with a broader responsibility, covering accurate knowledge, insight, applicable methodologies and professional attitude. Training and education could be delivered on water quality testing, deciding and recording chemical dose to be applied and other operational activities (Hamdy et al., 1998). CSFs such as full public participation, public influence, and communication will be taken care of by this level, and recommended tools/mediums are workshops and training & educational programs. The unaddressed CSFs, i.e. ‘timeliness' and ‘regulatory governance' are already being addressed in the planning stage of the project life cycle. The public participation is mandated through regulatory governance in a project with specification on how and when to conduct/organize participation. Furthermore, timings for participation is to be maintained and scheduled beforehand, i.e., at the beginning of the project to avoid mess and chaos in participation. 3.3.7. Public stakeholder identification and analysis procedure Public stakeholder identification is suggested to be carried out iteratively. The influential people amongst individuals, groups, negotiators, and representatives are chosen as public representatives or stakeholders through various approaches. Some of the commonly used approaches are focus group interviews, expert opinion, structured or semi-structured questionnaire interview, snow-ball sampling, brain-storming, brain-writing and Crawford slip sessions (Reed et al., 2009). Furthermore, the importance of the influential stakeholders to the project should also be assessed by ULBs (Henjewele et al., 2013). They will have to identify, categorize and rank these groups according to the usefulness of the issues in the context of project success (Henjewele et al., 2013). The prioritization and public stakeholder issue identification is to be worked out by asking the groups to submit position statements, looking at previous public engagement, reviewing the press releases, and scrutiny of public statements. This can also be achieved by taking opinions of public stakeholders around typical major issues, direct public interviews, organizing single or multi-public stakeholder workshop, and by going through on-line forums or moderated blogs (Prieto, 2011).

R. Das et al. / Water Research 165 (2019) 114989

3.3.8. Identify solution and implement it to action Information and public notification regarding the project are to be released to involve and collaborate with public helping identification of visions and desires from the project. They should be made aware of the factors that may have an impact on the infrastructure. Feasible design layout alternatives are to be presented to the interested groups or the public. Each design alternative is to be discussed exclusively against the design criteria integrating the input from the public. Once the design group has established details of the favoured design alternative, additional public involvement meeting is to be held for detailed discussion and modification for maximum convenience and aesthetic appeal (Ng et al., 2013). The traditional tools adopted are brainstorming session, direct discussion, public hearings, district forums and written responses, roving exhibitions and surveys. 3.3.9. Contextual policy reform The framework includes contextual policy reform with an intention to include the rich understanding of situational changes in the context of the local attitudes. Within this framework, contextual policy is defined as the assortment of influences or potential influences affecting public participation approach in water supply projects. Such influences may or may not exist for a particular situation/region but is subjected to local approach (like mistrust among people, elite capture/role of gate keepers or local politics issue). Contextual policy reform remains as a stationary unit for the whole project life cycle and this will address the context issue/situation arising in project area. This unit will serve to tackle important issues that leads to project failure e.g. mistrust in the implementing authority. It arises when participation is not worth the effort and that the decisions were already made and public input is merely a formality. To oust mistrust, the process has to be open and transparent. This unit will work on such issues and will ensure the authority to make financial information and audits available for public review (Giering, 2011). A different barrier to public participation is elite capture that leads to corrupt planning and governance (Dasgupta and Beard, 2007). In the case of elite capture, the individuals in society that exercise disproportionate and unacceptable access to social, political or economic power manipulate the processes to secure undue benefits for themselves. Government administrators tend to endorse this bond and avoid public stakeholder's participation. An example from the Indian state of Kerala stands as a strategy to overcome this issue, wherein a ‘Citizen Campaign for Decentralized Planning’ was undertaken to provide opportunities for citizen groups and stakeholders to participate in local development projects by including processes like capacity building of training and mentoring. Similarly, in Thailand, ‘citizen hearing' has been made compulsory through legal provision during the implementation of local development programs (Waheduzzaman et al., 2018). This strategy will encourage involvement/inclusion of local non-government organizations (NGOs) in spreading awareness and monitoring public participation in government programs. It is being reported that the government representatives and officials tend to support these elites to keep their control safe and minimize disapprovals or moves by their political opponents (Waheduzzaman et al., 2018). Waheduzzaman et al. (2018) in their study believed that government bureaucrats, elected representatives, influential business people and social elites including public leaders, is largely responsible for jeopardizing the participatory governance process in development projects. It is further argued that the increasing number of local representatives may not be enough to diminish the effect of elite capture. The contextual policy reform unit presented here will address the concern of elite capture through legal governance, thereby making public participation compulsory

9

including training for public officials and community leaders, an awareness program for local citizens, and inclusion of NGOs in local development programs (Waheduzzaman et al., 2018). Moreover, many researchers are of the concern that local politics influences public and their participation in such process has been done with the objective to build their reputation in their constituencies and increase political support (Ongoya and Lumallas, 2005; Damoah et al., 2018). Continued centralized control over the projects and/ or the often hidden role of political representatives pose as a hurdle for effective institutional mechanism. Project committees have been used as instruments of benefaction distribution leading to corruption, neglecting poor and disadvantaged in the project stages (Damoah et al., 2018). In the study by Ongoya and Lumallas (2005), it was identified that political pressure was encountered in projects undertaken in their locality and that political influence was present in both implementation and selection of crucial committees for the management of these projects. Management of the projects needs to be detached completely from politics so that the public can make appropriate decisions on the management of these projects without political interference. We speculate that these issues will be taken care by constitution of strong contextual policy reform unit. 4. Framework validation The descriptive statistics derived from the statistical analysis of the responses provided by the experts who had participated in the validation study for each validation aspect are shown in Table 6. The experts were requested to rate six aspects of the framework using a Likert scale of 1e5. A mean score above ‘3' would signify satisfactory performance for that particular aspect. The results showed that all the aspects were rated significantly high, i.e., above ‘3' by the experts. The aspect rated highest was 4.13 for ‘degree of practicality', and the aspect with the lowest mean score was 3.38 for ‘degree of replicability'. Therefore, it can be interpreted that the newly developed framework was validated to be appropriate, objective, replicable, practicable, reliable, and suitability for water supply in South-West Guwahati. 5. Lessons learnt from failed water supply projects Studies from various parts of the world suggested the need to accord more attention to secondary stakeholders as they pose an important and influential link to disrupt an infrastructure project (Di Maddaloni and Davis, 2017; Olander and Landin, 2008). Integrating public through a guideline or a governance structure or a framework would ensure better and easy implementation of decisions. A framework can serve as an early warning system for public concerns, a means through which accurate and timely information can be distributed, and can contribute to acceptable decision-making (IAP2, 2014). However, it should ensure early public involvement for better decisions and greater public acceptance (Ozerol and Newig, 2008). Public deeply value service consistency and compliance of contractual agreement from their service providers. Hence, it is crucial to not only deliver good public service at first but to keep on delivering service at the level, thereby ensuring public satisfaction. It is needed to focus on making sure that interactions communication with the public is consistent and quality based. It is only logical that a consumer's confidence in the organization will increase if a consistent level of quality is delivered (Zeithaml et al., 1993). If the scope of the participatory process involves the whole public, it should be ensured that every member of the public has equal opportunities to reach the information supply and to give feedback (Ozerol and Newig, 2008). There should be no priorities or differences among the public members.

10

R. Das et al. / Water Research 165 (2019) 114989

Table 6 Interview results for validation of framework. Expert code

Degree of appropriateness

Degree of objectivity

Degree of replicability

Degree of practicability

Overall reliability

Overall suitability for water supply in South-West Guwahati

R01 R02 R03 R04 R05 R06 R07 R08 R09 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 Mean

4 3 5 5 4 3 5 2 3 4 2 5 2 5 5 4 3.81

4 2 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 5 2 4 2 4 5 4 3.63

2 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 2 4 5 3 3.38

4 2 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 3 5 3 5 5 4 4.13

3 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 3.81

4 3 5 5 4 4 4 3 4 4 2 4 2 4 4 4 3.75

Moreover, the process of inducing tariff, water quality awareness, and decision making is to be transparent. By being transparent, public suspicions about the sponsors and their motives may likely be allayed. Transparency might involve releasing information on aspects of the procedure, varying from the manner of the selection of the public participants to how a decision is reached to the minutes of meetings. If any information needs to be withheld from the public or are not educated on a particular event, for reasons of sensitivity or security, it would seem important to admit the nature of what is being withheld and why, rather than risking the discovery of such secrecy, with subsequent adverse reactions (Rowe and Frewer, 2000).

6. Conclusions The current study focusses on the primary and secondary data for public participation in water supply projects. The study identifies CSFs for public participation and studies the relevancy of these CSFs in the study area of South-West Guwahati. A public participation framework has been developed to deemphasize the effects of disincentives in water supply projects. This framework is grounded on primary, secondary data and theories of public participation. Qualitative primary interview data were collected through a semi-structured questionnaire for the study area of public participation in the South-West Guwahati water supply project. Analysis of data using Nvivo revealed 11 (eleven) themes for public participation. Moreover, 9 CSFs identified from secondary data analysis were found to be quite relevant for the study area of the water supply project. The framework is envisaged to enhance public acceptance, timely completion and successful comprehensive management of a project through various levels of public participation. Moreover, satisfactory ratings for all aspects of framework validation demonstrated that the newly developed public participation framework is appropriate, objective, replicable, practical, reliable, and suitable for water supply projects.

6.1. Limitations and future research directions (G) Practical limitations do exist adopting this framework in a real case scenario. The public may panic with nonavailability of alternative water sources when informed about household groundwater quality. This should be taken into consideration while adopting this framework.

(H) The expert panel for the development of a framework and its validation was the same; this might have created biasness in the validation of the framework. (I) Intricacies of public participation in the water sector, especially in India through many gatekeepers at the local level would present further insightful aspects. Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.114989. References Ahmed, Q.I., Lu, H., Ye, S., 2008. Urban transportation and equity: a case study of Beijing and Karachi. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 42 (1), 125e139. Ameyaw, E.E., Chan, A.P., 2013. Identifying public-private partnership (PPP) risks in managing water supply projects in Ghana. J. Facil. Manag. 11 (2), 152e182. Ameyaw, E.E., Chan, A.P., 2015. Risk ranking and analysis in PPP water supply infrastructure projects: an international survey of industry experts. Facilities 33 (7/8), 428e453. Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 35 (4), 216e224. Axelsson, K., Melin, U., Lindgren, I., 2010. Exploring the importance of citizen participation and involvement in e-government projects: practice, incentives, and organization. Transforming Gov. People, Process Policy 4 (4), 299e321. Beierle, T.C., 1999. Using social goals to evaluate public participation in environmental decisions. Rev. Policy Res. 16 (3e4), 75e103. Belout, A., Gauvreau, C., 2004. Factors influencing project success: the impact of human resource management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 22 (1), 1e11. Boudet, H.S., Jayasundera, D.C., Davis, J., 2011. Drivers of conflict in developing country infrastructure projects: experience from the water and pipeline sectors. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 137 (7), 498e511. Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3 (2), 77e101. Brearley, S., Curry, C., 2006. The freeport regional water project-from public conflict to consent. In: Operations Management Conference, Sacramento, California, USA. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/40875%28212%2911, 12.02.19. Bruns, B., 2003. Water tenure reform: developing an extended ladder of participation. Politics of the commons: articulating development and strengthening local practices. In: RCSD Conference, July 11-14, 2003, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Chen, X., Wikstrom, N., 2010. Governing the water use in the greater Richmond area: dispute and resolution. Int. J. Public Adm. 33 (8e9), 405e413. Cleland, D., Ireland, L.R., 2007. Project Management: Strategic Design and Implementation. McGraw-Hill, Singapore. Connor, D.M., 1988. A new ladder of citizen participation. Natl. Civ. Rev. 77 (3),

R. Das et al. / Water Research 165 (2019) 114989 249e257. Creighton, J.L., 2005. The Public Participation Handbook: Making Better Decisions through Citizen Involvement. John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, USA. Damoah, I.S., Akwei, C.A., Amoako, I.O., Botchie, D., 2018. Corruption as a source of government project failure in developing countries: evidence from Ghana. Proj. Manag. J. 49 (3), 17e33. Das, N., Goswami, D.C., 2013. A geo-environmental analysis of the groundwater resource vis-a-vis surface water scenario in Guwahati city. Curr. World Environ. 8 (2), 275e282. Dasgupta, A., Beard, V.A., 2007. Community driven development, collective action and elite capture in Indonesia. Dev. Change 38 (2), 229e249. Davis, J., 2005. Private-sector participation in the water and sanitation sector. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30 (1), 145e183. Davis, M.V., Cannon, M.M., Corso, L., Lenaway, D., Baker, E.L., 2009. Incentives to encourage participation in the national public health accreditation model: a systematic investigation. Am. J. Public Health 99 (9), 1705e1711. Di Maddaloni, F., Davis, K., 2017. The influence of local community stakeholders in megaprojects: rethinking their inclusiveness to improve project performance. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35 (8), 1537e1556. Easter, K.W., Hearne, R., 1995. Water markets and decentralized water resources management: international problems and opportunities. JAWRA.J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 31 (1), 9e20. Garfì, M., Ferrer, L., 2011. Decision-making criteria and indicators for water and sanitation projects in developing countries. Water Sci. Technol. 64 (1), 83e101. Giering, S., 2011. Public Participation Strategies for Transit, Transportation Research Board. Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc., New York, USA. Grigg, N.S., 1997. Systemic analysis of urban water supply and growth management. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 123 (2), 23e33. Hamdy, A., Abu-Zeid, M., Lacirignola, C., 1998. Institutional capacity building for water sector development. Water Int. 23 (3), 126e133. Henjewele, C., Fewings, P., Rwelamila, P.D., 2013. De-marginalising the public in PPP projects through multi-stakeholders management. J. Financ. Manag. Prop.Constr. 18 (3), 210e231. Howell, R.E., Olsen, M.E., Olsen, D., 1987. Designing a Citizen Involvement Program: A Guidebook for Involving Citizens in the Resolution of Environmental Issues. Western Rural Development Center, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. Huang, Y., Ning, Y., Zhang, T., Fei, Y., 2015. Public acceptance of waste incineration power plants in China: comparative case studies. Habitat Int. 47, 11e19. IAP2 (International Association for Public Participation), 2014. Public participation spectrum. International Association for Public Participation. https://iap2canada. ca/Resources/Documents/0702-Foundations-Spectrum-MW-rev2%20(1).pdf, 15.01.18. Ibrahim, C.K., Costello, S.B., Wilkinson, S., 2015. Development of an assessment tool for team integration in alliance projects. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 8 (4), 813e827. Jami, A.A., Walsh, P.R., 2014. The role of public participation in identifying stakeholder synergies in wind power project development: the case study of Ontario, Canada. Renew. Energy 68, 194e202. Joy, K.J., Das, P.J., Chakraborty, G., Mahanta, C., Paranjape, S., Vispute, S., 2017. Water Conflicts in Northeast India. Taylor & Francis, India. King, C.S., Feltey, K.M., Bridget O'Neill, S., 1998. The question of participation: toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Adm. Rev. 58 (4), 317e326. Leeuwis, C., 2000. Reconceptualizing participation for sustainable rural development: towards a negotiation approach. Dev. Change 31 (5), 931e959. Li, P., 2016. Groundwater quality in Western China: challenges and paths forward for groundwater quality research in Western China. Exposure and Health 8 (3), 305e310. Lowndes, V., Pratchett, L., Stoker, G., 2001. Trends in public participation: Part 2citizens' perspectives. Public Adm. 79 (2), 445e455. Mahalingam, A., 2009. PPP experiences in Indian cities: barriers, enablers, and the way forward. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 136 (4), 419e429. Mansuri, G., Rao, V., 2004. Community-based and-driven development: a critical review. World Bank Res. Obs. 19 (1), 1e39. Megdal, S., Eden, S., Shamir, E., 2017. Water governance, stakeholder engagement, and sustainable water resources management. Water 9 (3), 190.

11

Moser, C., Sollis, P., 1991. Did the project fail? A community perspective on a participatory primary health care project in Ecuador. Dev. Pract. 1 (1), 19e33. Nabatchi, T., 2012. Putting the "Public" back in public values research: designing participation to identify and respond to values. Public Adm. Rev. 72 (5), 699e708. Naidu, M.V., 2002. Indian Reform Initiatives in Water Sector. Water Forum, World Bank, Washington D. C., USA. Narayan, D., 1994. Contribution of People's Participation: Evidence from 121 Rural Water Supply Projects. Environmentally Sustainable Development Occasional Paper Series No. 1. World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA. Ng, S.T., Wong, J.M., Wong, K.K., 2013. A public private people partnerships (P4) process framework for infrastructure development in Hong Kong. Cities 31, 370e381. Nisha, K., 2006. Community Participation in Rural Water Supply: an Analysis Using Household Data from North Kerala. Working Paper No. 173. Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, India. Olander, S., Landin, A., 2008. A comparative study of factors affecting the external stakeholder management process. Constr. Manag. Econ. 26 (6), 553e561. Ongoya, Z.E., Lumallas, E., 2005. A Critical Appraisal of the Constituency Development Fund Act. Concept Paper. Nirobi, Kenya. Ozerol, G., Newig, J., 2008. Evaluating the success of public participation in water resources management: five key constituents. Water Policy 10 (6), 639e655. Prieto, B., 2011. Stakeholder management in large engineering & construction program. PM World Today 13, 2011. Prokopy, L.S., 2005. The relationship between participation and project outcomes: evidence from rural water supply projects in India. World Dev. 33 (11), 1801e1819. Reed, M.S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Quinn, C.H., Stringer, L.C., 2009. Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J. Environ. Manag. 90 (5), 1933e1949. Rowe, G., Frewer, L.J., 2000. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 25 (1), 3e29. Sara, J., Katz, T., 2004. Making Rural Water Supply Sustainable: Report on the Impact of Project Rules. Water and Sanitation Program. World Bank, Washington D.C., USA. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/495261468135922056/ Making-rural-water-supply-sustainable-report-on-the-impact-of-project-rules, 15.01.18. Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., Jinks, C., 2018. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual. Quantity 52 (4), 1893e1907. Singh, A., 2007. Political Economy of Reforms in the Urban Water Sector in India: Lessons from the Delhi Water Sector Experience. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, USA. Tambouris, E., Liotas, N., Tarabanis, K., 2007. A framework for assessing eParticipation projects and tools. In: Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, January 3-6, 2007. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Waikoloa, USA. The Assam Tribune, 2013. Bid to Privatise Water Supply Opposed. Guwahati Edition of 22 September, Assam, India. The Telegraph, 2013. Citizens Slam Civic Body for Excesses - Daylong Fast over Irrational Tax Hike. Guwahati Edition of 21 September, Assam, India. Waheduzzaman, W., As-Saber, S., Hamid, M.B., 2018. Elite capture of local participatory governance. Pol. Politics 46 (4), 645e662. Watson, G., Jagannathan, N.V., 1995. Participation in the Water and Sanitation Sector. The World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA. World Bank, 2014. Running Water in India's Cities: A Review of Five Recent PublicPrivate Partnership Initiatives. Water and Sanitation Programme. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Washington D.C., USA. Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A., 1993. The nature and determinants of customer expectations of service. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 21 (1), 1e12. Zhenhua, L., 2013. Supervision and management information system for rural drinking water project construction. In: 3rd International Conference on Intelligent System Design and Engineering Applications, January 16-18, 2013. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Hong Kong, China.