Dyson College of Arts and Sciences

can be reinforced via the local-level institutions which are oen created to support community management of water resources, thereby contributing to perpetua- tion of existing inequalities (Chowns 2015). Lack of technical knowledge and lack of access to materials are another potential downside of community level man- agement: the specialized expertise required to repair and maintain water sources is unlikely to reside within the community. While short-term, focused training of community members may mitigate this problem to a certain extent, another solution may be to have profes- sional water managers who circulate between isolated communities and offer support and technical training to community members, thereby transferring the req- uisite knowledge over time to these localities (Chowd- hury and Santos 2010; Bliss and Bowe 2011). With respect to models of water resource man- agement which combine municipal ownership with private sector operation, the third model examined in this article, the question of conflicts between different sectoral logics (Battilana and Dorado 2010; Pache and Santos 2013) is most evident. In managing this poten- tial source of discord between municipal and private sector actors, the importance of signing a partnership agreement between parties helps to clearly establish roles of the public and private sector actors involved, as well as the local community which will potentially benefit from improved access to water resources (Win- ter et al. 2012; Chowdhury and Santos 2010). Where the private sector can play a role, for instance, in the fi- nancing of capital investments related to water systems infrastructure renovation, partnership with the public sector can provide for a "win-win" result, particularly if members of the community and local governmental officials are consulted in developing water resource management systems. Such consultation, though po- tentially time-consuming and cumbersome, ensures that these projects are tailored to the local context and account for the varying needs and requirements of dif- ferent communities. A private ownership structure along with pri- vate management of water resources, the fourth and final model examined in this article, is among the most controversial models (Hall and Lamont 2013), but one that is increasingly considered by municipalities and other localities with shrinking budgets and increas- ing demands to develop financially sustainable means for delivering water to their focal populations. Recent work has started to examine the willingness of house- holds in developing countries to pay for improved san- itation facilities and easier access to water resources (Ben Yishay et al. 2017), but the ethical implications of asking poor, resource-constrained households to pay more for their access to these resources relative to their wealthier counterparts remain troubling for some (Kurland and Zell 2010; Bhuiyan 2010). At the same time, within the water systems arena, private sector innovations continue to be developed. Households in slum settlements have demonstrated a willingness to pay for easier access to water from local water vendors, for instance, relative to walking larger distances for less expensive or free public water sources (de Carvalho et al. 2011), mirroring developments in fields such as energy production in rural areas where micro-entre- preneurs have developed niche markets selling energy produced from animal waste to rural households, for instance (Chowdhury and Santos 2011). Nevertheless, the private sector's role in water supply will remain as a source of both innovation and controversy as water ac- cess is seen by many as a human right which should be available at low or no cost for all of the world's citizens (World Health Organization 2017). As a final consideration, it should be noted that the four models of water resource ownership and man- agement examined in this article are not, of course, ex- haustive. For instance, systems of water management which result from community ownership and private management, or the reverse, private ownership and community management, have been pioneered and operated with success in different regions around the world (Bliss and Bowe 2011). However, in this study, I drew from the case study of Waste Concern and Saiban, and from the sanitation sector in general, to inform the four models that I presented. My data from this case were focused around these four models, and as such, I concentrated on developing their application to questions of resource ownership and management in the water sector. Conclusion Developing resilient organizational management sys- tems (Ortiz-de-Mandojana and Bansal 2016), in the water resource management sector and outside of it, requires attention which goes beyond the balance between social and economic demands that are fun- damental to social enterprises (Pache and Santos 2013). e process of developing resilience needs to move towards a consideration of the organizational, social, technical, and financial components of systems which are robust to a broad range of environmental shocks and natural disasters (Bullough et al. 2013). 26

• Cover