The concept of framing plays a pivotal role in shaping how we perceive, interpret, and respond to complex issues. It influences the assumptions, beliefs, and narratives that guide our understanding and decision-making processes. Clean water and sanitation, a fundamental human right and a crucial component of sustainable development, have been subject to various framings shaping public discourse, policy formulation, and resource allocation. This analysis aims to critically examine the implicit and explicit assumptions underlying clean water and sanitation framings, unravelling the underlying ideologies, power dynamics, and value systems underpinning these framings. By adopting a nuanced and multidimensional approach, this paper seeks to challenge dominant narratives, propose alternative framings, and ultimately contribute to a more inclusive and equitable dialogue on this pressing global concern.
Understanding the Concept of Framing
The concept of framing plays a crucial role in shaping perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes towards various issues, including those related to clean water and sanitation. Framing refers to presenting information in a particular way, highlighting certain aspects while obscuring others, thereby influencing how the issue is perceived and interpreted(Kaufman et al., 2017). In the context of clean water and sanitation, framing can significantly impact how these issues are perceived, discussed, and addressed. For instance, framing water scarcity as a matter of resource mismanagement or poor infrastructure could lead to calls for policy reforms and investments in water systems(Crisanto et al., 2019). Alternatively, framing it as a consequence of climate change or population growth might prompt discussions on sustainable development and conservation efforts.
The media is crucial in framing water and sanitation issues through their coverage and narrative choices. According to Crisanto et al. (2019), the framing effect warns that the style of media coverage and penetration directly influence the socialisation of citizenship. If the media emphasises conflicts between authorities and users, it can shape public opinion to view the issue as a governance failure, leading to demands for accountability or protests. Conversely, if the media frames water scarcity as a shared challenge, it could foster a sense of collective responsibility and encourage collaborative solutions. Furthermore, different contexts and actors, such as communities, officials, environmentalists, and experts, can frame water and sanitation issues differently based on their perspectives and priorities. For instance, communities may frame water scarcity as a threat to their livelihoods, while officials may frame it as a matter of resource management and infrastructure development. Framing can also influence the actions taken to address water and sanitation issues. If the issue is framed as a public health crisis, it could prompt investments in sanitation infrastructure and hygiene education campaigns(United Nations, n.d.). If framed as an environmental concern, it might lead to stricter regulations on water pollution and conservation measures. In summary, framing is vital in shaping perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes towards clean water and sanitation issues.
Analysing Implicit and Explicit Assumptions
Implicit Assumptions
The discourse surrounding clean water and sanitation is often shaped by implicit assumptions that can oversimplify the complexities and nuances involved. One prevalent assumption is the definition of water quality through quantifiable and objective parameters, with binary classifications of clean/unclean or safe/unsafe(MacAfee, 2022). However, this overlooks the context of water quality, where different communities or stakeholders may have varying perspectives on what constitutes acceptable quality based on their cultural, social, and environmental contexts. Another implicit assumption is the existence of a universal hierarchy of intended water uses and associated quality standards(MacAfee, 2022). Drinking water is frequently prioritised over other uses, with stringent quality requirements. However, this assumption fails to consider the diverse values, needs, and priorities of different communities, which may place varying degrees of importance on different water uses beyond just drinking.
Moreover, there is an underlying assumption that technical and rational approaches are sufficient for addressing water quality issues. In contrast, water’s moral, ethical, and cultural dimensions are often overlooked or given less attention(Schmidt & Peppard, 2014). This technical-centric view fails to recognise water quality’s complex social, cultural, and ethical implications and the importance of incorporating these perspectives in developing holistic solutions. Finally, the discourse often assumes a binary between providers (authorities) and users (citizens), with the former responsible for ensuring water quality and the latter as passive recipients(Brennan et al., 2021). This assumption may overlook the potential for collaborative and participatory approaches to water quality management, where communities are actively engaged in decision-making processes and solution development. These implicit assumptions, rooted in universalising tendencies and external impositions, can obscure the complexity and context-specific nature of water quality challenges, potentially hindering the development of more nuanced and practical solutions that genuinely address the diverse needs and perspectives of different communities.
Explicit assumptions
In addition to the implicit assumptions, explicit assumptions have also been made regarding clean water and sanitation. One assumption is that many stakeholders, including policymakers, organisations, media, and the public, play crucial roles in maintaining a clean physical environment and promoting water and sanitation(Mensah, 2020). This assumption recognises the shared responsibility and the need for collaborative efforts from various sectors to address these issues effectively. Moreover, water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions should be evaluated for their impact on social and gender equality outcomes(Macura et al., 2021). This assumption highlights the importance of considering the social and gender dimensions of WASH initiatives, acknowledging that they can have far-reaching implications beyond just technical or health outcomes. By assessing the impact on social and gender equality, these interventions can address underlying disparities and promote more inclusive and equitable access to water and sanitation services.
Furthermore, sustainable management of water resources and access to safe water and sanitation are crucial for unlocking economic growth and productivity(United Nations). This assumption emphasises the economic benefits and productive potential that can be realised by ensuring sustainable water management and access to safe water and sanitation. Adequate water and sanitation infrastructure can support various economic activities, enhance public health, and contribute to societal development and well-being. These assumptions collectively reflect the recognition of the complex and multidimensional nature of water and sanitation issues involving various stakeholders, social dimensions, economic implications, and the interplay between natural ecosystems and water management. They underscore the need for a comprehensive and holistic approach that integrates technical solutions, policy interventions, stakeholder collaboration, social considerations, economic incentives, and environmental conservation efforts to address these challenges effectively and sustainably.
How The Assumptions Shape the Framing of Clean Water and Sanitation Issues, and the Implications of the Assumptions on Decision-Making Process
The explicit and implicit assumptions surrounding clean water and sanitation significantly influence how these issues are framed, understood, and addressed. Firstly, the implicit assumptions can lead to a narrow framing of water and sanitation challenges(Brennan et al., 2021). This narrow framing may result in policies and interventions that overlook crucial social, cultural, and ethical dimensions, leading to solutions that fail to resonate with local contexts and communities. For instance, imposing universal water quality standards without considering local perspectives and needs could result in resource allocation that does not align with community priorities, potentially undermining the effectiveness and sustainability of interventions (MacAfee, 2022). Moreover, the technical-centric approach implied by these assumptions may lead to overemphasising infrastructure development and engineering solutions while neglecting the importance of community engagement, capacity building, and behaviour change strategies. This could perpetuate top-down approaches and hinder the development of locally-owned and context-specific solutions.
On the other hand, the explicit assumptions promote a more holistic framing of water and sanitation issues. This framing encourages the involvement of various sectors, policymakers, organisations, and communities, fostering collaborative and inclusive decision-making processes. By explicitly considering social and gender equality outcomes, interventions are more likely to address underlying disparities and promote equitable access to water and sanitation services(MacArthur et al., 2023). This framing can influence resource allocation towards initiatives that empower marginalised groups and promote inclusive development. Furthermore, recognising the economic benefits of sustainable water management may support allocating resources towards infrastructure development, capacity building, and adopting sustainable practices, as these investments are framed as drivers of economic growth and productivity(George-Williams et al., 2024). Overall, while the implicit assumptions may limit the effectiveness of interventions by oversimplifying complexities, the explicit assumptions promote a more comprehensive understanding of water and sanitation challenges. However, it is crucial to critically evaluate and challenge both implicit and explicit assumptions to ensure that interventions are tailored to local contexts, prioritise community needs, and address underlying systemic issues rather than perpetuating narrow or externally imposed framings.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this analysis has critically examined the implicit and explicit assumptions underpinning the framing of clean water and sanitation issues. The implicit assumptions, rooted in universalising tendencies and external impositions, can oversimplify complexities and hinder the development of nuanced and practical solutions. Conversely, the explicit assumptions promote a more holistic understanding, recognising the multidimensional nature of these challenges. Critically examining these assumptions through framing is crucial, as it can significantly impact policy formulation, public discourse, and real-world outcomes. Reframing clean water and sanitation issues with a nuanced and inclusive approach can foster collaborative solutions, equitable resource allocation, and prioritising community needs, ultimately contributing to sustainable and equitable access to this fundamental human right.
References
Brennan, M., Rondón-Sulbarán, J., Sabogal-Paz, L. P., Fernandez-Ibañez, P., & Galdos-Balzategui, A. (2021). Conceptualising global water challenges: A transdisciplinary approach for understanding different discourses in sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Management, 298, 113361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113361
Crisanto, G., Fuentes, J. A. A., & Lirios, C. G. (2019). Framing the press regarding water issues. 4(8).
George-Williams, H. E. M., Hunt, D. V. L., & Rogers, C. D. F. (2024). Sustainable Water Infrastructure: Visions and Options for Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability, 16(4), 1592. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16041592
Kaufman, S., Elliott, M., & Shmueli, D. (2017). Frames, Framing and Reframing. Beyond Intractability. https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/framing
MacAfee, E. (2022). Critically assembling water quality ethics beyond thresholds, hierarchies and best practices. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 251484862211466. https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486221146686
MacArthur, J., Carrard, N., Mott, J., Raetz, S., Siscawati, M., & Willetts, J. (2023). Gender equality approaches in water, sanitation, and hygiene programs: Towards gender-transformative practice. Frontiers in Water, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2023.1090002
Macura, B., Del Duca, L., Soto, A., Carrard, N., Gosling, L., Hannes, K., Thomas, J., Sara, L., Sommer, M., Waddington, H. S., & Dickin, S. (2021). PROTOCOL: What is the impact of complex WASH interventions on gender and social equality outcomes in low‐ and middle‐income countries? A mixed‐method systematic review protocol. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1164
Mensah, J. (2020). Theory-anchored conceptual framework for managing environmental sanitation in developing countries: Literature review. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 2(1), 100028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2020.100028
Schmidt, J. J., & Peppard, C. Z. (2014). Water ethics on a human-dominated planet: rationality, context and values in global governance. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 1(6), 533–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1043
United Nations. (n.d.). Water and Sanitation. United Nations Sustainable Development. Retrieved April 22, 2024, from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/water-and-sanitation/#:~:text=Water%20scarcity%20is%20projected%20to
write