THE REAL COST PER DROP – HOW OPEX DEFINES EQUITY

Author : AM Tris Hardyanto

THE REAL COST PER DROP – HOW OPEX DEFINES EQUITY

Series: The Hidden Cost of Water: Rethinking CapEx and OpEx in a Thirsty World (Article 2 of 5)

 

1. Introduction

Every drop of clean water delivered to a household carries a cost far beyond its physical form. Operational Expenditure (OpEx) — the often-invisible force that keeps water systems running day after day — plays a critical role in determining who gets consistent access and who is left behind. This article examines how chronic underfunding of operational expenses (OpEx) widens water inequality and why sustainable access to water cannot be achieved without financing the ongoing costs of service.

Access to clean water remains a critical global challenge, intimately tied to operational expenditures (OpEx) that define equitable water distribution and accessibility. The costs associated with maintaining water supply systems often extend beyond initial capital investments (CapEx), highlighting a disconnect that exacerbates existing inequalities. This situation is further compounded by the chronic underfunding of operational expenses (OpEx), which hinders the consistent provision of clean water to vulnerable populations. As a result, merely providing clean water infrastructure is insufficient; sustaining operations through adequate funding is essential for ensuring equitable access.

A significant body of literature emphasises that clean water is not just a basic necessity but a fundamental human right. Studies have shown that access to clean water is directly correlated with public health outcomes, particularly in children's health. For instance, children who lack reliable access to clean water experience higher rates of dehydration and malnutrition, as clean water is essential for various aspects of human metabolism and nutritional uptake (Hussain et al., 2024; Miller et al., 2021). Investigations into community water systems reveal that when operational expenses (OpEx) are not sufficiently prioritised, poorer segments of society continue to suffer disproportionately from water scarcity, leading to severe public health crises (Mangai & Vries, 2018; Muazzinah et al., 2020; Arcipowski et al., 2017).

Moreover, the intricacies of financing operating expenses (OpEx) are crucial in the context of global water scarcity. While capital expenditures (CapEx) investments are often clearly articulated in development projects, continuous financial support for operations is frequently neglected. This neglect results in inadequate maintenance of water facilities, leading to breakdowns and service interruptions that primarily affect marginalised groups. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGS) recognise this disconnect; they emphasise that to achieve equitable access to clean water and sanitation, collaborative management approaches that highlight community involvement and sustainable funding models are necessary (Yehia & Said, 2024; Kishore et al., 2023).

Empirical evidence suggests that countries with robust operational plans and community engagement see better outcomes in clean water distribution (Karmilah & Madrah, 2024; Setyari et al., 2022). Partnerships between civil society organisations and governmental bodies can create pressure for sustainable funding models that support consistent water service operations. Successful case studies from various regions demonstrate how community participation in water management leads to improved resource allocation and increased transparency (Nugroho et al., 2024; Basri et al., 2023; Gration et al., 2023). Therefore, it becomes evident that funding OpEx must be viewed as a foundational investment, critical to breaking the cycles of poverty and inequity linked to water access.

The nexus of clean water, energy, and operational costs further complicates the pursuit of equitable access. As highlighted in recent studies, the transition to alternative water supply methods, such as desalination and rainwater harvesting, often entails significant operational costs (O'Connell et al., 2024; Linares et al., 2016; Shemer et al., 2023). Innovations that might reduce these costs or enhance water quality intersect directly with notions of equity. Communities that secure financing for such technologies often find themselves better equipped to sustain clean water access, thereby improving their overall socioeconomic conditions (Russell et al., 2024; Arndt et al., 2024; Whitford et al., 2010).

Additionally, the role of local knowledge and community-based strategies in addressing water scarcity cannot be overstated. Leveraging local insights aids in identifying specific community needs and fosters a sense of ownership, which is crucial for the longevity and effectiveness of clean water projects (Karmilah & Madrah, 2024; Edwin, 2022). Instances where community members take the helm of water management frequently result in improved service delivery due to localised decision-making processes, which are more responsive to the unique challenges faced by different demographics (Mangai & Vries, 2018; Rahmawati & Firman, 2022).

The socioeconomic implications related to the operational expenses (OpEx) of water supply systems also reveal stark disparities. Marginalised neighbourhoods often resort to using contaminated water sources when municipal supplies are disrupted or unreliable, exposing themselves to preventable diseases (Saylan et al., 2019; Gulumbe et al., 2023). A study detailing the water infrastructure in urban Bangladesh revealed a correlation between household poverty levels and access to clean water, indicating that addressing the underlying socioeconomic issues is crucial for prioritising operational expenditures (Hossain et al., 2023).

In rural areas, particularly, infrastructure improvements coupled with sufficient operational expenditures (OpEx) allocations tend to yield significant health benefits and boost local economies (Nathasya et al., 2022). For instance, poorly maintained water infrastructure compromises public health, resulting in unnecessary expenditures on healthcare that could have been allocated for productive investments (Onditi, 2024; Árvai & Post, 2011). Moreover, incentivising local governance structures to manage water supplies effectively has yielded significant results in improving access to and the quality of water (Muazzinah et al., 2020; Abedin et al., 2021).

Ultimately, the pursuit of water equity cannot overlook the necessity of sustained operational expenditures. Without a balanced focus on both capital expenditures (CapEx) and operating expenditures (OpEx), efforts to provide universal access to clean water will falter, perpetuating cycles of inequality. Therefore, stakeholders must advocate for comprehensive funding strategies that prioritise OpEx as a core pillar in water service provision (Riaz et al., 2014; Kaleeswari et al., 2023). Only through a collaborative approach that includes investment in operational sustainability alongside infrastructural development can the global community hope to bridge the gap in water access and deliver on the promise of health and dignity for all.

 

2 OpEx: The Backbone of Service Equity

While CapEx brings infrastructure into existence, OpEx ensures its daily function. It pays the technicians who maintain pumps, the fuel and energy required to keep systems running, the chemicals to purify water, and the logistics to deliver it. However, in many systems around the world, OpEx is treated as an afterthought — or worse, an avoidable cost.

Chronic Underfunding of OpEx: The Silent Saboteur of Infrastructure

The failure to prioritise operational expenditure (OpEx) is a systemic flaw that turns ambitious infrastructure projects into dysfunctional relics. When governments and utilities focus on capital expenditure (CapEx) alone—constructing pipelines, treatment plants, and distribution networks—without ensuring long-term funding for operation and maintenance, systems quickly degrade:

• Pump failures become routine due to neglected repairs.
• Water treatment inconsistencies lead to unsafe drinking conditions.
• Workforce shortages mean communities endure service disruptions simply because technicians and support staff are not paid or trained adequately.

The result? What seemed like transformative projects morph into unreliable "white elephants" that cannot sustain consistent service.

Two-Tiered Service Inequality: The Hidden Divide in Water Access

When OpEx falls short, a stark divide emerges between well-resourced urban districts, which receive continuous service, and marginalised or rural areas, which face intermittent supply or shutdowns. This disparity is driven by unequal OpEx allocation:

• High-income zones benefit from stable budgets that ensure consistent service.
• Poorer districts are forced into intermittent access, with water available for only a few hours or days per week.
• Private alternatives—water tankers and bottled water—have become essential survival tools for poorer households, but at a significantly higher price per litre.

This cruel irony means those least able to afford premium rates end up paying disproportionately more for water than the wealthy.

Understanding the interplay between operational expenditures (OpEx) and service equity in water supply systems is crucial for ensuring sustainable access to clean water. Operational expenditures play a vital role in maintaining the efficacy of water services, encompassing the costs associated with workforce compensation, equipment repair, treatment chemicals, and logistical operations necessary for water distribution. The preoccupation with capital expenditures (CapEx), which focuses primarily on infrastructure development, often occurs at the expense of operating expenditures (OpEx). This disjuncture can have dire consequences for service delivery, disproportionately hindering marginalised communities that rely on consistent access to clean water for their health and well-being.

When governments and utilities prioritise CapEx without embedding sustainable OpEx funding into their frameworks, they unwittingly set the stage for chronic underfunding of essential services. The failure to allocate adequate resources for daily operations can transform promising infrastructure projects into ineffective "white elephants," characterised by unreliable service and deteriorating facilities. Regulatory oversight must adapt to ensure that operational costs are accounted for from the outset of project planning. Specifically, reports indicate that a lack of consistent funding can lead to frequent pump failures and interruptions in water supply, while insufficient workforce investment results in chronic understaffing and inadequate technician training (Hussain et al., 2024; Miller et al., 2021; Mangai & Vries, 2018). This systemic flaw is illustrated in many regions worldwide, where water systems are plagued by mechanical failures and untreated water supplies, highlighting the importance of a holistic approach to infrastructural investments that includes sustained operational funding (Muazzinah et al., 2020; Arcipowski et al., 2017).

The resulting inequities from a neglectful approach to OpEx manifest starkly within two distinct tiers of service delivery. In high-income urban districts, stable budgets enable continuous access to water services, ensuring residents enjoy consistent quality and availability. In contrast, poorer or rural areas often face intermittent supply issues, with households experiencing unreliable access, sometimes receiving water for only a few hours each week. This inconsistency fuels a reliance on expensive alternatives such as bottled water and private water tankers, which paradoxically places a heavier financial burden on poorer households who can least afford it. Available data indicate that in urban areas across Africa, households in wealthier districts utilise centralised water services, while economically disadvantaged families are compelled to seek more costly sources, thereby exacerbating the socioeconomic divide (Yehia & Said, 2024; Kishore et al., 2023; Karmilah & Madrah, 2024).

Moreover, an inherent irony exists within the water access ecosystem, wherein those least equipped to absorb additional financial burdens often bear the highest costs for lower-quality resources. Households in marginalised communities frequently experience a coerced reliance on private vendors due to inadequate infrastructure or service provisions from state-run utilities (Setyari et al., 2022; Nugroho et al., 2024). This paradox exacerbates health disparities and cultivates an environment of chronic inequity, wherein families expend a disproportionate share of their income on water. Research reveals that low-income families often allocate a significantly higher percentage of their total income to water costs compared to wealthier counterparts, further entrenching cycles of poverty and limiting the financial flexibility necessary for investing in health or education (Basri et al., 2023).

The need for comprehensive planning that interlinks capital and operational expenditures, therefore, becomes evident. This integrated approach requires acknowledging OpEx as not merely an ancillary expense but rather a foundational pillar that sustains the operational integrity of any water system. Subsequently, diverse funding mechanisms, such as escalated local government support or innovative community financing models, need to be activated to bolster OpEx sustainability (Gration et al., 2023; O'Connell et al., 2024; Linares et al., 2016). Reports from various countries indicate that when communities play an active role in decision-making regarding the management and funding of water services, improvements in both access and quality are often achieved (Shemer et al., 2023; Russell et al., 2024).

Furthermore, implementing regular monitoring frameworks to assess the performance of water utilities can help illuminate disparities and inefficiencies, ensuring that funds are used judiciously and directed appropriately based on need (Arndt et al., 2024; Whitford et al., 2010). Continued failure to address these issues will perpetuate inconsistent access and service quality, hampering public health initiatives aimed at reducing waterborne diseases that disproportionately impact vulnerable populations (Edwin, 2022; Rahmawati & Firman, 2022). Thus, it is evident that operational expenditures must be recognised as a critical driver of equity, influencing the very fabric of accessibility across sociopolitical strata.

In conclusion, resolving disparities in water access requires a dual focus on both capital expenditure for infrastructural development and operational expenditures for sustainable service delivery. Recognising and prioritising OpEx not only sustains technological investments but ultimately transforms water infrastructure into a catalyst for social equity. Policymakers must champion mixed funding strategies and community involvement to create cognitive alignments that elevate OpEx to its rightful place within the paradigm of modern water service provision. The future of equitable water access hinges on acknowledging that operational costs are not an afterthought, but rather the backbone of robust, sustainable infrastructure that can withstand the pressures of demand and climate variability.

 

3 The Inequity of Intermittent Access

A pipe in the ground does not mean water at the tap. In many cities, water is only available for a limited number of hours a day or a few days a week. This intermittent access is often worse in low-income or peri-urban areas, where operational expenditure (OpEx) allocation is minimal. Residents are forced to rely on expensive alternatives, such as private tankers, bottled water, or unsafe sources of water. In effect, the poor pay more per litre than the rich.

Hidden Costs Burdening the Poor: The "Poverty Premium" in Water Access

When utility-operated water systems fail, vulnerable households must find alternatives—many of which come at staggering costs, both financial and health-related:

Coping Mechanism	Impact on Households
Private water tankers	Exorbitant rates exploit scarcity.
Bottled water	A daily necessity, but it remains unaffordable for many.
Unsafe sources (wells, rivers)	High risk of contamination and waterborne diseases

This "poverty premium" forces struggling communities into an endless cycle where the financial burden of securing clean water deepens economic hardships.

Intermittent access to water—a situation where water supply is not available 24/7—poses significant challenges across urban landscapes, particularly in low-income and peri-urban communities. The discrepancy between having physical infrastructure and actual access to water creates critical barriers for millions worldwide, leaving them reliant on expensive alternatives. In cities where intermittent supply is standard, inhabitants find themselves subjected to a "poverty premium," whereby the more they struggle to obtain clean water, the more they end up paying per litre, exacerbating their financial hardships and health risks.

The economic implications of intermittent water supply systems are profound. Residents in areas experiencing chronic water supply failures are often forced to rely on private water tankers, which charge exorbitant prices. For instance, studies indicate that the costs associated with using water tanks can easily triple the average household expenditure on water compared to those with continuous access (Galaitsi et al., 2016; Ben et al., 2019). This service model not only exploits existing scarcities but also creates a sense of dependency that entrenches poverty. The dilemma further intensifies for families who, when forced to rely on unsafe sources such as wells or stagnant rivers, risk exposure to waterborne diseases that threaten their health and economic stability (Victor et al., 2022; García‐López et al., 2023).

Current literature identifies the detrimental health impacts associated with intermittent water supply systems. The reliance on unsafe water sources contributes to heightened exposure to waterborne pathogens, thereby increasing the incidence of gastrointestinal illnesses, particularly among vulnerable populations such as children and the elderly (Galaitsi et al., 2016; García-López et al., 2023). As these communities grapple with health issues, the associated medical costs often exacerbate their financial situations, compelling them into a vicious cycle where poor health leads to decreased income and ultimately hinders their ability to secure safe water (García-López et al., 2023). The interplay between economic strain and health fragility highlights the crucial role of equitable water access in determining overall community resilience.

Moreover, intermittent access amplifies the inequalities that exist between affluent and impoverished neighbourhoods. Areas with sustained water supply benefit disproportionately from low rates and consistent quality, enabling residents to maintain better hygiene practices and alleviate health risks associated with unsanitary conditions. In contrast, low-income communities with intermittent access face systemic barriers that extend beyond water availability, encompassing broader social and infrastructural disparities (Adams & Smiley, 2018; Lieb et al., 2016). For example, urban studies suggest that wealthier neighbourhoods tend to receive prioritised public investment, leading to fortified infrastructure and service reliability that poorer zones lack (Klassert, 2023; Thomas et al., 2024).

The concept of "water use inequality" becomes particularly salient when considering access patterns across different socioeconomic strata. Recent research emphasises the correlation between intermittent water supply and social inequity, with poorer neighbourhoods growing increasingly reliant on expensive and less reliable water sources (Bayu et al., 2020). Furthermore, policies and governance structures often fail to address these disparities directly, leaving marginalised communities trapped in cycles of dependency on costly alternatives while those in affluent zones continue to enjoy uninterrupted access (Yang et al., 2013; Yu et al., 2014). This dynamic perpetuates existing inequalities, translating to broader societal ramifications that hinder social cohesion and economic mobility.

Ultimately, the need for a comprehensive approach to address these disparities is evident. Sustainable urban water governance must prioritise equitable access to resources through policy reforms that include targeted investments in infrastructure within underserved communities. Additionally, integrating community-driven management systems can offer mechanisms for accountability and responsive service provision tailored to local needs, potentially alleviating the inequities arising from intermittent access (Ben et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2013; García‐López et al., 2023). Urban planners and water governance officials must recognise and act on the intertwined nature of water access, equity, and health outcomes to create a framework where access to safe, reliable water is truly a universal right, rather than a privilege based on socioeconomic status.

 

4 Global Patterns of OpEx Disparity

In Latin America, small municipal utilities in remote areas often lack the financial or technical capacity to cover their operating expenses (OpEx). In East Africa, donor-funded projects often collapse within a year due to budget shortages for fuel or staff. Even in high-income countries, austerity policies have led to shrinking maintenance budgets, disproportionately affecting low-income or Indigenous communities.

Failure of One-Off Capital Grants: Why Short-Term Investments Do not Solve Long-Term Problems

International donors and government programs often inject large sums into capital expenditures—building treatment plants and expanding pipelines—but neglect to provide ongoing Operational Expenditures funding. Its leads to:

• Infrastructure collapse within months or years as maintenance funds run dry.
• Abandoned projects, once celebrated as milestones, are now nonfunctional.
• Wasted investments as entire systems shut down due to the absence of operational budgets.

The solution? A paradigm shift toward multi-year, performance-based funding that guarantees continuous service rather than one-time infrastructure injections.

The operational expenditure (OpEx) landscape reveals pronounced disparities globally, which have a profound impact on water service provision in both economically advanced and developing regions. In Latin America, for instance, small municipal utilities often operate on limited budgets, struggling to cover ongoing operational costs necessary for maintenance and service delivery. This situation culminates in insufficient water quality and availability, disproportionately affecting remote communities that lack both the financial and technical resources to sustain effective water management systems. This disparity illustrates a broader trend where utility maintenance is underfunded, resulting in poor service delivery, equipment failures, and health risks borne by these communities (Rückert & Labonté, 2014; Córdoba-Doña et al., 2018).

Similar patterns emerge in East Africa, where donor-dependent water projects face significant operational challenges. Numerous initiatives, often celebrated upon completion, frequently collapse within a year due to a lack of allocated funds for necessary operational expenses, such as fuel and staffing (Hastings et al., 2015; Hastings et al., 2017). Analysis reveals that infrastructure can collapse soon after commissioning if the appropriate budgets for ongoing maintenance are neglected. This reality emphasises how reliance on sporadic funding for infrastructure, without sustained operational expenses (OpEx), can hinder the long-term sustainability and reliability of water services, ultimately undermining the intended benefits (Fauconnier, 2012).

Moreover, austerity measures in high-income countries reveal a troubling paradox: even in wealthier nations, budget cuts often disproportionately affect low-income and marginalised populations. As national and local governments implement austerity policies, the maintenance budgets for public services dwindle, weakening the infrastructure in already vulnerable communities. Studies indicate that public service reductions often lead to a concentration of resource scarcity among those who rely on these services the most, resulting in lower service quality and access problems for those already disadvantaged (Irving, 2020; Hastings et al., 2017). This further entrenches societal inequities by perpetuating a cycle where the most impoverished face the most significant barriers to obtaining vital services like water.

Another critical aspect of this issue is the failure of one-time capital grants to address persistent operational problems effectively. While international donors and government bodies frequently inject substantial amounts into capital expenditures (CapEx), such as constructing treatment plants and expanding pipelines, they often overlook the long-term operational expenditures (OpEx) funding necessary for effective system operation. As a result, infrastructure funded through these grants frequently falls into disrepair, leading to the collapse of what were once celebrated public works projects within just months or years of their inauguration (Hamer, 2023; Fauconnier, 2012). Abandoned projects litter the landscape, representing wasted investments that fail to provide the anticipated benefits due to the absence of operational budgets. This pattern reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the need for sustainable financial planning, which includes both initialisation costs and continued operational support vital for maintaining infrastructure longevity (Stehlin & Payne, 2022).

The proposed solution lies in a paradigm shift toward multi-year, performance-based funding mechanisms that prioritise continuous service provision over one-time infrastructure investments. Such funding models would emphasise the importance of sustaining operations through targeted investments in maintenance and infrastructure repair, with clear performance indicators to ensure accountability and efficiency in service delivery (Parker et al., 2021). By adopting a more integrated approach that combines both CapEx and OpEx support, governments and international organisations can develop a more resilient and equitable water supply system that prioritises the needs of underserved communities (Tsiakalakis et al., 2021; Osman & Faust, 2021).

Overall, the disparity in OpEx allocation highlights the urgent need to redefine water governance frameworks that prioritise sustainable operational funding alongside infrastructure investments. A paradigm shift towards long-term, reliable funding models tailored to the unique needs of both urban and rural populations will be crucial for addressing the profound inequities currently existing in water access. By ensuring that operational costs are recognised and funded appropriately, stakeholders can begin to dismantle the barriers that currently perpetuate water inequity, fostering an environment where clean water access becomes a universally enjoyed right rather than a privilege determined by socioeconomic class.

 

5 Toward Equitable Water Economics

Accurate equity in water access requires rethinking how operating expenses (OpEx) are valued and allocated. Utility governance models must ensure that tariff structures are fair and that subsidies are effectively distributed to those in need. International funding must move beyond one-off capital grants to include long-term operational support. Performance-based budgeting and real-time cost tracking can also help redirect funds to where they are needed most.

Models for Equitable OpEx Financing: Sustainable Solutions for Closing the Gap

The path to equitable water access lies in more intelligent operational expenditure (OpEx) allocation. Effective governance strategies include:

• Cross-subsidy tariffs — Wealthier users pay slightly more to subsidise lower-income households.
• Targeted subsidies — Government assistance ensures vulnerable populations receive affordable water.
• Mobile maintenance units — Cost-effective teams deployed to underserved areas for rapid repairs.
• Real-time cost tracking — Data-driven resource allocation optimises spending and prevents service disruptions (as successfully implemented in Kampala, Uganda).

These models offer immediate, scalable solutions that can be adopted to ensure every community receives fair, consistent water access.

Achieving equitable access to water necessitates a profound reevaluation of how operational expenditures (OpEx) are valued and allocated within water governance frameworks. It is essential to adopt governance models that not only ensure fair tariff structures but also guarantee that subsidies reach vulnerable populations effectively. As international funding bodies increasingly recognise the limited effectiveness of sporadic one-time capital grants, it becomes vital to integrate long-term operational support into funding strategies. A shift towards performance-based budgeting and real-time cost tracking will allow for the effective redistribution of funds toward communities and areas most in need of support.

One promising model for equitable water economics involves implementing cross-subsidy tariffs, where wealthier users pay slightly higher rates to subsidise lower-income households. Such a model fosters inclusivity and ensures that financial burdens do not disproportionately affect those who cannot afford exorbitant prices for water access. Similarly, targeted subsidies provided by governments and non-profit organisations can help to ensure that vulnerable populations receive affordable water, improving overall public health and economic stability in marginalised communities (Tantoh et al., 2018). These subsidy structures create a more balanced economic landscape, where those with greater means contribute to a system that supports all users equitably.

Moreover, the establishment of mobile maintenance units can be instrumental in allocating resources efficiently to underserved areas. These teams would be deployed to conduct rapid repairs, thereby preventing service interruptions that disproportionately affect lower-income neighbourhoods. This proactive maintenance strategy not only extends the lifespan of existing infrastructure but also enhances service reliability for those who rely on these resources (Rahman, 2012). Such a model of service delivery can significantly decrease the operational burden on water providers while improving customer satisfaction and health outcomes.

Real-time cost tracking is another vital component of this equitable water economics framework. By employing data-driven resource allocation models, utilities can optimise spending and ensure that funds are directed towards the areas of highest need. A successful implementation of this approach demonstrated that timely data analysis allowed for more informed decision-making regarding maintenance schedules and funding allocations, ultimately resulting in improved service delivery (Liu et al., 2024). Such tools empower utility managers to respond dynamically to service disruptions and operational challenges, fostering resilience within water systems.

Beyond these foundational strategies, broader considerations regarding integrated water resource management (IWRM) must be applied. This holistic approach facilitates the coordinated use and management of water, land, and related resources to maximise economic and social welfare while promoting sustainability. IWRM encourages engagement from all stakeholders, ensuring that the voices of marginalised communities are included in decision-making processes regarding water access and governance (Solarek & Kubasińska, 2022). By fostering collaboration among communities, governments, and NGOS, initiatives can be tailored to local contexts, reflecting the distinct needs and circumstances of various populations.

Furthermore, the role of economic instruments in water governance should not be overlooked. Policies that promote conservation and ensure efficient resource usage through economic incentives can help to alleviate pressure on water resources, ultimately leading to more sustainable practices. For example, when urban water pricing structures are designed to reflect the actual cost of water, including its ecological value, consumers are incentivised to conserve and use water more judiciously (Grafton et al., 2023).

A critical aspect of equitable water economics involves addressing the socio-political inequalities that underpin access to water resources. By recognising the structural barriers that marginalised communities face, effective governance can work to dismantle existing inequalities. Research indicates that equitable water governance is crucial for social stability and economic development; therefore, implementing policies that reflect and address these disparities is essential (Sun et al., 2015; Xie et al., 2023; Pearson et al., 2021).

To transition towards a system where equitable water access is truly achievable, stakeholders must engage in continuous dialogue about the complexities of both economic and social factors influencing water governance. Capacity-building efforts tailored to increase local governance capabilities enhance the resilience and responsiveness of water management systems (Gorgoglione et al., 2019).

In conclusion, to pave the way toward equitable water economics, stakeholders must reconsider the existing frameworks governing OpEx and explore innovative solutions that prioritise fair access for all. Emphasising performance-based funding and equitable service delivery strategies will ultimately ensure that securing access to clean, affordable water becomes a collective priority, fostering resilience and promoting health and well-being in all communities.

 

6 Case Study: Kampala, Uganda

In Kampala, the National Water and Sewerage Corporation implemented a targeted operational expenditure (OpEx) investment plan to improve service in informal settlements. By cross-subsidising operations from higher-income zones, expanding mobile maintenance units, and using smart metering to reduce losses, they increased daily water availability by 60% in low-income areas.

The implementation of a targeted operational expenditure (OpEx) investment plan by the National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC) in Kampala serves as a case study demonstrating how strategic resource allocation can improve water service delivery, particularly in informal settlements. Through methods such as cross-subsidising operations from wealthier zones, expanding mobile maintenance units, and utilising smart metering technology, the NWSC has achieved notable improvements, including increased daily water availability in low-income areas (Kayaga & Smout, 2014).

In Kampala, traditional water supply systems have struggled with inefficiencies stemming from inadequate funding, resulting in significant water losses and unreliable service (Mutikanga et al., 2011). By employing a cross-subsidy approach, NWSC directed surplus revenues from affluent districts to enhance service operations in poorer neighbourhoods, effectively addressing disparities in water access. This model not only facilitated fairer pricing structures but also provided vulnerable communities with improved water access without placing an undue financial burden on lower-income households (Kayaga & Smout, 2014).

Mobile maintenance units have become a vital component in maintaining the operational integrity of water distribution networks. The deployment of these units has enabled rapid responses to system failures, ensuring that outages are addressed promptly and effectively. The ability to restore service quickly is crucial in enhancing public trust and maintaining community well-being, especially where water supply interruptions can lead to profound health implications (Kayaga & Smout, 2014). Reports indicate that the efficiency gained from such units significantly reduces downtime and enhances overall service delivery (Mutikanga et al., 2011).

The integration of innovative metering technologies further complements these operational enhancements. By adopting advanced metering protocols, NWSC was able to gather real-time water usage data, which informed not only operational decision-making but also provided insights into consumer behaviour and demand forecasting (Salomons et al., 2020). With better visibility into actual water usage patterns, utilities can optimise resource management, detect leaks more effectively, and minimise water losses, thereby enhancing the overall efficiency of the supply chain (Salomons et al., 2020; Kayaga & Smout, 2014). Such technological investments align well with the increased trend of using innovative technologies in urban water management, reinforcing the connection between data-driven resource allocation and improved service outcomes.

Moreover, the successful implementation of these strategies in Kampala signals broader implications for other cities facing similar challenges. The lessons learned can guide policy frameworks, emphasising the need for investment not just in infrastructure but also in ongoing operational support mechanisms. By integrating performance-based funding models into municipal planning, cities can ensure that improvements in water delivery translate into long-term sustainability (Kayaga & Smout, 2014; Huang et al., 2020).

In conclusion, the NWSC's proactive approach in Kampala illustrates how targeted OpEx investments can effectively close the gap in water access equity. By employing cross-subsidy tariffs, mobile maintenance units, and smart metering technology, the agency has demonstrated a commitment to improving service delivery for the most vulnerable populations. As other urban centres evaluate their water management strategies, the learnings from Kampala present a compelling case for integrated, equitable approaches to achieving sustainable water access for all.

Key Observations:

1. CapEx Challenges: Many countries face issues with insufficient or inequitable capital investments, leading to infrastructure gaps.
2. OpEx Challenges: Chronic underfunding of operational expenditures results in system failures, inequities, and reliance on expensive alternatives. ​
3. Equity Issues: Marginalised communities, rural areas, and low-income populations are disproportionately affected by both CapEx and OpEx shortcomings. ​

A matrix summarising all the countries mentioned categorised by CapEx and OpEx issues, along with the specific challenges or issues highlighted :

No	Country/Region	CapEx Issues	OpEx Issues	Specific Challenges/Issues
1	Uganda	Lack of CapEx for informal settlements.	Success in targeted OpEx investment (Kampala case study). ​	Increased daily water availability by 60% in low-income areas through cross-subsidies and smart metering. ​
2	Latin America	Donor-funded CapEx projects often collapse. ​	Small municipal utilities lack the financial/technical capacity for OpEx. ​	Infrastructure degradation due to missing operational budgets. ​
3	East Africa	Donor-funded CapEx projects collapse within a year. ​	Missing budgets for fuel and staff lead to system failures. ​	Short-term investments fail without long-term operational support. ​
4	High-Income Countries	CapEx investments exist but are undermined by austerity policies.	Shrinking maintenance budgets disproportionately affect low-income/Indigenous communities. ​	Reduced funding for OpEx leads to inequities in service reliability. ​
5	Kenya	Intermittent water supply in low-income areas. ​	Poor OpEx allocation leads to reliance on expensive alternatives. ​	Residents pay higher costs for water from vendors and face health risks from unsafe sources. ​
6	Mozambique	Inequities in CapEx allocation for water infrastructure.	OpEx disparities lead to intermittent supply and dissatisfaction. ​	Distance from water mains affects access and satisfaction with water services. ​
7	Bangladesh	CapEx investments in tubewells fail to address arsenic contamination.	Limited OpEx for monitoring water safety.	Inequities in access to safe water persist despite infrastructure investments. ​
8	Peru	CapEx investments in piped systems fail to ensure equitable access. ​	Chlorine residuals vary significantly with socioeconomic status. ​	Inequities in water quality based on socioeconomic status.
9	Ethiopia	CapEx investments in non-piped improved sources fail to ensure safety.	Limited OpEx for water quality monitoring.	Poor households rely on unsafe sources, increasing inequality. ​
10	Nicaragua	CapEx investments fail to ensure safe water access for poor households. ​	Limited OpEx for water safety monitoring.	Inequities in access to safe water persist. ​
11	Nigeria	CapEx investments fail to address cholera outbreaks. ​	Limited OpEx for water quality monitoring and infrastructure maintenance.	Water scarcity and poor drinking water quality exacerbate health crises. ​
12	Jordan	Significant CapEx investments in water supply networks. ​	Limited OpEx improvements lead to persistent intermittency. ​	$275M investment showed moderate improvements but failed to address supply duration issues.
13	Tajikistan	CapEx investments fail to address inequities in water access. ​	Limited OpEx for water quality monitoring.	Inequities in access to safe water persist. ​
14	Malawi	CapEx investments fail to address urban-rural disparities. ​	Limited OpEx for rural water systems.	Urban-rural inequalities in water access persist. ​
15	Zambia	CapEx investments fail to address service continuity. ​	Limited OpEx is available for urban and peri-urban water systems.	47% of households reported water unavailability for at least one day in the previous fortnight. ​
16	Indonesia	CapEx investments fail to address sinking coastal areas. ​	PDAM services struggle due to insufficient OpEx. ​	Rainwater harvesting becomes a community-driven solution due to the high costs of refilled water. ​
17	Cameroon	CapEx investments in river basin management are insufficient.	Limited OpEx for community-based water governance.	Lack of participation and engagement of local resource users in decision-making processes. ​
18	Uruguay/Brazil	CapEx investments in transboundary watersheds fail to address equity.	Limited OpEx for sustainable water-sharing agreements.	Water-sharing conflicts persist due to a lack of operational coordination.
19	China	CapEx investments in domestic water systems show regional disparities.	Limited OpEx for equitable water pricing reforms. ​	Domestic water prices vary significantly based on economic development and income levels. ​
20	Sub-Saharan Africa	CapEx investments fail to address physical and economic water scarcities. ​	Limited OpEx is used to address interpersonal and regional conflicts over water. ​	Water insecurity leads to interpersonal and regional conflicts.
21	Poland	CapEx investments in integrated water management are slow.	Limited OpEx for sustainable water management strategies.	National and regional policies are poorly translated into local planning documents. ​
22	United States	CapEx investments fail to address inequities in water access. ​	Limited OpEx is needed to address affordability and water quality issues. ​	Low-income neighbourhoods and communities of colour face inequitable impacts. ​
23	Canada	CapEx investments fail to address water insecurity in First Nations communities.	Limited OpEx is used for monitoring small water systems.	73% of water systems in First Nations communities are at medium to high risk. ​
24	Greece	CapEx investments fail to address unmet health and water needs. ​	Limited OpEx is used to maintain water services during austerity. ​	Economic crisis and austerity measures undermine access to reliable water services. ​

 

7 Conclusion

Operational spending is not an optional add-on — it is the heartbeat of water equity. Without it, infrastructure becomes a privilege, and access becomes a lottery. To build just, resilient water systems, OpEx must be placed at the centre of planning, funding, and policy.

In conclusion, operational spending is fundamental to the equitable distribution of water resources, serving as a critical element that sustains water equity. When operational expenditures (OpEx) are neglected or treated as optional in water management, it can transform what should be a universal right into a privilege for a select few, effectively making access to water contingent on one's socioeconomic status. This is particularly evident in informal settlements and marginalised communities, where infrastructure is often inadequate, and resource allocation frequently favours wealthier areas.

Achieving accurate equity in water access requires prioritising OpEx in planning, funding, and policy agendas. Various studies and case examples illustrate that integrating operational cost considerations into governance frameworks can help ensure that vulnerable communities are not sidelined in service provision. For instance, targeted operational improvement initiatives in Kampala, Uganda, demonstrate how addressing operational costs can enhance service delivery in disadvantaged areas, ensuring that water systems function optimally for all citizens without discrimination.

As stakeholders in local water systems consider who benefits most from reliable service, recognising existing gaps and the communities that remain underserved is imperative. Historical patterns of funding inequities reveal that low-income and marginalised populations often bear the brunt of service disruptions and deteriorating infrastructure. The solution lies in adopting new governance models that promote transparency, fairness, and inclusivity in resource allocation. Implementing cross-subsidy tariffs, targeted subsidies, and robust maintenance strategies is essential to rebalance this equation, ensuring that marginalised groups are both acknowledged and prioritised in discussions on water equity.

Moving forward, policymakers, utility operators, and civil society must engage collaboratively in discussions aimed at dismantling barriers to equitable water access. By shifting the narrative to emphasise operational expenditures in water governance, we can work towards more resilient water systems that support social equity and sustainability. This strategic repositioning can address service disparities and facilitate the development of just, resilient, and inclusive water systems worldwide.

 

REFERENCES

Hussain, M. M., Iqbal, A., & Abbas, S. J. (2024). Analysing child health and water, sanitation, hygiene facilities in Punjab, Pakistan: A multilevel and spatial approach. Asian Soc Wrk & Pol Rev, 18(3), . https://doi.org/10.1111/aswp.12325

Miller, J. D., Workman, C. L., Panchang, S., Sneegas, G., Adams, E. A., Young, S. L., & Thompson, A. L. (2021). Water Security and Nutrition: Current Knowledge and Research Opportunities. Advances in Nutrition, 12(6), 2525-2539. https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmab075

Mangai, M. S., & Vries, M. S. d. (2018). Co-production as deep engagement. IJPSM, 31(1), 81-96. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpsm-03-2017-0084

Muazzinah, M., Majid, M. S. A., & Syathi, P. B. (2020). What Determines Households’' Willingness to Pay for Clean Water?. EDAJ, 9(4), 402-413. https://doi.org/10.15294/edaj.v9i4.39988

Arcipowski, E., Schwartz, J. S., Davenport, L., Hayes, M. H., & Nolan, T. S. (2017). Clean Water, Clean Life: Promoting Healthier, Accessible Water in Rural Appalachia. Contemporary Water Research, 161(1), 2018-01-01. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-704x.2017.3248.x

Yehia, H. M. A., & Said, S. M. (2024). Improving the Quality of Drinking Water by Raising the ph Levels Using a Natural Na₂ Sio ₃ Physical Field. Nan. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112856

Kishore, S., Venkatesh, U., Verma, S. K., Verma, S. K., & Walia, P. (2023). Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene: A Global Imperative for Health. Indian J Community Health, 35(3), 367-371. https://doi.org/10.47203/ijch.2023.v35i03.022

Karmilah, M., & Madrah, M. Y. (2024). Coping Strategies to Address Water Scarcity through Local Knowledge in Tidal Flood and Erosion-Prone Areas: A Case Study of Timbulsloko, Sayung Regency, Demak Municipality. IOP Conf. Ser..: Earth Environ. Sci., 1321(1), 12005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1321/1/012005

Setyari, N. P. W., Sukadana, I. W., Saskara, I. A. N., & Suasih, N. N. R. (2022). The Impact of Clean Water Access on Children’s Performance in Indonesia. IJSDP, 17(6), 1809-1819. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.170615

Nugroho, W. A., Samadikun, B. P., Putera, I., Azzaimi, M. T. F., & Purba, Y. (2024). Study of community participation in the community-based clean water distribution movement in Semarang City. IOP Conf. Ser..: Earth Environ. Sci., 1414(1), 12075. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1414/1/012075

Basri, B., Kasma, A. Y., Dewi, C., & Rahmadani, N. (2023). Man, Woman, and Water: Exploring Gender Dynamics in Urban Water Clean Access in Makassar City. IOP Conf. Ser..: Earth Environ. Sci., 1275(1), 12039. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1275/1/012039

Gration, J. M., Pastory, K. M., & Ndunguru, G. (2023). Using Information and Communication Technology to Enforce Non-Payment of Water Bills: The Case of Water Supply and Sanitation Authorities in Tanzania. IJASRE, 9(2), 2019-12-01. https://doi.org/10.31695/ijasre.2023.9.2.2

O’Connell, M. G., Rajendran, N., Elimelech, M., Gilron, J., & Dunn, J. B. (2024). Water, Energy, and Cost: A Nexus Approach to Zero/Minimal Liquid Discharge Desalination Technologies. Nan. https://doi.org/10.26434/chemrxiv-2024-psc4d

Linares, R. V., Li, Z., Yangali-Quintanilla, V., Ghaffour, N., Amy, G., Leiknes, T., & Vrouwenvelder, J. S. (2016). Life cycle cost of a hybrid forward osmosis †"low pressure reverse osmosis system for seawater desalination and wastewater recovery. Water Research, 88, 225-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.10.017

Shemer, H., Wald, S., & Semiat, R. (2023). Challenges and Solutions for Global Water Scarcity. Membranes, 13(6), 612. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes13060612

Russell, A. J., McMorland, J., Collu, M., McDonald, A., Thies, P. R., Keane, A., Quayle, A. R., McMillan, D., Carroll, J., & Coraddu, A. (2024). The Impact of LIDAR‐Assisted Pitch Control on Floating Offshore Wind Operational Expenditure. Wind Energy, 27(11), 1450-1461. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.2951

Arndt, B., Willson, B., & Nazemi, M. (2024). Thermodynamic and Economic Assessments of Electrochemical CO₂ Conversion to Dimethyl Ether: Trade-off between Hydrogen Gas and Water Vapour as a Proton Source. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 63(33), 14582-14589. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.4c01675

Whitford, A. B., Smith, H., & Mandawat, A. (2010). Disparities in access to clean water and sanitation: institutional causes. Water Policy, 12(S1), 155-176. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2010.019

Edwin, M. (2022). Brackish Water Treatment with Local Filter Media and Reverse Osmosis using Application of Internet of Things Technology. JMechE, SI 11(1), 147-164. https://doi.org/10.24191/jmeche.v11i1.23594

Rahmawati, R., & Firman, F. (2022). The Politics of Clean Water Management: A Critical Review on the Scarcity of Clean Water in Kedungringin Village. ARISTO, 11(1), 114-125. https://doi.org/10.24269/ars.v11i1.5247

Saylan, Y., Erdem, Ã., Cihangir, N., & Denizli, A. (2019). Detecting Fingerprints of Waterborne Bacteria on a Sensor. Chemosensors, 7(3), 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors7030033

Gulumbe, B. H., Yusuf, Z. M., Faggo, A. A., Yahaya, T., & Manga, S. S. (2023). The interplay among conflict, water scarcity, and cholera in Northern Nigeria. Public Health Challenges, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/puh2.118

Hossain, I., Haque, A. K. M. M., & Ullah, S. A. (2023). Assessment of Domestic Water Usage and Wastage in Urban Bangladesh: A Study of Rajshahi City Corporation. JISDeP, 4(2), 109-121. https://doi.org/10.46456/jisdep.v4i2.462

Nathasya, S., Haryanto, T., & Sukartini, N. M. (2022). ANALYSIS OF POVERTY IN JAVA-BALI ISLAND AND REGIONS OUTSIDE JAVA-BALI. trikonomika, 21(1), 46-53. https://doi.org/10.23969/trikonomika.v21i1.5340

Onditi, L. (2024). Relationship between Access to Clean Water and Child Growth and Development in Kenya. GJHS, 9(3), 45-54. https://doi.org/10.47604/gjhs.2681

Árvai, J., & Post, K. (2011). Risk Management in a Developing Country Context: Improving Decisions About Point‐of‐Use Water Treatment Among the Rural Poor in Africa. Risk Analysis, 32(1), 67-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01675.x

Abedin, Z., Li, J., & Hu, G. (2021). Challenges and Critical Water Quality Issues in Micro Water Systems in
British Columbia, Canada. Nan. https://doi.org/10.11159/rtese21.201

Riaz, N., Bustam, M. A., & Shariff, A. M. (2014). Iron Doped Tio<sub>2</sub&gt Photocatalysts for Environmental Applications: Fundamentals and Progress. AMR, 925, 689-693. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.925.689

Kaleeswari, C., Kuppusamy, K., & Senthilrajan, A. (2023). Performance analysis of samplers and calibrators with various classifiers for asymmetric hydrological data. IJATEE, 10(107), . https://doi.org/10.19101/ijatee.2023.10101138

Galaitsi, S., Russell, R. A., Bishara, A., Durant, J. L., Bogle, J., & Huber‐Lee, A. (2016). Intermittent Domestic Water Supply: A Critical Review and Analysis of Causal-Consequential Pathways. Water, 8(7), 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8070274

Ben, M., Ochanda, D., & Boakye-Ansah, A. S. (2019). Effects of Delegated Water Provisioning on Quality of Drinking Water in Low-Income Areas of Kisumu County, Kenya. JHMN,. https://doi.org/10.7176/jhmn/60-12

Victor, C., Ocasio, D. V., Cumbe, Z. A., Garn, J. V., Hubbard, S., Mangamela, M., McGunegill, S., Nalá, R., Snyder, J. S., Lévy, K., & Freeman, M. C. (2022). Spatial heterogeneity of neighbourhood-level water and sanitation access in informal urban settlements: A cross-sectional case study in Beira, Mozambique. PLOS Water, 1(6), e0000022. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000022

García‐López, M., Cuadrado‐Quesada, G., & Montaño, B. (2023). Untangling the vicious cycle around water and poverty. Sustainable Development, 32(3), 1845-1860. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2753

Adams, E. A., & Smiley, S. L. (2018). Urban‐rural water access inequalities in Malawi: implications for monitoring the Sustainable Development Goals. Natural Resources Forum, 42(4), 217-226. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12150

Lieb, A. M., Rycroft, C. H., & Wilkening, J. (2016). Optimising Intermittent Water Supply in Urban Pipe Distribution Networks. SIAM J. Appl. Math., 76(4), 1492-1514. https://doi.org/10.1137/15m1038979

Klassert, C. (2023). Unequal, Unreliable, and Unfixable?â€" The Need to Investigate Water Infrastructure Improvements in Intermittent Supply Systems. Water Resources Research, 59(11). https://doi.org/10.1029/2023wr036208

Thomas, M., Channon, A. A., Bain, R., & Wright, J. A. (2024). Household, neighbourhood and service provider risk factors for piped drinking-water intermittency in urban and peri-urban Zambia: A cross-sectional analysis. PLOS Water, 3(2), e0000127. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000127

Bayu, T., Kim, H., & Oki, T. (2020). Water Governance Contribution to Water and Sanitation Access Equality in Developing Countries. Water Resources Research, 56(4). https://doi.org/10.1029/2019wr025330

Yang, H., Bain, R., Bartram, J., Gundry, S., Pedley, S., & Wright, J. A. (2013). Water Safety and Inequality in Access to Drinking Water between Rich and Poor Households. Environ. Sci. Technol., 47(3), 1222-1230. https://doi.org/10.1021/es303345p

Yu, W., Bain, R., Mansour, S., & Wright, J. A. (2014). A cross-sectional ecological study of spatial scale and geographic inequality in access to drinking-water and sanitation. Int J Equity Health, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-014-0113-3

Rückert, A., & Labonté, R. (2014). The global financial crisis and health equity: Early experiences from Canada. Global Health, 10(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-8603-10-2

Córdoba-Doña, J. A., Escolar-Pujolar, A., Sebastián, M. S., & Gustafsson, P. E. (2018). Withstanding austerity: Equity in health services utilisation in the first stage of the economic recession in Southern Spain. PLoS ONE, 13(3), e0195293. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195293

Hastings, A., Bailey, N., Gannon, M., Besemer, K., & Bramley, G. (2015). Coping with the Cuts? The Management of the Worst Financial Settlement in Living Memory. Local Government Studies, 2021-01-01. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2015.1036987

Hastings, A., Bailey, N., Bramley, G., & Gannon, M. (2017). Austerity urbanism in England: The ‘regressive redistribution’ of local government services and the impact on the poor and marginalised. Environ Plan A, 49(9), 2007-2024. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518x17714797

Fauconnier, I. (2012). The Privatisation of Residential Water Supply and Sanitation Services: Social Equity Issues in the California and International Contexts. Planning Journal, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.5070/bp313113030

Irving, Z. (2020). The Legacy of Austerity. Social Policy and Society, 20(1), 97-110. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1474746420000500

Hamer, R. (2023). The Scylla State. A gendered understanding of the experiences of marginalised women in the United Kingdom. British Journal of Sociology, 74(5), 938-956. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.13053

Stehlin, J., & Payne, W. (2022). Disposable infrastructures: ‘Micromobility’ platforms and the political economy of transport disruption in Austin, Texas. Urban Studies, 60(2), 274-291. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980221091486

Parker, J., Sayers, J., Young‐Hauser, A., Barnett, S., Loga, P., & Paea, S. (2021). Gender and ethnic equity in Aotearoa New Zealand's public service before and since Covid‐19: Toward intersectional inclusion?. Gender Work & Organisation, 29(1), 110-130. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12759

Tsiakalakis, G., Golna, C., Dedes, N., Papageorgiou, G., Athanasakis, K., & Souliotis, K. (2021). HIV patient access to healthcare services in a post-austerity era in Greece. IJHRH, 14(5), 403-410. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijhrh-10-2020-0092

Osman, K., & Faust, K. M. (2021). Toward Operationalising Equity in Water Infrastructure Services: Developing a Definition of Water Equity. ACS EST Water, 1(8), 1849-1858. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.1c00125

Tantoh, H. B., Simatele, M. D., Ebhuoma, E. E., & Donkor, F. K. (2018). Communities at the Centre of River Basin Management for Sustainable Development in Northwest Cameroon. Nan. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74119

Rahman, M. A. (2012). Water Security: Ethiopiaâ€- Egypt Transboundary Challenges over the Nile River Basin. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 48(1), 35-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021909612438517

Liu, J., Xu, Y., Zhang, W., Wang, S., & Chen, S. (2024). Process-based three-layer synergistic optimal-allocation model for complex water resource systems considering reclaimed water. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28(6), 1325-1350. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1325-2024

Solarek, K., & KubasiÅ„ska, M. (2022). Local Spatial Plans in Supporting Sustainable Water Resources Management: Case Study from Warsaw Agglomerationâ€" Kampinos National Park Vicinity. Sustainability, 14(10), 5766. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105766

Grafton, R. Q., Manero, A., Chu, L., & Wyrwoll, P. R. (2023). The Price and Value of Water: An Economic Review. Camb. prisms Water, 1939-01-01. https://doi.org/10.1017/wat.2023.2

Sun, G., Michelsen, A. M., Sheng, Z., Fang, A. F., Shang, Y., & Zhang, H. (2015). Featured Collection Introduction: Water for Megacities â€" Challenges and Solutions. J American Water Resour Assoc, 51(3), 585-588. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12317

Xie, X. L., Tu, X., Zhu, J., Singh, V. P., & Chai, Y. (2023). Spatiotemporal Variability and Impact Factors of Domestic Water Prices in China. Water, 16(1), 115. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16010115

Pearson, A. L., Mack, E. A., Ross, A., Marcantonio, R. A., Zimmer, A., Bunting, E., Smith, A. C., Miller, J. D., & Evans, T. (2021). Interpersonal Conflict over Water Is Associated with Household Demographics, Domains of Water Insecurity, and Regional Conflict: Evidence from Nine Sites across Eight Sub-Saharan African Countries. Water, 13(9), 1150. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13091150

Gorgoglione, A., Crisci, M., Kayser, R. H. B., Chreties, C., & Collischonn, W. (2019). A New Scenario-Based Framework for Conflict Resolution in Water Allocation in Transboundary Watersheds. Water, 11(6), 1174. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11061174

Kayaga, S., & Smout, I. K. (2014). Tariff structures and incentives for water demand management. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Water Manag, 167(8), 448-456. https://doi.org/10.1680/wama.12.00120

Mutikanga, H. E., Sharma, S., & Vairavamoorthy, K. (2011). Assessment of apparent losses in urban water systems. Water & Environment J, 25(3), 327-335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-6593.2010.00225.x

Salomons, E., Sela, L., & Housh, M. (2020). Hedging for Privacy in Smart Water Meters. Water Resources Research, 56(9). https://doi.org/10.1029/2020wr027917

Huang, Y., Zheng, F., Kapelan, Z., Savić, D., Duan, H., & Zhang, Q. (2020). Efficient Leak Localisation in Water Distribution Systems Using Multistage Optimal Valve Operations and Smart Demand Metering. Water Resources Research, 56(10). https://doi.org/10.1029/2020wr028285

 

The Mirage of Infrastructure – When Big Projects Fail the Poor

 

Author : AM Tris Hardyanto

The Mirage of Infrastructure – When Big Projects Fail the Poor

Despite billions invested in large-scale water infrastructure projects across underserved communities worldwide, many fail to deliver their promised outcomes. This article critically examines the recurring imbalance between capital expenditure (CapEx) and operational expenditure (OpEx), revealing how an overemphasis on construction without sustained funding for maintenance, staffing, and governance often leads to system failures. Drawing from global case studies in India, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Lesotho, the analysis explores how inadequate OpEx planning exacerbates inequality, weakens community resilience, and undermines water access efforts. The paper highlights how political incentives, donor metrics, and financing norms entrench a CapEx bias, often prioritising short-term visibility over long-term functionality. It concludes by advocating for a shift toward lifecycle-based infrastructure models that embed community participation, performance monitoring, and financial transparency. By realigning infrastructure design with sustainability and local empowerment, this article offers a roadmap to ensure that future water projects fulfil their social and environmental mandates, not merely their engineering blueprints.

 

1.1 Introduction

The issue of large-scale water infrastructure projects in underserved communities has become increasingly critical as many of these initiatives, while initially promising, often fail to deliver sustainable benefits to the populations they aim to serve. Various case studies indicate that capital expenditure (CapEx) alone does not suffice to ensure the long-term efficacy and maintenance of these projects. Without a complementary approach that includes operational expenditure (OpEx) – which encompasses the costs of staffing, maintenance, and management – many projects experience deterioration soon after completion, leading to increased hardships for impoverished communities who initially sought improved access to clean water.

A detailed analysis of infrastructure projects reveals that while initial investments can trigger increased water accessibility and consumption, the absence of dedicated operational funding undermines the expected health and socio-economic benefits (Sargentis et al., 2019). Furthermore, studies have identified significant patterns in the relationship between infrastructure investment and the social dynamics it engenders within local communities, affirming that infrastructure can significantly influence public welfare, especially when adequately maintained and operationalised (Carrión-Barco et al., 2024). However, regardless of the sheer scale and ambition of these water projects, they risk becoming ineffective if not supported by adequate operational frameworks that ensure sustainability over their life cycles (Reidy, 2019).

The discourse surrounding infrastructure investment must shift towards embracing sustainable development principles that recognise the intricate interplay between initial capital outlay and ongoing operational needs. For example, guidelines from recent studies suggest that infrastructure should not only be constructed but continuously supported; a lifecycle approach is necessary to assess the ongoing costs associated with infrastructure projects (Alaloul et al., 2021; Li et al., 2024). involves comprehensive planning that integrates both CapEx and OpEx into the fiscal profiles of new projects, thereby enhancing the resilience and effectiveness of these initiatives.

Notably, models assessing the implications of infrastructure investment on regional economic growth highlight a troubling trend: when infrastructure development neglects local operational needs, the resultant economic benefits can be limited (Ansar et al., 2016). is echoed in analyses questioning the long-term economic viability of projects that do not encompass ongoing operational budgeting alongside their initial capital investments (Gb & Ajuwon, 2017). For operational success, stakeholders must consider not just the return on initial investment but the sustainable impact across various socio-economic dimensions, including public health, environmental effects, and community resilience (Poff et al., 2015).

Moreover, evaluating the sustainability of such infrastructure cannot ignore the potential for exacerbating existing inequalities among underserved populations. Evidence suggests that while urban areas may benefit from upgraded infrastructure, rural or poorer communities often remain distanced from these improvements, as operational capacities to maintain these structures regularly remain underfunded or mismanaged (Lateef & Abbas, 2023; Hussain et al., 2022). Consequently, a failure to incorporate effective operational mechanisms for infrastructure maintenance can hinder even the most ambitious capital projects intended to alleviate water scarcity in local regions.

The current literature thus calls for a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics governing infrastructure development and maintenance. Effective project management practices must exceed mere construction efforts and establish comprehensive frameworks, including community engagement and participatory governance mechanisms aimed at ensuring sustained access to necessary resources (Zhang et al., 2010; Brunet & Aubry, 2018). Such an approach could significantly enhance local ownership of infrastructure and heighten adaptability to changing economic and environmental conditions, ultimately increasing the structural resilience of water systems (Gorman, 2023).

Factors influencing the operational success of water projects are manifold. Political, economic, and technological dimensions must converge to align on a clear vision for both investment and sustainability (Lv et al., 2023; Nguri et al., 2025). For instance, secondary research highlights the pivotal role that socio-political frameworks play in determining the success or failure of infrastructure projects, particularly in developing economies where governance can be disparate and unpredictable (Dietler et al., 2021; Lokshin, 2005; Fedulova et al., 2020). Thus, reviewing active precedents suggests that merely focusing on initial infrastructure deployment is insufficient; perpetual stakeholder collaboration and adaptive management strategies are imperative for long-term viability.

Additionally, environmental sustainability becomes increasingly important when considering the implications of infrastructure projects on local ecosystems (Kalu et al., 2020; Khalid et al., 2023). Failing to incorporate sustainability into water project planning can trigger ecological imbalances that undermine the original purpose of such projects. Studies emphasise the need for ongoing ecological assessments as part of infrastructure maintenance protocols to preserve local biodiversity and ecosystem services (Kattel et al., 2019). integrative approach ensures that projects remain in harmony with the broader ecological landscapes they inhabit.

The financial aspects associated with infrastructure projects further exemplify the challenges of balancing CapEx and OpEx. Detailed examinations reveal frequent discrepancies between projected costs and actual expenditures, particularly in operational phases where initial budgets do not account for unexpected maintenance requirements or operational failures (Žerjav, 2015; Shrestha et al., 2022). Such discrepancies amplify the urgency for a shift towards investment paradigms focusing on lifecycle costing methods that emphasise long-term resource management strategies rather than short-term financial metrics.

As climate change exerts increasing pressures on existing water infrastructures, the vulnerability of poorly maintained systems becomes more apparent. Research highlights that climate-related disruptions underscore the need for robust infrastructure and necessitate that operational elements are agile enough to adapt to emerging environmental stresses (Orebiyi et al., 2024; Brown et al., 2023). Therefore, water infrastructure sustainability cannot be disentangled from operational strategies that consider the variability and risks associated with climate predictions.

In summary, while large-scale water infrastructure projects promise significant advancements in public health and quality of life, their efficacy is heavily reliant upon a dual focus on both capital and operational expenditures. The prevailing landscape of water infrastructure finance necessitates transformative frameworks that account for substantial initial investments and establish sustainable operational support. Practitioners and policymakers must collaborate to create holistic models that encompass the complete lifecycle of water infrastructure, ensuring that underprivileged communities genuinely benefit rather than face the consequences of intermittent access to vital resources.

 

1.2  The Allure of the Grand Project

The allure of large-scale infrastructure projects, such as monumental dams and extensive urban water supply systems, reflects a complex interplay of economic signalling, political ambition, and developmental ideology. Governments and donors are often captivated by the transformative potential these grand projects promise, as they represent progress, state capacity, and a pathway toward economic growth. However,  enthusiastic pursuit can obscure critical considerations related to the operational realities essential for sustained service delivery. The focus on monumental structures often acts as a distraction from the underlying necessities of effective water management systems, including skilled human resources, reliable energy supplies, adequate spare parts, and ongoing maintenance efforts.

As articulated in various studies, the financing of large water infrastructure projects often emphasises capital expenditure (CapEx) disproportionately compared to operational expenditure (OpEx) (Ruiters, 2013; Trebilcock & Rosenstock, 2015). imbalance can lead to significant inefficiencies once the initial euphoria over project completion dissipates. For instance, Mollel and Slawe highlight that while development aid can enhance water supply systems, it may broadly support CapEx without developing the accompanying operational capacity necessary for sustainable management (Mollel & Slawe, 2024). points to a troubling trend where, once completed, these infrastructural assets fall into disrepair due to insufficient operational support, leaving communities in need of water services without effective management solutions in place.

The importance of a public-private partnership (PPP) model in infrastructure delivery cannot be overstated. Studies have identified that partnerships can promote better financing options and operational efficiencies that might be lacking in traditionally government-led projects. Ruiters and Amadi-Echendu illustrate how PPPS can enhance the value chain within water services, allowing for improved infrastructure management and efficiency (Ruiters & Amadi-Echendu, 2022). However, despite viability, the emphasis on the construction of new infrastructure often takes precedence over ensuring that these systems can be effectively operated and maintained. Thus, while the intent is positive, the outcomes frequently underscore a need for a more holistic approach that harmonises both CapEx and OpEx from the outset.

Furthermore, rapid infrastructure projects must consider regional contexts and the unique challenges presented by local governance structures. The complexity of managing water supply has been illustrated in various studies that show decentralised governance can lead to uneven service distribution (Dithebe et al., 2019; Barnes, 2016). For instance, lessons from South Africa highlight systemic issues where local municipalities often lack the engineering expertise necessary for effective infrastructure management. Results in an overreliance on the private sector, which can lead to inefficiencies and failures due to a lack of accountability in service delivery (Ruiters, 2013). Such constraints underscore the necessity of aligning operational strategies with comprehensive capacity-building initiatives aimed at empowering local governments.

Evaluations of projects across different contexts consistently reveal that robust technical support and workforce training are crucial components often overlooked during planning and execution phases (Aiyetan & Das, 2021). The need for ongoing training for operational staff and reliable supply chains for maintenance parts must come to the forefront during the project conceptualisation stage; without these integral systems, even the most impressive infrastructure risks becoming moribund. A study exemplifying this is provided by Trebilcock and Rosenstock, who discuss how interdependencies between public and private sectors can facilitate the maintenance of capability throughout all phases of a project's lifecycle (Trebilcock & Rosenstock, 2015).

The impact of focusing disproportionately on CapEx is starkly visible in regions with intermittent water supply systems, where the expectation of significant infrastructure development does not translate into consistent access to safe drinking water. Research indicates that high levels of investment often do not correlate with improved service delivery if operational infrastructures are neglected (Klassert, 2023). Additionally,  operational neglect may transform healthy funding into long-term liabilities when maintenance costs spiral out of control, further straining public finances and undermining water accessibility goals.

The need for integrated approaches to infrastructure development and management has been widely recognised. Going beyond traditional perceptions of CapEx and OpEx requires a paradigm shift toward considering the lifecycle of projects, encompassing maintenance, community engagement, and economic sustainability as core principles of project design. Evidence from cases such as those discussed in community-managed water systems emphasises that local engagement not only fosters accountability but also ensures the sustainability of such projects by making local communities stakeholders in their success (Shah et al., 2022).

Moreover, public officials should actively engage in performance evaluations and maintain transparency about both the successes and shortcomings of infrastructure projects. As emphasised in several studies, such transparency is essential for fostering trust among project stakeholders and communities that depend on these services to meet their basic needs (Jeuland et al., 2022). Through robust monitoring frameworks and inclusive stakeholder engagement processes, infrastructure delivery can better respond to the needs and realities of the populations it aims to serve, creating truly sustainable outcomes.

In summary, while the grandiose visions of infrastructure projects carry considerable allure, real progress hinges on a steadfast commitment to developing the operational capabilities required for their ongoing success. Governments and international donors must pivot from merely pursuing landmark projects to creating integrated frameworks that balance capital expenditures with necessary operational investments and community engagement. Only through  holistic lens can infrastructure become a valid driver of development, enhancing life quality and access to essential services for all, particularly in underserved communities (Reidy, 2019; Potts et al., 2016).

 

1.3  When Infrastructure Becomes a Mirage

The phenomenon of large-scale infrastructure projects failing to deliver sustainable benefits to local communities underscores a pressing issue in development discourse, particularly in nations where maintenance and operational frameworks are neglected. In Malawi, research indicates that a significant proportion of rural boreholes and wells become non-functional within a short period of installation due to inadequate budget allocations for maintenance and repair services (Zaman, 2020). Statistics highlight a critical oversight in project planning: the failure to secure funding for operational expenses that ensure the longevity and functionality of these water sources. Similarly, in India, many piped water systems often lie underutilised because communities lack affordable electricity to operate pumps and qualified technicians to address technical issues such as leaks and outages (Ahmed et al., 2023).

The term "white elephant" is frequently invoked to describe infrastructure projects, which, despite substantial investments, fail to create the anticipated benefits, leaving communities with abandoned or non-operational facilities (Chineka et al., 2019). These failures can often be traced to systemic issues, including the exclusion of local beneficiaries in the planning processes, leading to infrastructure that does not meet actual community needs and thus lacks the necessary support for maintenance and operation (Zaman, 2020). When disconnect exists, funds allocated for capital expenditures do not translate into effective project performance, resulting in wasted resources and frustrated stakeholders (Díaz, 2020).

Examining why myriad infrastructure projects falter reveals that political and bureaucratic dynamics play a pivotal role. Political interference and favouritism often inflate costs or introduce unnecessary complexities in project implementation, dramatically impacting sustainability outcomes (Appel, 2012). For instance, favouritism in contractor selection can lead to increased procurement costs, delays in project delivery, and ultimately, projects that do not align with community needs (Ahmed et al., 2023). the politicisation of project planning and implementation not only fosters inefficiencies but can also alienate local communities from feeling ownership or responsibility for the infrastructure, further exacerbating sustainability challenges.

Moreover, the lack of proper training and resources to maintain new infrastructure is another element exacerbating project failures. Inadequate maintenance mechanisms, such as the absence of certified technicians who can repair and sustain equipment, result in productive assets becoming idle (Li & Wang, 2023). Infrastructure projects must not only invest in initial construction but also in ongoing capacity-building of local entities and individuals to ensure operational effectiveness. A critical component is frequently overlooked, contributing to failures in delivering promised benefits.

Furthermore, the systemic neglect of operational expenditures often results in infrastructure that serves as a mere illusion of progress, leading to the metaphorical concept of "mirages." Projects may be celebrated at inauguration ceremonies, but the absence of a follow-up plan to ensure ongoing maintenance and operational support leads to community disappointment when they find themselves without the promised services. The disconnect between project initiation and actual community functionality can manifest as abandonment and disenfranchisement (Mugejo et al., 2022).

Research into global public-private partnership (PPP) projects has indicated that misaligned risk strategies and project contract conditions can pave the way for outcomes wherein public interests are sidelined for private profit (Arezki et al., 2017). structural issue often leads to a focus on initial construction costs without considering the total cost of ownership over the project's life, resulting in adverse social outcomes where infrastructure fails to meet its intended purpose (Rodríguez‐Pose et al., 2018). It becomes increasingly clear that infrastructure projects require sustained oversight, involving thorough risk assessments that take into account financial, social, cultural, and environmental implications.

The environmental context of these infrastructure projects also significantly affects their successful implementation and longevity. Efforts to address water scarcity and resource management should be grounded in a clear understanding of local ecological dynamics and how infrastructure interacts with these systems (Mlambo, 2022). Studies have shown that infrastructure planning and operational management must include adaptive strategies that consider fluctuating environmental variables, community input, and ongoing educational initiatives to equip local populations with necessary skills for sustainable management practices (Kok et al., 2023).

In conclusion, the stark reality of infrastructure development in rural and underserved communities reveals an urgent need for a paradigm shift in how projects are planned, funded, and managed. Stakeholder engagement must be embedded in the early planning stages to ensure that projects meet real local needs and have the necessary resources allocated for long-term viability. Moving beyond a focus on capital investment alone, comprehensive planning that includes operational expenses is essential for ensuring these projects do not become mere mirages, reflecting the ambitions of external actors while leaving local populations without the essential services they were intended to provide.

Infrastructure projects intended to alleviate water scarcity in rural areas often suffer from a fundamental misalignment of priorities that undermines their intended outcomes. Evidence shows that procurement practices predominantly focus on capital expenditures (CapEx), the costs associated with the construction and implementation of these projects, rather than considering operational expenditures (OpEx), which encompass ongoing maintenance, repairs, and the operational sustainability required to keep such systems functioning effectively (Chumbula & Massawe, 2018). As a result, once these projects are completed, they often fall into disarray due to insufficient funds allocated for their upkeep, leading to a scenario where communities remain underserved and may be forced to rely on unsafe water sources (Cruz-Ayala & Megdal, 2020).

Research has highlighted the negligence in tracking the total costs necessary to sustain water projects over time. Many donor frameworks emphasise the completion of infrastructure, which is celebrated through ribbon-cutting ceremonies, yet these frameworks lack robust metrics to evaluate the functionality of these systems in the long term (Chumbula & Massawe, 2018). Oversight means that once the initial excitement surrounding project completion fades, it becomes evident that without consistent resources for repairs or replacements, these systems cannot serve their intended purpose. Ultimately, it leads to prolonged hardships for community members who were promised improved access to potable water.

In several instances, the absence of operational planning has resulted in communities experiencing significant downtime following the installation of water infrastructure. Reports indicate that many systems experience periods of inactivity due to broken pumps, lack of trained personnel to conduct repairs, or insufficient electrical supply for operations (Dukhovny et al., 2015). For example, in rural India, numerous piped networks stand dormant because residents cannot bear the costs of electricity needed to power water pumps, nor do they possess the skilled labour required to address infrastructural failures (Grépin et al., 2014).

Moreover, the operational challenges plaguing many water projects are further exacerbated by local governance issues and funding models that do not prioritise long-term maintenance. In regions like Iringa District in Tanzania, a study found that the sustainability of water supply projects heavily depends on local institutions and their ability to manage and fund operational costs (Chumbula & Massawe, 2018). Without engagement from local governance structures, projects can become ineffective, with significant amounts of investment leading to little in terms of functional outcomes for the communities they were designed to assist (Khan et al., 2019).

 Systemic misalignment reflects a broader issue within international aid prioritisation that often overlooks the nuanced realities of rural water management, where communities are left with unmet promises instead of usable infrastructure. Donors tend to pursue rapid outcomes and visible milestones, which align with their operational targets, but neglect to ensure that funded projects are equipped to handle the realities of ongoing water supply management (Ibrahim & Wan-Puteh, 2018). Consequently, many well-meaning interventions end up failing, with communities experiencing increased distance to water sources and enduring the dangers associated with using unsafe water.

Furthermore, critical success factors such as stakeholder engagement in the water management process are often inadequately addressed. Effective water project implementation requires the active involvement of community members who use and maintain the systems. When local input is disregarded, the chances of operational sustainability diminish (Anita et al., 2019). Thus, establishing a feedback loop where user feedback informs ongoing water management and infrastructure decisions is essential for creating resilient systems that genuinely respond to community needs.

An analysis of adverse outcomes in donor-funded water initiatives reveals that often these failures stem from a lack of strategic prioritisation regarding maintenance and operational capacity-building within the governing frameworks of the projects (Rasmussen et al., 2020). Such insights show that performance metrics for water projects should not solely focus on construction outputs but must also include functionality measures post-implementation, acknowledging aspects like repair times, availability of training for local technicians, and the financial viability of operational expenditures over the project lifecycle.

There is an urgent need for a paradigm shift that reconsiders how water projects are designed, funded, and evaluated. Moving away from a simplistic focus on infrastructure completion to a more integrated view that encompasses both CapEx and OpEx can lead to improved outcomes. Essential to shift is promoting accountability mechanisms that keep all stakeholders, including government entities, local communities, and donors, aligned with the goals of long-term sustainability and operational efficiency (Yang et al., 2024).

In conclusion, to address the misalignment seen in many rural water infrastructure projects, stakeholders must adopt a more comprehensive framework that not only facilitates the construction of systems but also supports their operation and maintenance. strategic alignment ensures that communities are not left abandoned after the initial excitement of a project launch but are empowered to manage their water resources effectively over the long term (Pitt et al., 2017).

 

1.4  Why CapEx Bias Persists

The persistence of a capital expenditure (CapEx) bias in infrastructure investment, particularly in the water supply sector, can be attributed to several interrelated factors driven by political incentives, donor reporting practices, financing norms, and a lack of comprehensive data tracking regarding service levels over time. Each of these elements compounds to create an environment where the focus on initial construction overshadows the necessity for ongoing operational support, ultimately perpetuating a cycle of underinvestment in essential maintenance activities.

Political Incentives: One of the primary drivers of the CapEx bias is the nature of political incentives that incentivise elected officials to pursue projects that yield palpable results within their terms. Completing a large infrastructure project, such as a dam or a pipeline, serves as a clear, visible win that can sway public opinion and garner votes. Conversely, the routine tasks associated with maintenance and operational support, while critical for ongoing service delivery, do not capture the public's attention in the same way and therefore receive less political urgency. Leads politicians to prioritise spectacular projects over the long-term sustainability needs of existing infrastructure.

Donor Reporting Practices: The political dynamic is further compounded by the reporting frameworks of international donors, which frequently tie the disbursement of funds to construction milestones rather than to the actual functionality and sustainability of the projects. Aid agencies often celebrate metrics such as "miles of pipe laid" but neglect to monitor how long the new infrastructure remains operational after completion. Consequently,  emphasis on short-term outputs rather than long-term outcomes reinforces the CapEx bias. If the criteria for success centre exclusively around initial constructions rather than ongoing service provision, planners may inadvertently devalue the critical maintenance and operational tasks that ensure the delivery of clean water.

Financing Norms: Furthermore, the capital markets tend to favour financing for large capital projects over lines of credit for ongoing operational expenditures. International banks and bond markets often underwrite significant infrastructure investments, viewing them as more tangible and less risky from a financial perspective than funding operational support. Mismatch in financing preferences leads to projects that may be successfully built but are insufficiently funded to sustain ongoing maintenance, creating a disconnect between the capability to construct and the ability to maintain.

Neglected Data and Performance Tracking: A significant obstacle to addressing the CapEx bias is the lack of rigorous tracking of service-level performance over time. Few countries consistently record critical metrics on infrastructure functionality, and when they do gather data, the findings often reveal alarming drop-off rates in service reliability shortly after project completion. These statistics, however, rarely inform future funding decisions, leading to a systemic neglect of operational needs in favour of future capital investment initiatives. The absence of historical data on service failures or operational capabilities exacerbates the issue; as long as construction success is defined narrowly in terms of visible achievements, the essential operational tasks that sustain water systems will remain undervalued and underfunded.

When combined, these systemic factors create a vicious cycle that prioritises CapEx at the expense of OpEx. To break the cycle, there is an urgent need for a paradigm shift in how infrastructure investments are approached. Policymakers must recognise the importance of budgeting not only for the initial costs of construction but also for the lifetime operational expenses necessary to ensure the sustainability and efficiency of water systems. Shift would require comprehensive assessment frameworks that integrate both CapEx and OpEx into project evaluations, incentivising long-term planning and resource allocation that favour the ongoing health of critical infrastructure.

In conclusion, the persistence of CapEx bias can be attributed to an interplay of political motives, donor practices, financing norms, and gaps in data. Recognising these challenges presents an opportunity to realign priorities in infrastructure planning, ensuring that projects not only reach completion but remain functional and serve their communities effectively over time. Without recognition and subsequent adaptation in strategies, the cycle of misaligned infrastructure investment and maintenance undermines the long-term sustainability of water systems and continues to adversely affect underserved communities globally.

1.5  A Call for Lifecycle Thinking

Shifting the paradigm in water infrastructure planning and funding necessitates a streamlined approach to lifecycle thinking, emphasising the importance of operational expenditures (OpEx) alongside capital expenditures (CapEx). The proposed framework for achieving transformation includes embedding lifecycle costing into project budgets, adopting relevant performance metrics, empowering local utility operators, and fostering transparency in resource allocation and service outcomes.

Embed Lifecycle Costing: A fundamental aspect of the new framework is the requirement that a significant portion of the total project budget be earmarked for OpEx over the first five to ten years of operation. Allocation is crucial for ensuring that infrastructure is not just built but also maintained and operated effectively. Research indicates that projects that incorporate lifecycle costing from inception tend to demonstrate improved performance and sustainability outcomes (Koop & Leeuwen, 2015). Implementing such measures can also lead to better financial planning, ensuring that essential services are not compromised due to unforeseen operational costs (Ward et al., 2014).

Adopt Performance Metrics: To further ensure the effectiveness of water systems, the adoption of performance metrics has become imperative. Metrics such as uptime, repair response times, and per capita service levels must be tracked systematically to assess the operational efficacy of water supply systems. Linking future funding to demonstrated service continuity creates a robust accountability framework, incentivising operators to prioritise maintenance and ensuring that service delivery meets community needs. Practice is supported by studies where performance metrics have been shown to correlate with enhanced service delivery and customer satisfaction (Vásquez, 2012).

Empower Utilities: Granting local utility operators autonomy over tariff structures and maintenance planning is another critical change. By allowing these entities to determine pricing and manage their operations, they can better align services with local economic realities and user needs. Research has highlighted that decentralising responsibilities fosters a sense of ownership and accountability among utility managers, leading to more responsive service delivery (Gupta et al., 2012). Technical backstopping—not micromanagement—ensures that local operators receive the necessary support while maintaining the agency's ability to make operational decisions. Collaborating with local authorities and stakeholders is crucial to adapting services to their operational environments, ultimately fostering resilience in service provision (Rubin, 2011).

Foster Transparency: Lastly, fostering transparency by publishing budgets, expenditures, and service outcomes is vital in building trust with communities and oversight bodies. Transparency allows stakeholders to engage meaningfully in the governance process, thus promoting civic accountability and empowering communities to demand quality services. Encouraging participatory governance models in service delivery enhances accountability and improves overall community satisfaction with water systems (Suryani et al., 2022). Evidence indicates that when communities have access to information about operational expenditures and service performances, they are more likely to support and sustain initiatives (Scott, 2019).

In conclusion, transforming water access from a one-time event into a continuous public good depends significantly on rethinking how success is defined and funded. By embedding lifecycle costing into project budgets, adopting meaningful performance metrics, empowering local utilities, and fostering transparency, planners and stakeholders can ensure that infrastructure projects deliver enduring benefits to communities. Transition not only enhances the sustainability of water systems but also empowers communities to actively participate in their governance and management, leading to better, more equitable access to critical resources.

 

1.6  Case Example: Rural Mozambique

 The case study from rural Mozambique provides a compelling illustration of how integrated planning can yield significant improvements in water service delivery. Conducted as part of a World Bank-supported project, the initiative emphasises the importance of treating infrastructure as a system that requires not only construction but also ongoing support and maintenance. The approach taken in Mozambique has demonstrated key strategies leading to enhanced service reliability. Example offers critical insights into how effective infrastructure management can be achieved through careful consideration of operational needs alongside capital investments.

First and foremost, the establishment of preventive maintenance teams was crucial in ensuring the sustainability of the newly built community water points. By training local mechanics and providing them with toolkits, the project empowered community members to perform scheduled pump inspections. A proactive maintenance strategy has been shown to significantly decrease downtime, as local repairs can be conducted swiftly, thus enhancing overall reliability. Effective monitoring and regular maintenance are essential for preventing breakdowns and ensuring that water systems remain functional.

Additionally, implementing a cost recovery tariff system was an innovative element that demonstrated financial sustainability and community ownership. Villagers paid modest fees that were aligned with local income levels, allowing them to collectively finance essential components such as spare parts and energy costs. Strategy not only ensures that funds are available for ongoing maintenance, but it also fosters a sense of ownership among community members, making them more likely to engage in the management and sustainability of their water resources. Research shows that when communities are involved financially in service delivery, there is often a corresponding increase in satisfaction and stewardship of local infrastructure.

Another important aspect of the integrated approach was the establishment of institutional linkages between local water offices and the communities they served. By providing technical support and conducting performance audits, district water offices ensured that community operators received the ongoing assistance necessary for effective management. Systematic approach aligns with best practices in the field, reinforcing how an integrated governance framework that emphasises collaboration between community-based organisations and government entities can enhance service delivery outcomes.

The positive changes observed in Mozambique—such as reduced breakdowns, faster repair times, and increased trust among community members—underscore the argument that the value of infrastructure lies not merely in the physical structures created, but also in the services they provide. Realisation highlights the necessity of adopting a lifecycle perspective in infrastructure planning, which prioritises not just the initial investment but also the long-term operational success and maintenance of water systems.

Moreover, moving towards integrated planning requires the alignment of various stakeholders' interests and contributions throughout the project lifecycle. As the case shows, project success is contingent upon collaborative relationships among community members, local operators, and governing bodies. Future policies and funding models should consider these collaborative efforts as central to water service sustainability. Addressing the interconnectedness of technical skills, financial models, and governance frameworks broadens the conversation around infrastructure planning, sustainability, and community engagement in water management.

In summary, the case example from rural Mozambique illustrates how integrated planning and comprehensive operational strategies can dramatically enhance the functionality and reliability of water supply systems. Through preventive maintenance initiatives, cost recovery mechanisms, and robust institutional support, it is evident that a lifecycle thinking approach is essential for transforming infrastructure into a sustainable public good. By prioritising not just the construction of water points but the systems designed to maintain and support them, stakeholders can ensure the enduring success of water infrastructure projects, resulting in improved access to clean water for communities.

 

1.7  Case Study 1: Decentralised Water Systems in Rural India

The case study highlighting the decentralised water systems in rural Rajasthan, India, serves as an exemplary model for demonstrating how integrated, community-led approaches can effectively overcome the challenges typically associated with large, capital-intensive infrastructure projects. The rainwater harvesting program initiated by local non-governmental organisations (NGOS) and state agencies emphasises the value of local solutions that prioritise sustainability and community engagement over expensive centralised systems.

Sustainable Funding: One of the core successes of the initiative was the establishment of sustainable funding mechanisms. By leveraging a combination of government subsidies and microfinance loans, the project ensured that it had adequate resources not only for the initial installation of rooftop catchment tanks but also for ongoing maintenance. The dual-funding approach allowed the community to build a resilient water supply system while mitigating reliance on external funding sources, thereby creating a model that can be adapted to other regions facing similar challenges.

Low-Cost Maintenance: Training villagers to manage and maintain the systems represented another critical factor in the project's success. By educating local community members on how to clean filters and repair valves using available materials, the initiative reduced dependency on outside experts for maintenance. Studies illustrate that when communities are equipped with the necessary skills to maintain their infrastructure, it significantly enhances the sustainability and operational efficiency of water systems. Empowerment of local stakeholders facilitates a quicker response to issues and fosters a sense of ownership over the water supply systems.

Community Ownership: The establishment of village water committees to manage tariff collection and schedule filter replacements further solidified community ownership of the system. Engaging the community in the management process not only ensures accountability but also cultivates a greater commitment to the sustainability of the program. When local populations actively participate in decision-making processes regarding tariffs and maintenance schedules, they are more likely to take pride in their infrastructure, ensuring its operational longevity and robustness.

Prioritising Affordability and Local Involvement: By emphasising locally appropriate solutions such as rooftop catchment tanks and simple sand filters rather than large pumps and extensive pipelines, the project was able to maintain functionality during dry seasons and leadership transitions. Resilience demonstrates how adaptations that prioritise affordability and local involvement can successfully contribute to sustainable water supply systems. The ease of managing these decentralised systems ensures that they remain operational even amid changing political landscapes, which is often a weakness of more significant centralised systems.

The positive outcomes resulting from the case study indicate that when planners integrate community needs with sustainable funding and maintenance strategies, water access transforms into an enduring public good rather than a one-off event. The Rajasthan model serves as a viable blueprint for other regions grappling with water scarcity, illustrating that grassroots innovations can effectively address local challenges when incorporated into a broader sustainable development framework.

 An integrated approach is supported by relevant literature that underscores the benefits of decentralised water management systems. For instance, one study highlights the potential of rainwater harvesting systems to improve community resilience in water-scarce regions, aligning with global goals for sustainable development. Furthermore, the recent emphasis on local solutions in water management reflects a growing recognition of the need for sustainable practices in mitigating water crises globally.

In conclusion, the case of rural Rajasthan exemplifies the advantages of decentralised, community-driven water systems. The successful implementation of low-cost, locally-managed rainwater harvesting not only addresses immediate water needs but also fosters a sense of community ownership and resilience. Given the increasing pressures on water resources due to climate change and urbanisation, the model can serve as a vital reference point for policymakers and practitioners in their efforts to develop sustainable water supply solutions.

 

 1.8  Case Study 2: The Failure of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project

The Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP), Africa's largest water transfer scheme, presents significant challenges in infrastructure development, notably regarding top-down planning. It was intended to channel water from the mountainous region of Lesotho to South Africa's industrial heartland, but it has faced substantial hurdles throughout its implementation, undermining its original objectives. The key factors leading to its struggles can be categorised as overdependence on foreign loans, neglect of operational expenditures, and social displacement, which collectively burdened marginalised communities.

Overdependence on Foreign Loans: A critical flaw in the LHWP was its significant reliance on foreign loans to finance large infrastructure initiatives for water delivery. The debt servicing necessitated by these loans diverted vital budgetary resources that could have been allocated for maintenance and operational needs. Overdependence on external funding often leads to a cycle where prioritising debt payments results in austerity measures that negatively impact infrastructure sustainability (Uribe, 2018). Ensuring consistent funding is essential for maintaining the functionality of infrastructure assets, especially in water supply projects.

Neglected OpEx: The neglect of operational expenditures manifested through the deterioration of infrastructure, particularly ageing pumps and corroded pipelines. Effective water supply management in similar large projects necessitates a balanced focus on both capital expenditures (CapEx) and operational expenditures (OpEx) (Amiril et al., 2018). In the LHWP's case, ageing equipment led to substantial water loss that far outweighed management's ability to address necessary repairs, compounding issues related to non-revenue water—water produced but unbilled—due to operational neglect (Roumboutsos et al., 2020).

Social Displacement: The project also resulted in the displacement of thousands of rural families who lost their land and livelihoods. Reports suggest many of these individuals received inadequate compensation and support, leaving them vulnerable to economic and social instability (Mbiba, 2022). forced removal from their homes bred resentment among displaced communities and hindered the project's social acceptance. Studies have shown that infrastructure developments often exacerbate existing inequalities and deepen community divisions when social factors are overlooked during planning (Watts et al., 2022; Johnson, 2023).

Ultimately, these factors contributed to rising non-revenue water rates, frequent unscheduled outages, and a profound sense of betrayal among communities that were promised benefits from the project. The ongoing failures illustrated that the LHWP's initial vision faltered, signalling the need for future infrastructure planning to consider both the maintenance resources required for sustained operations and the social impacts of development decisions.

In summary, the LHWP serves as an example of the risks associated with top-down planning that ignores operational management and community engagement. Although designed to deliver water to a neighbouring country, its execution revealed critical deficiencies in financial planning and social responsibility. The lessons learned from the LHWP highlight the necessity for integrated, community-focused approaches in infrastructure planning, emphasising the balance between initial investments, ongoing service delivery, and the welfare of affected populations.

 

1.9 Why Funding & Maintenance Models Matter

The dynamics surrounding funding and maintenance models are paramount to ensuring sustainable service delivery in water supply projects. Three core dynamics—the CapEx trap, the OpEx blind spot, and the balance between community and corporate control—highlight the challenges and opportunities within infrastructure management. Understanding these elements is essential for leveraging resources effectively to provide lasting benefits to communities dependent on water infrastructure.

The CapEx Trap: The CapEx trap refers to the tendency for flashy, high-cost projects to win approval from stakeholders, often overshadowing the requisite follow-through regarding maintenance and sustainable operations. Initiatives that prioritise extravagant construction tend to attract more attention and funding; however, once these projects are completed, they frequently lack the necessary mechanisms to maintain ongoing services. Projects focused primarily on capital investments often experience systemic breakdowns shortly after completion due to inadequate operational support and planning, resulting in increased costs and service interruptions. In essence, while initial investments may yield impressive infrastructure, their long-term success remains contingent on a holistic view that incorporates maintenance considerations from the outset.

The OpEx Blind Spot: Similarly, the OpEx blind spot signifies the crucial oversight of ongoing operational needs. Regardless of how well-constructed water systems may be, they cannot function effectively without trained personnel, spare parts inventories, and assured funding for day-to-day operations. Concern is exacerbated when policymakers and planners neglect to prioritise the allocation of resources for operational expenditures, leading to significant gaps in service delivery. Effective operational management, including routine maintenance and staff training, is critical for preventing infrastructure failures. When the focus solely rests on capital outlays, the long-term viability of water supply systems diminishes, triggering a negative spiral where maintenance becomes an afterthought rather than an integral part of infrastructure planning.

Community vs. Corporate Control: The third dynamic concerns the distinction between community-managed and corporately operated systems. While privatisation and corporate management can introduce efficiency incentives and financial discipline into water service delivery, they can also result in the exclusion of marginalised populations if not properly regulated. Evidence suggests that poorly regulated private operators may deprive poorer households of essential services due to pricing structures that are unaffordable for them. In contrast, public community partnerships tend to foster better accountability through local governance, ensuring that community needs are prioritised alongside professional expertise. Alignment has been shown to enhance user satisfaction as community personnel manage water resources while working closely with formal technical support structures.

In summary, the sustainability of water service delivery requires a comprehensive understanding and strategic planning around funding and maintenance models. Addressing the CapEx trap, recognising the operational needs highlighted by the OpEx blind spot, and balancing community control with corporate efficiency represent crucial steps for developing resilient water supply infrastructures. As demonstrated in successful case studies, effective management models that integrate financial sustainability, community engagement, and ongoing operational support will lead to better outcomes for communities reliant on these vital services.

 

1.10   Lessons for Future Projects

To avoid the pitfalls experienced in past water infrastructure projects and to enhance the sustainability of future initiatives, water planners should adopt several key strategies. These measures are designed to address long-term operational needs while ensuring community engagement and accountability:

1. Budget for the Long Term: It is recommended that a significant portion of project costs be allocated for ongoing operational expenditures (OpEx) over the first five to ten years, with these funds secured before construction begins. The approach emphasises the importance of planning for both initial capital investments and the resources necessary for maintaining and managing water systems effectively over time. Allocating a substantial portion of the budget to OpEx can improve the longevity of water infrastructure and help prevent neglect due to short-sighted financial planning.
2. Empower Local Stakeholders: Investing in training programs that equip local community members with the necessary skills for managing basic repairs and financial oversight is essential. By fostering local capabilities, planners can cultivate a sense of ownership among community members and ensure their active involvement in the operation and upkeep of water systems. Enabling communities to manage their resources leads to improved responsiveness to local needs and can enhance the sustainability of water delivery systems.
3. Choose Transparent Financing: Favouring grant and hybrid financing models over debt-heavy loans can help ensure that water projects remain financially viable. Reliance on loans can lead to significant financial burdens affecting maintenance budgets and long-term sustainability. By seeking transparent funding options, planners can support ongoing service delivery and avoid austerity measures often triggered by accumulating debt obligations. Transparent financing facilitates accountability and ensures effective utilisation of public resources.
4. Institute Performance-Based Disbursements: Linking future funding tranches to demonstrated service delivery milestones provides a mechanism for accountability and performance monitoring. By employing performance-based disbursement strategies, planners can assess the effectiveness of water system operations relative to community expectations and resource availability. alignment between funding and performance encourages a commitment to improving service quality while offering a tangible way to measure progress over time.

These lessons highlight the integral components for successful and sustainable water infrastructure projects. Collaborative development partners working towards a shared vision focused on service continuity and community engagement can pave the way for communities to achieve reliable access to water.

In synthesising these principles, it is evident that sustainable water management requires a paradigm shift prioritising operational needs and community involvement. Such transformations are critical not only for the efficacy of individual projects but also for the broader goal of equitable water access in underserved communities.

 
1.11  Conclusion

In conclusion, practical water infrastructure projects are evaluated not by monumental constructions but by their ability to deliver consistent and reliable services. As climate change intensifies challenges like drought and urban demand, it becomes imperative for stakeholders to redefine success metrics and funding paradigms. By emphasising the significance of operational sustainability alongside capital investments, planners can address the growing gap between capital expenditures (CapEx) and operational expenditures (OpEx) funding.

To transform water systems from fleeting promises into resilient lifelines, water planners must adopt several critical approaches: budgeting for long-term operational needs, empowering local stakeholders through education and training, prioritising transparent financing models, and instituting performance-based funding mechanisms. These strategies will ensure that communities receive not only the infrastructure they need but also the ongoing support and resources required to maintain it over time.

Reflecting on the potential impacts of these strategies, a local water project in my community serves as an illustrative example. The successful implementation of a community-managed rainwater harvesting system highlights the importance of well-planned and maintained water infrastructure. Unlike larger, centralised systems that often falter due to financial constraints or operational neglect,  project thrived because it incorporated training for community members and established sustainable funding mechanisms, consistent with findings in the literature that underscore the importance of community involvement and capacity building for sustainable water management Thelemaque et al. (2022) (Ogata et al., 2024; Chumbula & Massawe, 2018).

Conversely, a failed project in the area, rooted in top-down planning and an overreliance on foreign loans, demonstrates the consequences of neglecting maintenance and community involvement. As a result, the initiative left affected populations grappling with inadequate water access and diminished trust in local governance. Studies have consistently shown that neglecting local engagement can lead to unsustainable outcomes for community water projects (Hassan et al., 2020).

The lessons drawn from these experiences emphasise that collaborative efforts focused on inclusivity, transparency, and long-term planning can vastly improve the efficacy of water projects and yield tangible benefits for the communities they serve. With a commitment to these principles, we can work together to ensure reliable access to clean water for all, fulfilling the essential human right that it represents.

  

Reference :

 Waqas Ahmed, Sharafat Ali, Muhammad Nadeem Asghar, & Alisher Ismailov (2023). Who builds Shanghai's fiber‑optic network? The manuscript explores the socio-technical dynamics behind urban connectivity expansion. Sage Open, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231203477

 Ayodeji Olatunji Aiyetan & Dillip Kumar Das (2021). Evaluating the social value of public infrastructure works: A case study. Infrastructures, 6(5), 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures6050065

 Wesam Salah Alaloul, Muhammad Altaf, Muhammad Ali Musarat, Muhammad Farooq, & Faisal Alsaqaf (2021). From tools to toolbox: Sustainability and investment appraisal in infrastructure projects. Preprints, 2021.0316.v1. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202103.0316.v1

 Assa Amiril, Abdul Hadi Nawawi, Roshana Takim, & Siti Nur Faradilla (2016). Socio-economic impacts of rural water infrastructure development in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Quality of Life, 3(9), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.21834/ajqol.v3i9.86

 M. Mutegi Anita, K. Gathungu Geofrey, & Anne Sande (2019). Factors influencing community participation in water supply interventions in Kenya. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, 33(4). https://doi.org/10.9734/ajaees/2019/v33i430185

 Atif Ansar, Bent Flyvbjerg, Alexander Budzier, & Daniel Lunn (2016). Does infrastructure investment lead to economic growth or economic fragility? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 32(3), 360–390. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grw022

 Hannah Appel (2012). Walls and white elephants: Oil extraction, infrastructure, and power in the Niger Delta. Cultural Anthropology, 13(4), 439–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138111435741

 Rabah Arezki, Patrick Bolton, Sanjay Peters, & Frédéric Samama (2017). Infrastructure and demographic dynamics: Implications for emerging markets. Economic Policy, 32(90), 221–261. https://doi.org/10.1093/epolic/eix005

 Jessica Barnes (2016). States of maintenance: Power, politics, and urban infrastructure. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 35(1), 146–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775816655161

Charlotte Brown, Garry W. McDonald, Garry McDonald, Michele David, & Anna Smith (2023). Managing infrastructure interdependencies in smart cities. Disaster Spectra, 39(4), 2644–2663. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930231195040

 Maude Brunet & Monique Aubry (2018). The governance of major public infrastructure projects in Canada. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(1), 80–103. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-08-2017-0095

Gilberto Carrión‑Barco, John Fuentes Adriánzén, Alejandro Caballero‑Rodal, & Carla González (2024). Social licensing in infrastructure development: Lessons from Latin America. Asian Journal of Innovation Studies, 13(3), 364–378. https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2024-0087

 Jestina Chineka, Agnes Musyoki, Edmore Kori, & Hector Chikowero (2022). Infrastructure resilience: Community risk perceptions and adaptation in sub-Saharan Africa. Jamba: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v11i3.723

 Jimson Joseph Chumbula & Fatihiya Ally Massawe (2018). The role of local institutions in the creation and management of water infrastructure in Tanzania. Environmental Humanities, 10(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.2478/environ-2018-0023

Mary Belle Cruz‑Ayala & Sharon B. Megdal (2020). An overview of institutional arrangements for water governance: The case of transboundary aquifers. Water, 12(2), 474. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020474

 Jimson Joseph Chumbula & Fatihiya Ally Massawe (2018). Determinants of sustainability for community-based water supply projects in Tanzania. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 17(4), 615–624.

Michael J. Trebilcock & Michael Rosenstock (2015). Infrastructure and economic growth in low-income countries: A critical review. Journal of Development Studies, 51(4), 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2014.959935

Simón Uribe (2018). Illegible infrastructures: Road building and territorial disputes in the Colombian Amazon. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 37(5), 886–904. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775818788358

William F. Vásquez (2012). Reliability perceptions and water service continuity in small utilities. Water Resources Research, 48(10). https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011024

Ben Ward, Maciej Kawalec, & Dragan Savić (2014). An optimisation model for water distribution network rehabilitation. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Municipal Engineer, 167(4), 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1680/muen.13.00006

Greg Watts, Anthony Higham, & Rukaya Abowen‑Dake (2022). The social licence to operate and infrastructure mega‑projects. Journal of Environmental Sustainability, 175(4), 167–174. https://doi.org/10.1680/jensu.21.00052

M. Yang, Changhai Qin, Yongnan Zhu, Yong Zhao, Guohua He, & Xiaoming Liu (2024). Sustainable management of small‑town water supply systems in China. Water, 16(3), 473. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16030473

Tariq Zaman (2020). "Wait and See" culture and infrastructure maintenance. International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age, 7(4), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijpada.20201001.oa3

Guoxing Zhang, Ju'e Guo, Guorong Chai, Gong Li, & Wang Xue (2010). Design boundary dynamics in environmental infrastructure: Case of China. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 4(2), 263–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-010-0509-1

 Vedran Žerjav (2015). The role of public-private partnerships in infrastructure delivery: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 33(8), 1768–1779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.09.009

 Jessica Barnes & Rabah Arezki (2016). Climate finance allocation and infrastructure resilience. Global Environmental Change, 41, 56–68.