Skip to main content
  • Loading metrics

Water, sanitation, and women’s empowerment: A systematic review and qualitative metasynthesis

  • Bethany A. Caruso ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Hubert Department of Global Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America, Gangarosa Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America, Departmentof Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

  • Amelia Conrad,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Gangarosa Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

  • Madeleine Patrick,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Hubert Department of Global Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America, Gangarosa Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

  • Ajilé Owens,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

  • Kari Kviten,

    Roles Data curation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Gangarosa Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

  • Olivia Zarella,

    Roles Data curation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Hubert Department of Global Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

  • Hannah Rogers,

    Roles Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Woodruff Health Sciences Center Library, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

  • Sheela S. Sinharoy

    Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Hubert Department of Global Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America, Gangarosa Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America


Historically, water and sanitation programs have focused on women’s instrumental value in improving conditions and behaviors. No reviews have synthesized evidence on water and sanitation and women’s and girls’ empowerment. This review a) identified empirical water and sanitation research that engaged empowerment and/or empowerment-related domains; b) reported empowerment-related terminology used, research locations, methods leveraged, if water and/or sanitation was the focus; and c) synthesized evidence. A conceptual model of women’s and girls’ empowerment, which includes three interrelated domains (agency, resources, institutional structures), informed the search and analysis. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CABI Global Health, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AGRICOLA for peer-reviewed sources presenting research on water and/or sanitation and either empowerment and/or related terms from the model (4 May 2020). We identified 12,616 publications; 257 were included, representing over 1,600,000 participants. We used the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) and followed the ‘best-fit framework synthesis’ analysis approach, using the model domains and sub-domains as codes. We inductively identified two additional sub-domains relevant to water and sanitation: privacy and freedom of movement. Thematic analysis guided synthesis of coded text. The majority of research took place in Asia (46%; 117) or Africa (40%; 102), engaged adults (69%; 177), and was published since 2010; (82%; 211). The greatest proportion of studies focused on water (45%; 115). Over half of studies used the term empowerment, yet only 7% (17) provided a clear definition or conceptualization. Agency was the least commonly engaged domain (47%; 122); the Resources domain was dominant (94%; 241). Measures for assessing empowerment are limited. Inclusion of only peer-reviewed sources in English is a main limitation. Well-conceptualized water and sanitation research that engages women’s and girls’ empowerment is limited. A more comprehensive ‘transformative WASH’ that includes gender-transformative approaches to challenge and reduce systemic constraints on women’s and girls’ resources and agency is long overdue.


Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) access, behaviors, experiences, and physical and social environments have been shown to influence multiple outcomes, including diarrheal disease, soil transmitted helminth and protozoa infection, active trachoma and schistosomiasis, pneumonia, anemia, mental health and general well-being, economic productivity, school absence, and child growth and cognitive development [114]. This demonstrated importance of WASH underlies Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6, which aims to “Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all” [15]. Still, water and sanitation access remain out of reach for large proportions of the global population: 26% of the global population lacks access to water that is available when needed and free from chemical and fecal contamination, and 46% lacks access to household sanitation facilities that safely manage excreta [16]. Furthermore, while SDG Target 6.2 emphasizes “paying special attention to the needs of women and girls,” who are recognized as WASH duty-bearers globally, [1720] data often fail to reflect the gender-specific benefits and harms of WASH conditions, behaviors, and interventions. Despite recognition of WASH ‘as a pathway to gender equality’, [21] a full understanding of the gendered effects of WASH remains limited, prompting calls for improved gender measurement, data, and learning [19, 2225].

While historically WASH programs focused on women’s contributions to improving effectiveness and impact of programs, this focus has been evolving to consider how WASH programming may contribute to positive gender outcomes [26] and, more specifically, to women’s empowerment [2730]. Research on women’s empowerment has flourished across multiple disciplines in the past two decades, argued to be propelled by the foundational work of Naila Kabeer (1999), who defined empowerment as ‘the expansion in people’s ability to make strategic life choices in a context where this ability was previously denied to them’ [31]. Kabeer further conceptualized empowerment as having three dimensions: resources, or the human, material, and social pre-conditions to exercising choice; agency, which is “the ability to define one’s goals and act upon them,” and achievements, which are the possible outcomes of exercising agency [31]. While several other definitions, frameworks, and measures exist, women’s empowerment is widely recognized to be multi-dimensional and a process that is valuable both intrinsically for its own sake and instrumentally for its link to varied life outcomes, including nutrition, access to care, contraception use, vaccination, and exposure to violence [3236]. Global recognition of the importance of women’s empowerment is evidenced by its prominent role in SDG 5, which seeks to ‘empower all women and girls’[37].

Recent reviews have examined WASH and gender, with variable explicit engagement with empowerment [3842]. In their scoping review, Dery et al. (2020) explored how empowerment was used in WASH. Among the 13 included articles, of which four focused on women’s access to WASH and empowerment, five interrelated dimensions of empowerment were identified: access to information, participation, capacity building, leadership and accountability, and decision-making [38]. MacArthur and colleagues (2020) conducted a critical review of WASH-gender literature from 2008–2018 and sought to understand how WASH studies engaged gender equality. Their distant-reading analysis of the 155 included articles, which focused only on assessment of titles and abstracts, revealed that few engaged with gender transformational-aspects of gender equality [39]. A mixed-method systematic review protocol outlines another study’s planned aim and approach to synthesize evidence on gender and social equality outcomes that are specific to complex WASH interventions [43]. However, the two reviews that have been completed (Dery et al. and MacArthur et al.) have used methods that are limited in their scope and rigor, [44] and a need has remained for a more comprehensive synthesis of the evidence.

To date there have been no rigorous systematic reviews to assess and synthesize evidence on WASH and women and girls’ empowerment. Such a comprehensive review could benefit various actors, including researchers, by determining which domains of empowerment are well-studied and which require further attention; practitioners and policy makers, by identifying programs, interventions, and approaches that have contributed to (or hampered) women’s empowerment; and donors, by distinguishing what facets of WASH-related empowerment may require further investment. To that end, the primary aims of this literature review were to: a) identify empirical water and sanitation research that engaged empowerment and/or empowerment-related domains; b) tabulate and report how empowerment-related terms were used, where and when research was conducted, what methods were leveraged, and if water and/or sanitation was the primary focus; c) synthesize findings by empowerment domain and water and/or sanitation focus.


We report our review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria (See S1- PRISMA Checklist in S1 Table).

Conceptual foundation

Our literature search and subsequent analyses were guided by the conceptual model of empowerment outlined by van Eerdewijk et al. (2017), [45] which extended work by Naila Kabeer, [46] the World Bank, [47] and CARE [48]. The authors define empowerment of women and girls as ‘the expansion of choice and strengthening of voice through the transformation of power relations, so women and girls have more control over their lives and futures’ (p. 13). Their conceptualization of empowerment, which they consider to be both a process and an outcome, involves the interaction of three domains—agency, resources, and institutional structures—each of which includes several sub-domains. The authors elucidate this interaction, noting that the ‘Transformation of power relations occurs through women and girls exercising agency and taking action, through the redistribution of resources towards women and girls, and through shifting the institutional structures that shape women and girls’ choice and voice, and ultimately their lives and futures’ (p.14). Definitions for empowerment and each of the domains and subdomains included in the model, all of which guided our search, analyses, and presentation of findings, are provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Definitions of empowerment and related domains and sub-domains from Van Eerdewijk et al. (2017).

The conceptual model was developed in partnership with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) as a means of providing conceptual clarity and a common language for empowerment-related work across the Foundation. It was developed after a review of over 115 resources in research and development representing over 50 organizations and underwent extensive peer review from a team of gender experts representing the Foundation and 12 external organizations [45]. The authors note that it can be used to analyze contexts, inform intervention design, and guide monitoring and measurement activities. Given that our systematic review was part of a BMGF-funded project to develop and validate measures to assess women’s empowerment in urban sanitation, [50] we elected to use the same model for consistency. While van Eerdewijk et al. also discuss the importance of engaging men and boys in empowerment work, we chose to retain the core focus on women and girls in line with the aims of our larger project.

Search strategy

Our search strategy aimed to identify studies that engaged with and reported on water, sanitation, and empowerment, including associated domains and sub-domains of empowerment. We completed our search on 4 May 2020 for articles published in English in peer-reviewed sources on any date in the following databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, CABI Global Health, PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and AGRICOLA (EBSCOhost) (S2 Table for terms). One co-author identified additional articles by reviewing the reference lists of each included article (ancestry search) and by using Google Scholar to identify articles that cited each included article (descendancy search). Finally, additional articles known by the authors that were not captured in the search were included.

Study eligibility

Any peer-reviewed article presenting primary or secondary research related to water and/or sanitation and either empowerment and/or one of the domains of empowerment from the conceptual model was eligible for inclusion. We included all countries, settings, human populations, and study designs; we excluded articles not in English.

To determine inclusion, one team member independently reviewed all titles and abstracts from the database search. Three other team members then split all titles and abstracts to complete a second review. When a consensus decision could not be made from the title and abstract, the full article was reviewed by two reviewers. When reviewers disagreed on eligibility, six members of the broader study team met to reach consensus on inclusion or exclusion.


Our analysis proceeded in multiple stages. First, to better understand the body of work included in the review, one team member extracted and collated study design, setting, population, and relevant water and sanitation information from each study. Second, to assess if papers engaged ‘empowerment’ and like terms, we conducted a word search on all papers for ‘empow,’ which enabled identification of ‘empowerment’ and similar terms (e.g. empower, disempowered). We then classified how papers engaged empowerment-related terms using a four-tier classification tool we created; see Fig 1 for tier classifications.

Fig 1. Four tier classification schema for article engagement of ‘empowerment’.

Third, to classify and synthesize evidence on water, sanitation, and empowerment, we used the ‘best-fit framework synthesis’ approach [51]. Using this method, themes are identified to use as codes a priori from pre-existing, guiding frameworks or models. This synthesis approach allows for the guiding framework or conceptual model to be modified as themes emerge inductively from the data. We created and defined codes based on the definitions of the empowerment subdomains in the conceptual model by Van Eerdewijk et al. [45] (Table 1), and included two additional codes for empowerment-related subdomains identified iteratively through analysis, thus expanding the existing model: Privacy (Resources domain) and Freedom of Movement (Agency domain) (Fig 2). Other codes included water and sanitation to identify the focal topics engaged, as well as menstruation, which was engaged in many of the sources identified.

Fig 2. Domains and sub-domains of women’s and girls’ water and sanitation-related empowerment (adapted from Van Eerdewijk et al. (2017).

All eligible papers were imported into MaxQDA (version 12) [52] qualitative analysis software. Following best practice, [53] line-by-line coding of the results sections of eligible papers, which present the empirical data from the studies, was carried out independently by two team members, who first coded two papers independently and compared to assess inter-coder agreement.

Using thematic analysis, two team members generated descriptive themes for each empowerment code based on the relevant coded texts. All coded segments containing both an empowerment-related code and a sanitation/water code (e.g. ‘safety’ and ‘sanitation’) were exported into an Excel file and analyzed further. Each subdomain of empowerment (e.g. ‘safety,’ ‘privacy’) was analyzed separately. Themes were refined into a smaller set of descriptive themes that outlined how experiences with water and sanitation related to the various subdomains of empowerment. Descriptive themes were then used to describe how each domain/subdomain of empowerment has been researched in the literature.

Study quality appraisal

We assessed all studies using the Mixed-Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) 2018 developed by Pluye et al. [54] and updated in 2018 [55] for the appraisal of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies. One team member performed quality appraisals of all studies and a second team member performed a quality appraisal agreement check on 10% of studies. Qualitative and most quantitative studies were assessed using the five-criteria questionnaire; one criterion was dropped for randomized control trials because we did not consider it indicative of quality (‘Did participants adhere to the assigned intervention?’). Mixed-methods studies were assessed using the relevant independent questionnaires for qualitative and quantitative work and a five-criteria questionnaire for mixed-methods; the lowest of the three scores was used as the quality score. Possible scores were 0–5 across study types (5 is the best). Because the primary aim of this work is to understand if and how research engaged water and sanitation and empowerment themes, all studies were retained regardless of scores.

In their meta-synthesis of sanitation and well-being, Sclar et al. (2018) [14] note that qualitative research is explicitly unblinded, subjective, and self-reported, and thus likely to produce poor scores from bias assessment tools. Because this review is exploratory, we excluded bias assessment, reasoning that qualitative studies would have low bias scores by default (despite rich insights), and therefore the activity would introduce bias.


Included articles

Fig 3 shows the review strategy, including reasons for exclusion. We included 257 articles—129 qualitative, 54 quantitative, and 74 mixed methods—representing an estimated 1,600,348 participants (S3 Table describes all included studies). Articles largely featured research from Asia (48%) and Africa (42%), and focused on adult participants (69%) (Table 2). The earliest paper was published in 1989; 82% (211) of articles were published since 2010 and 60% (153) since 2015 (S1 Fig).

Fig 3. PRISMA flow diagram of publications considered for the review.

Table 2. Summary information about included sources (N = 257).

Study quality

S4 Table presents study quality scores for each included article. Mean study quality was 4.2 overall indicating good quality, 4.8 for qualitative studies, 4.1 for quantitative studies, and 3.3 for mixed methods studies (5 is maximum) (Table 2).

Water and sanitation research engaging empowerment and associated domains

The terms “empower,” “empowerment,” “empowering,” “disempowerment,” or “disempowering” featured in the text of 133 (52%) articles. Only 17 (7%) articles included a specific definition or conceptualization of empowerment to inform their research (see Table 2; S5 Table for specific definitions used); [30, 5671] 12 (5%) had a specific aim or research question focused broadly on empowerment [30, 56, 57, 59, 64, 66, 68, 70, 7275].

One hundred fifteen (45%) articles focused on water, 57 (22%) on sanitation, 85 (33%) on both; 34 (13%) engaged menstruation. Table 3 summarizes which studies contributed to each domain or subdomain; S6 Table collates all menstruation-related articles by domain and subdomain. Of the domains of empowerment, the resources domain was the most represented (241 articles; 94%); 181 (70%) articles engaged at least two of the empowerment domains and 113 (44%) engaged all three (S2 Fig).

Table 3. Summary of studies that engage water and/or sanitation by domain and sub-domains of empowerment (N = 257).

Synthesis by empowerment domain and sub-domain

The sections that follow synthesize findings from water and sanitation research by the domains and subdomains of women’s empowerment as defined by our guiding conceptual model. The order we present domain and sub-domain findings is consistent with the order in Table 3, which includes all the domains and sub-domains from Table 1 as well as the two additional, iteratively-identified sub-domains (Freedom of Movement and Privacy). The synthesis below focuses on high-level findings related to each domain and sub-domain. We guide readers throughout to additional information in a S1 Text.

1. Agency

Women reported exercising water and sanitation-related agency, including engagement in decision-making inside and outside the household, formal and informal leadership, and collective action. Women experienced constraints on their movement, which impacted their access to water and sanitation resources and to public water and sanitation related activities.

1.a Decision-making

Women have varied roles related to intra- and extra- household water and sanitation making, though seem to have the greatest power related to decisions within the household related to water. Women in Guatemalan savings groups reported having at least equal participation in household WASH decisions, with many reporting greater decision-making power than their husbands [73]. Women in Bangladesh, [110] Ethiopia, [108] and India [60] reported decision-making power over water collection and allocation, though some studies from India found men to make water collection decisions that did not account for women’s priorities [101, 119]. A water security study from Nepal reported that some women found individual decision-making stressful and that seeking support from in-laws and husbands was culturally valued [59]. With respect to sanitation, in India, the odds of having a latrine was significantly higher in households where women were the main decision makers [136] and in Kenya, the likelihood of a household owning an improved sanitation facility was significantly higher when women had at least some input on decisions about major household purchases [134].

Women have both participated in and been prevented from a range of extra-household water and sanitation decision-making situations. In Indonesia, women exercised independent choice in selecting WASH-related jobs [66]. In India, women became a part of decision-making processes in village-level sanitation meetings, [139] water user committees, [89] and other sanitation projects, [127] and men believed women could speak up in meetings and expressed happiness that they could make joint decisions [145]. Women have voiced opinions about proposed activities and offered suggestions during informal water and sanitation meetings (Egypt), [78] and both men and women noted that women are likely to speak out in public settings and take action on water-related issues given their role as household water managers (Mexico) [93]. Both men and women in Hmong communities in Vietnam agreed that women were likely to be listened to when they participated in water management meetings [97]. In Bolivia, although women were rarely able to contribute in water-focused meetings, their contributions often shifted community conversations in important ways and women often had strong influence over water-related decisions, even when men had formal decision-making authority [114]. Conversely, women also have been barred from extra-household water and sanitation decision-making. Women reported being listed as water management group members, but never attending meetings (Bangladesh [109]), instructing husbands to relay water concerns to committees (Sri Lanka [56]), having husbands or sons attend meetings and make decisions in their place (India [106]), and deferring to men to speak during water-related meetings even though they bore water collection responsibility (Kenya [76]). In northern Kenya–where women primarily collect water for domestic use and men for livestock–women were not actively involved in decision-making around water source utilization and their needs were not prioritized [61]. Women play increasingly greater roles in water committees in rural Malawi, but they remain dominated by men in urban areas [86].

Factors that have influenced women’s involvement in intra- and extra-household water and sanitation decision-making are described in the S1 Text (SX).

WASH programs have both promoted and discouraged women’s voices in WASH-related decision-making processes. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have encouraged women to speak up in culturally appropriate ways [26, 126]. Trainings, information, and technical knowledge provided to women have contributed to the improvement of communication between men and women and led to women having a voice in household and community decision-making [26, 58, 75, 129]. WASH programs have increased trust, acceptance, and respect for women as community decision-makers (India [129] and Sri Lanka [56]), increased women’s roles in household decision-making (India [139] and Vietnam [58]), and improved women’s reported ability to express themselves (Costa Rica [63]). WASH programs also have inhibited women’s decision-making participation by targeting men [102, 124] or reinforcing gender norms [71, 126]. In India, women were included in public forums because they are responsible for children’s health, while men were involved because they could demand improvements and travel outside the village [126]. Additionally, women in India reported being provided water and sanitation, without consultation, resulting in services not meeting their needs [122]. In Timor Leste, women’s participation in water and sanitation projects has been limited to activities like cleaning or preparing food [71].


Women have served as formal and informal leaders in water and sanitation initiatives, resulting in both programmatic benefits and to the women themselves. Formal positions include leadership on water and sanitation committees; leadership or management of WASH businesses, value chain companies, and organizations; leading community-level projects; and fundraising for and monitoring community-based water and sanitation initiatives [59, 66, 83, 85, 89, 93, 112, 120, 126, 133, 139, 149, 154]. Women’s formal leadership has led to increased confidence among and toward women leaders [26, 56, 73, 126, 146, 157]. In rural Vanuatu, water user committees with women in key posts met more regularly, functioned better, and collected more revenue than those with only men in these roles [150]. Still, while quotas have resulted in more women in leadership positions, [151] women remained underrepresented in committees and leadership [83, 102, 137]. Documented informal leadership activities included arbitrating local disputes, [69] disseminating water and sanitation information, [154, 160] motivating family members to use latrines, [155] and leading protests, like those during the “water wars” in Bolivia [148]. Select water and sanitation programs in Costa Rica, [63] Guatemala, [73] India, [126, 145] Sri Lanka, [56] and Vietnam [58] positively influenced the growth of women’s leadership and support for women leaders. In India, women’s participation in a community-led total sanitation campaign led to the emergence of female leaders who expanded their influence to other villages and activities [145].

Social and demographic factors have influenced women’s engagement and acceptance in water and sanitation leadership positions and are summarized in the S1 Text (SX).

1.c. Collective action

Women have engaged in varied forms of collective action that has positively influenced water and sanitation access, conditions, experiences, and opportunities. Women’s collective action has led to funding, demand, construction, repair, and maintenance of water services [56, 61, 73, 78, 89, 91, 125, 129, 163, 165, 168, 169, 193, 296] and latrines [129, 139, 147, 168, 170, 174, 175]. Women have organized to form lending groups to support women-led WASH businesses, [66] provide community education about water safety, [56, 61, 73, 78, 89, 91, 125, 129, 163, 165, 168, 169, 193, 296] monitor open defecation, [145] and respond to sanitation-related harassment. [174] Indigenous women in Bolivia and the U.S. have collectively defended water access. [148, 167] Women’s involvement in WASH-related collective action has led to sustained involvement in water and sanitation issues [89, 163] as well as collective action around non-WASH issues, [56, 126, 145] and also has encouraged respect from community members, including men [26, 56, 89, 166].

Social and demographic factors facilitated or barred women’s involvement in collective action, which are detailed in the S1 Text (SX).

1.d. Freedom of movement

Women have described benefits of and preference for water and sanitation activities that require leaving the home, yet many also reported restrictions on movement and therefore their access to basic water and sanitation needs. In Bangladesh, younger women enjoyed fetching water from distant water sources, providing opportunities to leave home and socialize [110]. In rural India, some women who owned latrines preferred going for open defecation to visit friends and escape their home, mothers-in-law, and chores [182]. Movement restrictions influenced women and girls’ access to water [101, 110, 178] and defecation, urination, and menstrual management locations, and are most widely reported in India [62, 135, 174, 181, 182, 184, 187], [101, 110, 187, 189191]. Research in India found that family members (often husbands, fathers, and in-laws) restricted water fetching and sanitation-related movements, most intensely for unmarried daughters [174, 182, 190] and recently married and pregnant women, [178, 182, 189] (less intensely for women of lower castes [135] and widows [174]). Families have built latrines specifically to restrict movement, [62, 174] though women do not always have access when needed if situated in spaces controlled by men [62]. In India and Bangladesh, where women’s freedom of movement is restricted or being seen in public is considered shameful, women reported difficulty navigating public spaces for water or sanitation needs, experiencing stress, harm to reputations, or risked beatings [101, 110, 187, 189]. To prevent shaming family members (Bangladesh [110]) or suffering beatings by men (India [101]), women collected water from closer, polluted sources rather than cleaner sources in male-dominated public spaces.

Women’s freedom of movement influenced participation in community-level water and sanitation activities. Women in India, [89, 101] Nepal, [59] and Kenya [76] reported needing permission from men or elders to participate in meetings outside the home, [76, 89, 101] which limited their involvement in water and sanitation committees and access to information, [89, 101] impacted their knowledge about water sources, [101] and constrained water access and decision-making. [59, 101] Restricted movement has limited women’s access to training opportunities and therefore engagement in piped water enterprises (Cambodia [30]), and has posed barriers to women’s WASH businesses (Indonesia [66]). Women in India experienced in development projects reported more spatial mobility and were more likely to participate in water committees. [89] One program (India) intentionally aimed to enhance mobility by engaging women in sanitation promotion outside the home; yet, the very latrines promoted were found to increase women’s confinement [62].

2. Resources

As described in the sections that follow, water and sanitation circumstances and conditions contribute to the deprivation of resources, particularly to bodily integrity, which includes health, safety and security, and privacy. Further, women’s control over resources, notably financial and productive assets, social capital, and time, influence their access to water and sanitation and, conversely, water and sanitation conditions influence women’s access to and control over resources.

2.a. Bodily integrity

Women’s and girls’ bodily integrity, which includes choices about and control over their bodies, has been constrained in a number of ways due to water and sanitation conditions. Specifically, women limited bathing and washing hands, clothes, menstrual materials, and bathrooms; [76, 86, 98, 100, 123, 144, 165, 197, 198, 200, 202, 229, 232, 281] restricted food and water to avoid defecation and urination; [135, 168, 174, 179, 184, 192, 212, 224] suppressed defecation and urination urges; [2, 62, 181, 184, 188, 190, 191, 214, 217, 229, 235, 236, 238, 241, 247, 248, 250, 270] delayed changing menstrual materials; [224, 240, 241, 247, 250] and took anti-diarrheal medicines [174] when lacking sufficient, safe or clean water and sanitation. The specific water and sanitation conditions that influence women’s ability to meet their preferences, which is fundamental to bodily integrity, are detailed in the S1 Text (SX). Bodily integrity also includes safety and security, health, and privacy—an inductively identified subdomain—which are described in the following sections.

2.a.i Safety and security.

General fears and perceptions of safety. General safety concerns were widely noted, [100, 119, 123, 139, 143, 147, 171, 177, 182, 186, 188, 191, 201, 202, 223, 226229, 233, 238, 240, 241, 251, 255, 257] including feeling unsafe collecting water, [100, 119, 177] or using sanitation facilities at night, [168, 171, 190, 229, 255257] and when toilets lack doors, locks, lighting, or are far [171, 190, 214, 223, 239241, 252, 255]. Safety issues were described as particularly intense for adolescent girls, young women, and minorities [2, 135, 174, 179, 181]. Research describing perceptions of improved safety all focuses on sanitation [139, 222, 227, 257, 267]. Additional details about specific sanitation attributes that have been linked to fear and perceived safety are described in the S1 Text (SX).

Harassment. General harassment, including taunting, teasing, name calling, and throwing things at women or girls is more frequently observed in sanitation [138, 168, 174, 175, 181, 187, 190, 263] than water research [168, 199] Sexual harassment, including verbal harassment, peeping, flashing, and male masturbation is also more frequently documented in sanitation [171174, 189, 190, 214, 217, 226, 231, 233] than water research [144, 214, 231, 259]. Women doing manual scavenging reported verbal abuse [138].

Physical violence. All research describing fear or experience of non-partner physical violence focused on sanitation, while all articles focusing on intimate partner physical violence and most focusing on interpersonal conflict focused on water (_((((xxx))))_)[61, 62, 76, 86, 89, 101, 110, 111, 123, 135, 143, 144, 171, 173175, 177, 179, 181, 182, 188, 189, 191, 198, 201, 243, 251, 255, 257, 258, 260, 262, 264, 266, 269].

The majority of non-partner physical violence research focused on women’s general fear of physical attack by men or boys, [62, 86, 123, 135, 143, 171, 173175, 177, 181, 182, 188, 189, 191, 198, 201, 251, 257, 269] including “drunkards,” [191] “bandits,” [175] “idle youth” [255] or “thieves” [255] when accessing sanitation, with sanitation location emerging as important. Limited research documented actual experiences of physical violence from a non-partner. Research using Kenya Demographic and Health Survey data found women who defecated in the open had 40% greater odds of having experienced non-partner sexual and/or physical violence in the previous year compared to women who did not [269]. In urban environments in sub-Saharan Africa, a greater association was found for women using a toilet shared with multiple households and experiencing non-partner violence than for women using private facilities [262]. Women in India [135] and Kenya [76] shared stories of boys attacking and murdering girls who left home for defecation.

Inadequate water provision and collection behaviors were reported to influence intimate partner violence [26, 75, 101, 108, 111, 153, 165, 179, 198, 231, 260, 264, 266]. Women reported violence from husbands if they did not provide water for bathing needs (Kenya, [198] Ethiopia, [108] Vietnam, [111] Cameroon [231]), did not have water in the home (East Africa [179]), went to cleaner water sources considered too far (India [101]), did not prepare food on time because of water collection duties (Uganda [165] and Mozambique [153]), or attended water-focused community meetings (India [75]). Due to an improved water source, a man in Vanuatu reported no longer hitting his wife because she stopped asking for his help to fetch water [26].

Almost all articles documenting physical violence from interpersonal conflicts focused on water [89, 110, 198, 243, 258]. Women in India experienced intrahousehold conflicts and beatings due to participation in a water supply project; [89] young women in Bangladesh, especially new brides, suffered verbal and physical abuse from mothers-in-law when they failed to collect water quickly or did not collect enough; [110] children and women in Uganda reported quarrels, including physical fights, while waiting in long water queues; [258] and schoolgirls in Kenya reported that the school janitor would beat them if the toilet was unclean [243].

Sexual violence. Fear and experiences of sexual violence were reported by women and girls who had to leave home for water and sanitation needs (_((((xxx))))_)[70, 76, 108, 123, 135, 143, 153, 171, 173175, 177, 179, 181, 183, 184, 186189, 191, 198, 214, 231, 233, 238240, 255, 258, 259, 261, 265, 268270] Research from India, [181, 268] Kenya, [269] and Nigeria [70] found women openly defecating were particularly vulnerable to non-partner sexual violence compared to those using latrines. Fear of sexual assault was reported to be greatest at night, [123, 186, 238, 239, 255] leading some women to use bags and buckets for sanitation needs [175, 255, 270]. In India, those in urban settings reported greater fear of sexual assault when accessing sanitation than those in rural settings [181, 189]. Qualitative research described how men in India hid to watch for, attack, and molest women openly defecting alone, [174] and how a young woman in a Kenyan slum experienced an attempted rape when she walked ten minutes to the latrine [239]. Some Kenyan women mentioned rape as a stressor (specifically during menstruation, which compels toilet use) [255]. Related to water, walking long distances and collecting from certain sources reportedly exposed women and girls to sexual violence, [76, 153, 179, 231, 258, 259] particularly as men studied women’s patterns [179]. In refugee settings in Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, caregivers advised girls to not bathe at the river or in community showers to avoid rape [183].

2.a.ii Health.

Women reported different health concerns, mostly negative, based on life stage and circumstance. Notably, pregnant women expressed health fears related to sanitation-related superstitions (India [184, 189]), women with trouble controlling urination or defecation stressed about accessing sanitation sites (India [2]), women reliant on bags, buckets, or open defecation had substantially lower odds of reporting good health compared to other women (Kenya [256]), and circumcised women who had recently given birth found it difficult and painful to defecate and urinate (Kenya [143]).

Bodily harm. Women and girls feared, risked, or experienced, varied harms related to their water and sanitation circumstances and activities (_((((xxx))))_)[62, 63, 78, 90, 101, 135, 141, 143, 144, 158, 168170, 172174, 177179, 181, 182, 184, 186, 187, 189191, 197199, 201, 214, 226, 231, 244, 257, 258, 261, 276, 277, 296]. Many noted exacerbated experiences for women who were pregnant or elderly, had pre-existing conditions, and/or perform activities in harsh weather [135, 143, 144, 169, 174, 177, 179, 181, 182, 184, 187, 189, 199, 231]. Reported risks of and actual harm linked to water and sanitation ranged widely, with reported water fetching related harms in particular resulting in serious and long-term consequences. Specific immediate water fetching harms included general and localized pain; [63, 90, 101, 123, 187, 198, 229, 231, 244, 276] headaches and head injury; [229] and injury from falls, trucks, and/or car accidents [144, 158, 168, 198, 231]. Fears or experiences of harm from domestic and wild animals and insects were reported for both water collection and sanitation activities [62, 135, 143, 170, 172174, 177179, 184, 187, 189191, 198, 201, 214, 226, 229, 257, 258, 296]. Women and girls reported fear and actual experiences of injury at and when accessing sanitation locations, regardless of sanitation type [135, 168, 172, 174, 184, 186, 189191, 226, 257]. Women doing manual scavenging reported backaches (India) [141].

Illness and infirmity. Women and girls’ experiences of illness and infirmity related to water and sanitation conditions are well documented (_((((xxx))))_)[63, 65, 70, 76, 81, 86, 111, 118, 122, 123, 135, 141, 144, 154, 168, 172174, 177, 178, 184, 186, 188191, 195, 197199, 202, 208, 214, 220, 223, 225, 226, 231, 239241, 247, 256, 259, 272, 273, 278, 284, 285, 287, 288, 290].

Water and sanitation access have been linked to women’s reproductive health, nutrition, and cardiovascular health outcomes. Two global studies (with data from 193 [284] and 144 [286] countries) and one focused on sub-Saharan Africa [287] found increased access to improved water and sanitation to be significantly associated with decreased maternal mortality. In India, reproductive tract infections were more common among women who changed their menstrual materials outdoors rather than in a private room or latrine [285]. Studies in Cambodia [290] and India [248] have observed associations between women’s access to sanitation facilities and body mass index (BMI). Studies have also examined associations between sanitation (Cambodia [290]) or water (Uganda [278]) and anemia. Women in Kenya consumed poorer quality foods and a less diverse diet as a result of water insecurity [198]. In Nepal, having intermediate and low water access was associated with higher systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels in women, while men’s blood pressure was not statistically different; elevated levels of blood pressure were highest for women with the least water access [272].

Women qualitatively reported perceived linkages between various illnesses and their water and sanitation environments and experiences. Women reported experiencing or fearing diarrhea, vomiting, dysentery, cholera, hepatitis, schistosomiasis, and skin diseases due to polluted water, [65, 70, 86, 111, 144, 177, 178, 197, 199, 214, 220, 225, 231, 248, 259, 273, 288] and experiencing diarrhea due to limitations on hygiene in times of water scarcity [70, 123, 202]. Women in India worried about spreading disease if limited water constrained their ability to wash their hands during menstruation, [226] and were concerned about fungal diseases when using dirty water inside sanitation facilities [190]. When interventions improved water availability or treatment, women reported experiencing fewer vaginal infections [63] and seeing fewer illnesses in their families [81, 208]. Women who withheld food and water or suppressed urination and defecation when lacking access to safe, clean latrines reported experiencing urinary tract infections, headaches, stomach aches, constipation, diarrhea, and other illnesses [135, 168, 172174, 184, 190, 214, 248]. In India, women working in manual scavenging reported experiencing sickness, fever, and nausea [141]. Women and girls identified multiple sanitation-related factors they linked to illness, infection, and disease spread, which are detailed in the S1 Text (SX).

Mental health. Studies have increasingly examined mental health outcomes in relation to water [76, 90, 96, 100, 108, 123, 163, 165, 170, 177, 192, 198, 201, 202, 205, 209, 271, 274, 275, 280, 289] and sanitation [2, 139, 168, 172, 173, 175, 178, 185, 188, 189, 229, 283, 289].

Water-related stress, anxiety, depression, or fear were reported by women in Ethiopia regarding water-related illnesses; [108] in Bolivia, [232] Brazil, [229] India, [280] Kenya, [76, 170, 198] Mexico [163] and Uganda [165, 205] due to water insecurity; in Kenya [198] and Canada [201] due to interpersonal relations related to water; and in Bangladesh when collecting water after dark [177].

Women reported myriad sanitation-related stressors, including fear of being attacked by men or ghosts, [177, 181, 184, 189, 229, 238] being shamed for using open defecation sites, [172] suppressing urination or defecation, [184] withholding food and water, [184] needing help to meet sanitation needs, [184] being hurried while using shared facilities, [168, 185, 188] sanitation-related costs, [170, 240] and lacking privacy or being seen by others, [178] especially men, [184, 189] while openly defecating [170, 172, 173, 184, 189, 238, 240]. Women working as manual scavengers in India reported feeling undignified and unworthy. [141] Women coped with sanitation stressors by seeking social support, withholding food or drink, or changing the timing of sanitation behaviors, though adaptations could also cause stress [168, 177, 184, 189]. Access to sanitation facilities was associated with mental well-being. Ownership of functional household latrines and enclosed bathing spaces were significantly associated with well-being among women in rural India [2]. Toilet access in Kenya was associated with better mental health and well-being among women [289]. Women who received latrines in Mozambique reported that they decreased their stress, [175] and women in India reported that private latrines helped them to overcome the embarrassment, shame, and anxiety of open defecation [139].

2.a.iii Privacy.

Women reported challenges related to privacy and water, specifically concerning hygiene. Women and girls in Bangladesh, [199] India, [184, 189, 226] Indonesia, [115] and Mozambique [175, 261] described challenges obtaining privacy at water sources used for bathing, post-defecation cleansing, and washing, particularly during menstruation. In Mozambique, newly constructed handpumps provided women with easier, more reliable water access, but made achieving privacy for bathing and menstrual hygiene more difficult than at sources like rivers [261].

Sanitation facilities often enable privacy, though privacy can be challenging to obtain for those without sanitation facilities and for some using household or shared facilities. In India, women with latrines reported a greater sense of privacy, [139] and adolescent girls and women found latrines particularly useful for maintaining privacy during menstruation and defecation, especially during the rainy season [182, 222]. Women in Nigeria with lockable latrines were significantly more likely to report that their latrine was private (86% versus 64%) [267]. In urban India, privacy for open defecation is especially hard to obtain [226]. Women in Nairobi, Kenya who rely on bags, buckets, or open defecation had lower odds of experiencing privacy [256]. Household or shared toilets do not always prevent women from being seen or heard while defecating [123, 184, 186]. Women reported privacy concerns in shared sanitation facilities in Zimbabwe, [123] Mozambique, [175] Kenya, [191] India, [130] and South Africa, where limited privacy at community ablution blocks was also noted. [251] Privacy of household and shared latrines is compromised by broken [189] or missing doors, [184, 248] missing locks, [175, 191, 248, 251] and poor construction [175, 191, 240, 251]. Furthermore, women worried about being seen walking to latrines; [189, 227] waiting in queues; [130] having others hear or smell their activity; [175] or the proximity of latrines to houses, main roads, or public spaces [69, 175, 227].

The S1 Text provides additional details of how privacy concerns vary by gender and life stage, about the specific privacy concerns women and girls face when away from the home for work or school, and about the various strategies women and girls employ to cope with poor privacy conditions.

2.b. Critical consciousness

The concept ‘critical consciousness’ was not explicitly engaged, though many engaged sub-constructs, including self-confidence and the identification and questioning of inequalities. Improved self-confidence, including willingness to speak up, was reported regarding women’s participation in WASH programs and campaigns in India, [89, 139, 145] Sri Lanka, [56] and Vietnam [58]. Women in India reported improvements in self-confidence, dignity, and work and life circumstances due to improvements in water supply [129, 279]. In Indonesia, some women reported feeling confident to challenge traditional gender roles and become leaders in the water sector [66].

Awareness of their unequal position in society was reported to influence how women approached resolving water issues in Sri Lanka [56] and Mexico, [163] and sanitation issues in India [145]. Women in rural India were aware of men’s unequal decision-making power, which was reinforced by NGOs; they noted that NGOs only approached male household heads as part of a national campaign to build household latrines [124]. Women in Kenya raised complaints about service provision to government officials, but leaders ignored them because there are “no consequences for their inaction”[144].

2.c Assets

2.c.i Financial and productive assets.

Women’s access to assets has influence their water and sanitation access and ability to engage in water and sanitation initiatives. Further, water and sanitation have influenced women’s income generation and financial assets.

When women lacked control over income and assets, they had limited decision-making power over improving or accessing water sources [65, 76, 86, 118, 123, 194, 199, 201, 258, 292]. Constrained finances limited women’s access to preferred water sources, [64, 86, 111, 158, 170, 194, 197199] desired water quantity, [86, 192] and water treatment methods [86, 111, 118, 204, 293]. Women reported spending money to access water sources with shorter wait times [61, 198] or higher quality, [98, 198] or to compensate male neighbors, laborers, or drivers for water collection [165, 201]. Water was a major expense for many women [65, 86, 111, 198, 200, 292]. In Uganda, women were four times more willing to contribute funds to water provision than men [102]. In Kenya, purchasing water during the dry season limited money available for food [198]. In Nigeria, women with water access issues found alternative sources, or purchased, bartered, or obtained water through credit [158]. Furthermore, limited control over assets like carts, bicycles, and wheelbarrows made water collection more time-consuming, [98, 123, 258] or, in sub-Arctic communities where women lack snowmobiles and guns for defense against bears, more dangerous [201].

Similarly, limited income and asset access and control, including over land, constrained women’s access to sanitation [119, 124, 125, 135, 147, 168, 171, 174, 186, 187, 191, 217, 239, 240, 270] and limited independent decision-making about latrine construction [119, 124, 135]. Women reported using public pay-per-use toilets [168, 171, 174, 227, 239, 270] and incurring higher costs than men due to more frequent need [186, 191, 270]. Limited household income has forced women to prioritize needs like food over sanitation, whether investing in or paying to use toilets [135, 147, 186]. Women in Kenya [240, 270] and India [187] adapted by using preferred pay-per-use locations less often or strategically, like for defecation only [187, 240, 270]. Women have faced difficulties accessing government subsidies [125, 135] or loans large enough for latrine construction [131] and reported willingness to make financial sacrifices, like paying higher rent [191] or accepting a lower wage job, [174, 217] to gain toilet access. In India, even women with economic and decision-making power could not build latrines without land ownership [124, 187, 190]. In Nairobi, women reported that greater financial stability and more control over resources would help them access sanitation [147].

Finances and assets have influenced women’s representation or participation in community water and sanitation initiatives. Women have faced financial or asset-related barriers to participation in community-level initiatives, including a lack of land ownership for water committees (Peru [149] and Uganda [102]), an inability to sustain required monetary contributions for self-help groups (India [72]), and a lack of financial incentive and opportunity costs (India [69, 89, 125] and Ecuador [79]). In India, some families pushed women to attend watershed development meetings because of perceived monetary benefit [72].

Water and sanitation have both supported and constrained women’s income generation. Specifically, women have engaged in job opportunities, like water vending, [89] meter reading and water tank cleaning, [56] water management, [30, 121] water filter and toilet pan selling, [66] and rainwater harvesting container construction [121, 161]. They have also engaged in water-dependent income-generating activities, like horticulture or pottery-making, [59, 206, 261] or sanitation-related activities, like toilet cleaning, [217] latrine construction, [121] serving as toilet attendants, [263] or doing scavenging work [138, 141, 297]. Finally, water and sanitation improvements have freed up time for other income-generating activities [56, 67, 105, 174, 194, 210, 295]. Conversely, women’s income generation has been constrained by poor water access, limited employment opportunities, or by WASH initiatives themselves. Specifically, inadequate water access constrains income generation when time is needed instead for collecting water, or when water available is insufficient for income-generating activities [30, 56, 67, 81, 86, 100, 105, 166, 174, 194, 198, 200, 202, 206, 210, 231, 244, 259, 295]. In some cases, women have not been able to get water and sanitation-related jobs, or have only had access to stigmatized or minimum wage jobs; further details provided in the S1 Text (SX).

The S1 Text also details how poor water and sanitation conditions have indirect adverse effects on women’s financial assets, often by impacting health.

2.c.ii Knowledge and skills.

Studies have documented women’s specific household-level water and sanitation-related knowledge [118, 124, 159]. In Kenya, women’s roles as primary water collectors instilled knowledge about water access, quality, and quantity [76]. In Pakistan, mothers and grandmothers were a source of knowledge and influenced household decision-making about water and hygiene, [118] while in indigenous communities in Canada and the U.S., older women were responsible for teaching younger generations about water-related responsibilities [159, 167].

Women noted various types and sources of knowledge that influenced engagement in community-level activities. They reported the importance of knowledge related to village council processes to acquire toilet subsidies, [135] community meetings and events to enable participation, [71, 104, 109, 115] community members’ needs to evaluate water requests, [114] and technical and business-related expertise to manage water enterprise businesses. [30] Perceived limited knowledge has inhibited women’s participation in community decision-making bodies, collective action, and WASH businesses, or advantaged more educated women [30, 74, 76, 79, 81, 82, 84, 97, 102104]. Women reported acquiring knowledge from other women at public meetings about water issues (Vietnam [111]) and from close friends about WASH activities (Indonesia [66]).

Water and sanitation initiatives have enabled women to gain awareness, knowledge, or practical skills, while others have upheld gender norms by preventing or exploiting women’s knowledge. Further details provided in S1 Text.

2.c.iii Social capital.

Women formed and maintained social connections when collecting water [57, 78, 110, 115, 153, 279] and relied on social capital from family, friends, and community members for multiple water needs. They leveraged social capital to access water when queues were long or water was scarce, [61, 110, 114, 164, 165, 179, 198, 279] jump water queues, [168, 179] get water from private wells, [279] haul water using carts, [229] receive improved home water access, [59] wait on water deliveries, [100] or get water during menstruation [178]. In India, water management was found to be a cooperative task with men collecting water while women made decisions about quantity, quality, and use [180]. Male partners in Kenya [198] and Mozambique [153] helped with the physical labor or cost of water collection in rare circumstances, such as pregnancy, illness, or birth. In Kenya, women faced difficulties collecting water when they lacked childcare assistance [144]. In Malawi, women were persuaded by friends and relatives to begin and maintain water treatment [208].

Social capital has facilitated sanitation access. Women and girls have formed and maintained social connections when accessing sanitation locations, [130, 182, 189] and sought social support to ensure privacy and safety and to protect reputations when urinating or defecating [173, 182, 184, 187190, 223, 226]. In India, schoolgirls asked friends to clean the school toilets so they could use them without fear of illness, [247] yet women reported receiving scant sanitation-related cleaning support from men [226].

Women accessed social networks to address water and sanitation problems and take on roles [65, 79, 90, 95, 135, 149, 158, 193]. They used social networks to lobby officials to solve water problems (Thailand [193]), raise complaints with local authorities about water issues (Ecuador [79] and Nigeria [158]), leverage village council connections to access latrine construction subsidies (India [135]), and create strategic alliances with male household members to push their water-related priorities in the community (Bangladesh [109]). Women leveraged social support to assume public roles. Women needed or sought family support to take public water management roles (Vietnam [97]), disseminate water and sanitation knowledge as community facilitators (Costa Rica [63]), become masons and water technicians (Nepal [121]), establish water enterprises (Cambodia [30]), participate in WASH activities and operate WASH businesses (Indonesia [66]), attend trainings on cistern building (Brazil [161]), and gain water user association membership (Peru [149]). In Bolivia, a lack of spousal support curtailed women’s participation in water and sanitation governance [72]. Participation in water management projects helped women in Sri Lanka expand their social networks [56] as did women’s participation in water-focused mobilizations in Bolivia [148]. Some women in Indonesia chose jobs in the WASH sector and participated in WASH activities because they provide socializing opportunities [66].

2.c.iv Time.

Women are the primary water-collectors globally, [18, 20] devoting considerably more time to water-related tasks than men. Men were more likely to collect from closer sources, [20] where queues were shorter [153, 261] or they had priority access, [61] or with assets like bicycles, motorcycles, wheelbarrows, or donkey carts to assist [98, 123, 153, 258]. Seasonal changes impacted time spent on water acquisition: during the dry season, women waited for often unpredictable and therefore disruptive water deliveries (Philippines [100]); spent extra time collecting water when sources dried up (Ghana [197]); slept or cooked at sources when lines were long (Mozambique [261]); and walked long distances in the dark (Mozambique [153]). Women in Vietnam relied on water sources that became more time consuming to access due to climate-related shortages [111]. Increasing urban population density in India has exacerbated water scarcity and time required for collection [244]. Constraints on women’s time limit access to safe water or resources needed to treat or boil water [92, 118, 197, 199, 208]. Women also spend considerable time caring for family members ill with water-related diseases [26, 63, 111, 177, 193, 239, 240, 248, 259].

Women expended great amounts of time meeting sanitation needs and fulfilling sanitation-related responsibilities [64, 66, 121, 122, 125, 127, 128, 132, 133, 135, 138, 141, 168, 173, 174, 182, 184, 185, 187, 189, 190, 195, 219, 226, 228, 236, 239, 240, 248, 250, 256, 265]. Women in India, [125, 195] Kenya, [256] and South Africa [265] reported long walks to sanitation sites when they lacked private home toilets, and refugee women in Bangladesh [219] reported waiting in long toilet queues. In urban India, women reported going for sanitation in early morning or late at night to avoid queues or ensure privacy, [168, 187, 190, 226, 248] or open defecated rather than walking to and queuing at latrines [168]. Time spent on sanitation has caused women to be late for work or suppress needs to avoid being late, [168, 173] work longer days if they needed to leave to use the toilet, [250] fail to complete household chores, [226] or be scolded or punished for taking too long.[189] Women spent time assisting others with sanitation-related needs [135] and cleaning toilets, sometimes rising early to balance domestic duties with wage labor [122, 127]. Women working as manual scavengers in India reported limited control over taking breaks, and not being able to take time off if ill or to participate in festivals, weddings, or other celebrations [138, 141].

Syntheses of opportunity costs related to time, as well as how women have reclaimed time related to water and sanitation are detailed in the S1 Text (SX).

3. Institutional structures

As outlined below, institutional structures—including formal laws and policies, norms, and relations—influence women’s agency and resources related to water and sanitation.

3.a Formal laws and policies

Women have participated in WASH governance to varying extents. In Bangladesh, [177] Ghana, [83] India, [80, 106, 145, 180] Kenya, [61] and Uganda, [102] governments and organizations that set up community water and sanitation committees have required the inclusion of women [61, 80, 83, 102, 106, 180] or encouraged and supported women’s participation [145, 177]. In one project in India, rules mandated women be on water committees, but women did not always know they were on them [80]. Yet, inclusion does not guarantee participation, voice, or decision-making power. Women’s participation in WASH-related governance has been constrained by a lack of awareness about the rules (Uganda [102]), a lack of transparency or distrust in political institutions (Kenya [87]), husbands or sons attending meetings in their place (India [106]), and being ignored by men (Kenya [61]). Committees with women have divided roles along gendered lines, with men in powerful positions, like president, and women in less powerful positions, like cleaner [83, 153]. Research in Uganda found women constituted less than a third of members and were rarely in leadership positions on water user committees despite guidelines to have women comprise 50% of membership and serve in influential positions [102].

WASH policies, and uneven policy awareness, implementation, and enforcement, have posed barriers to women. Female entrepreneurs in Cambodia found certain policies made it hard to run water enterprises [30]. Even when policies exist to address women’s and girls’ needs, they are not always known or enforced. In India, both men and women lacked awareness of policies, acts, and regulations that prioritized gender equitable access to resources and participation in a watershed intervention [103]. A comparative study in Tanzania, Ghana, Cambodia, and Ethiopia, found some countries mandated sex-segregated school toilets, but adherence was inconsistent [253]. Lack of clear responsibility and accountability has resulted in policy or guidance failure. Women Sanitary Complexes in India were reportedly not maintained according to guidelines due to disagreements over responsibility [139]. In refugee camps in Lebanon and Myanmar, a lack of detailed guidelines and clarity about responsibility affected government actors’ ability to provide sufficient water and sanitation for female refugees, particularly to support menstruation-related needs [228].

3.b. Norms

Research described the social norms that govern men’s and women’s gendered water- and sanitation-related roles, focusing largely on gendered division of labor and roles in public life (_((((xxx))))_)[18, 20, 26, 59, 61, 62, 66, 76, 83, 88, 89, 97, 101103, 110, 111, 123126, 131, 132, 135, 140, 143, 153, 165, 179, 184187, 190, 193, 198, 201, 209, 214, 220, 229, 243, 245, 258, 261, 273, 279, 282, 296, 301, 302, 304306].

Women and girls are largely responsible for household water collection (_((((xxx))))_)[18, 20, 26, 62, 76, 88, 89, 102, 103, 110, 111, 123, 131, 153, 165, 179, 187, 193, 198, 201, 209, 229, 245, 261, 273, 282, 296, 301, 302, 304, 305]. Providing sufficient water for the household was described as important to being a good wife; failure to do so has resulted in shame and violence [153, 179, 273]. Normative roles extended beyond the home; girls at school in Swaziland were expected to fetch water rather than boys [220]. Gender intersected with other social identities to result in further marginalization or disadvantage related to roles and expectations. In India, lower caste women were expected to give priority water access to women from upper castes, particularly when water was scarce, [279] and were reported to lack access to handpumps constructed within upper caste areas, even when tasked with repairing them [106, 152]. In Malawi, women with disabilities experienced difficulty collecting water, though they are often still expected to fulfill this role [282].

Norms have influenced the extent that men engage in water collection and how they are perceived [110, 198, 258, 279, 296]. Men in Uganda who assisted with water collection were deemed emotionally unstable or bewitched, [165, 258] and boys in India were reportedly embarrassed to be seen helping girls carry water [187]. In Rwanda, men preferred water collection over other traditionally female tasks, though still viewed it as a woman’s task [305]. Norms of femininity and masculinity were found to be more fluid among lower castes in northwest India, enabling men to help women with water collection more easily than men in upper caste households [279]. When men or boys do collect water, it has been more acceptable when they consider it ‘helping’ women [261] or use technology–like bicycles, wheelbarrows, or motorcycles–while women and girls are expected to carry water [123, 165, 229, 258, 261]. Exceptionally, in Inuit communities, men are primary water collectors. They carry guns for protection against polar bears near water sources–something unacceptable for women to do; women experienced anxiety accessing water when men migrate for work [201].

Normative expectations affect women’s and girls’ sanitation-related practices. Rural Indian women reportedly suppressed urination and defecation urges when caregiving and household obligations were pressing [184] and were often responsible for assisting others, including children, adolescent girls, and elderly family members, with sanitation needs [62, 131, 135, 184, 190]. Women assumed more responsibilities for latrine cleaning than men because cleaning is typically considered women’s work.[186, 306]

Norms govern public water and sanitation participation. In several countries, it was more acceptable for men to participate in the public sphere and serve in leadership roles, [66, 76, 103, 111, 123, 125, 126, 132, 140, 143] and to have technological jobs, like as handpump mechanics, while women were discouraged [66, 83, 261]. These normative beliefs are sometimes supported by men, women, and NGOs. In Thailand, women believed men were better suited for public leadership roles, and men questioned women’s participation and problem-solving capacities related to village water resources [193]. In sanitation planning initiatives in Kenya, a man justified women’s exclusion from participation in the sanitation initiatives stating, women’s brains were “like that of a child.” [143] NGOs have targeted men as household heads and ignored women in decision-making and public participation [124]. In rare cases, cultural beliefs facilitated women’s public participation; women were described as more trustworthy on water user committees in Uganda and Ghana [83, 102].

Normative societal and familial rules and restrictions have defined the boundaries of acceptable water and sanitation-related behaviors for women, including their engagement in the public sphere [61, 62, 66, 87, 89, 101103, 110, 111, 124126, 130, 140, 174, 177179, 181, 182, 187190, 197, 218, 234, 261]. Further details are provided in S1 Text.

The S1 Text also describes women and girls’ reported experiences of shame, specifically related to menstruation and sanitation, as well as how norms related to shame and honor have been leveraged to change water and sanitation conditions and behaviors.

Shifting norms. Water and sanitation-related norms, including roles, responsibilities, and restrictions, have shifted, but impacts are variable. Water initiatives have increased expectations and work for women: the introduction of piped water resulted in women having to fetch water for their husband’s bathing needs (India) [279] and doing all the clothes washing, instead of sharing responsibility (Vietnam) [58]. Some water and sanitation initiatives have shifted norms and expectations in women’s favor [26, 56, 125, 126]. WASH projects in Vanuatu resulted in men increasingly assisting with responsibilities like cooking and hygiene [26]. In Sri Lanka, a women’s group’s successful water project demonstrated women’s capacity to conduct public WASH projects [56]. In India, NGOs used facilitators to challenge norms that limited women’s ability to speak in village health committees that address WASH issues [125, 126]. However, initiatives that diverged from normative roles have faced resistance. When a project attempted to put household water connections in women’s names, women objected (India) [89]. Men with new homestead water access did not like their increased involvement in what they perceived as women’s work (Kenya) [88]. Norm change has emerged from changing circumstances; some displaced Syrian refugee girls did not face the same menstrual restrictions they did back home, though female refugees from Myanmar did not experience any shift [228].

3.c Relations

Relations have both facilitated and hindered water and sanitation-related behaviors and experiences. In India, social networks played an important role in women’s decision to purchase new water filters [204] and aided women’s water collection when queues were long [168]. In Bangladesh, [110] India, [279] and Uganda [165] women relied on social networks to access water, but noted that relationships could be strained or unreliable when water was scarce. Women avoided quarrels at collection sites in Kenya by waking early to get water [76]. Regarding sanitation, women frequently accompanied one another or asked men to accompany them for safety when open defecating, [135, 173175, 182, 187, 189, 251] and to avoid harassment from community members when going to latrines and open defecation sites after dark [135, 143, 168, 182, 190, 228, 238]. Additionally, women in Kenya reported quarrels over contributions toward sanitation activities and maintenance of shared toilets, [170] and female toilet attendants in Europe reported poor treatment by patrons who refused payment [263]. Relations also influenced sanitation-related school experiences; girls reported bullying from boys if they were known to have defecated in the school toilet (Sweden [223]) and if boys knew girls were menstruating because of which toilets they used (India [247]).

Research identified both change agents, those who deviate from the status quo and enhance women and girls’ empowerment, and gatekeepers, those who maintain the status quo and constrain women and girls’ choice and voice, related to water and sanitation. Specific examples of change agents and gatekeepers are provided in the S1 Text (SX).

Water and sanitation conditions have strained both intra- and inter-household relations. In some cases, water collection responsibilities and having insufficient water to meet all household members’ needs have created tension and led to intra-household violence; further details are provided in S1 Text. Household sanitation-related conflicts were reported specifically in India. Adolescent girls were scolded by parents for taking too long or talking to boys when going for urination/defecation; newly married women were scolded for not following household sanitation rules; [189] women with children were scolded for abandoning children to meet sanitation needs; and women across life stages worried about upsetting others if they asked for assistance meeting sanitation needs [238]. Regarding inter-household relations, disputes with neighbors at water collection locations were widely reported [61, 108, 144, 165, 168, 179, 189, 198, 209, 258]. Water collection sites could be places of tension and danger, including sexual exploitation, for women and girls in Zimbabwe [123] and Uganda [165, 179]. In Kenya, disputes arose among women competing for water access, and verbal and physical fights erupted when women collecting payments favored women in the queue [61]. In India, women reported that their participation in a water project led to intrahousehold conflict; some women reported experiencing beatings when they spoke up at meetings (cite) [89]. Inter-household sanitation-related conflicts were reported related to shared toilets, [187] where women practice open defecation,[189, 190] and accessing sanitation facilities [175].

Finally, water and sanitation initiatives have both negatively and positively affected relations. Negative effects in India included increased expectations of wives to bring water home, quarrels, and conflicts at water points.[279] Positive effects included increased respect and support for women by men, changed division of labor, and increased ability of women to negotiate with husbands (Vanuatu [26]); reduced conflict between husbands and wives (Mozambique [153], Kenya, [88] and Vanuatu [26]); improved relationships between men and women (India [105]) and in families (Kenya [210] and Vietnam [58]); heightened status of women in and outside the home and positive attitudes and support for women’s collective work (India [56]); and greater acceptance of women performing WASH roles outside the home (India [129]).


We synthesized evidence on water, sanitation, and women and girls’ empowerment from 257 peer-reviewed empirical research articles, resulting in the most comprehensive synthesis of gender-focused water and sanitation research to date. Our review is more expansive and rigorous than recent WASH and gender or empowerment-focused reviews that restricted inclusion based on publication date, [39] only extracted data from titles and abstracts, [39] or focused more narrowly on the intersection of gender, water, and health [40] or on identifying the dimensions of empowerment used in WASH research [38]. The majority (86%) of included research was from Africa and Asia and focused on adults (69%). No studies focused primarily on men or boys, or on transgender or non-binary individuals, revealing patterns of research inequities that should be addressed to include more diverse geographies and populations. Our search and synthesis was grounded in an existing model of empowerment [45] which we iteratively expanded based on our review to include ‘freedom of movement’ within the Agency domain and ‘privacy’ within the Resources domain. Agency was the least commonly engaged domain among included articles (122; 47%); the Resources domains was dominant (241; 94%). This review not only contributes insights to those working in the WASH sector, it also augments understanding of the role of water and sanitation in discourse on empowerment more broadly.

Water and sanitation research that engages empowerment and related domains is extensive and growing, yet clear conceptualization of empowerment remains limited. We found that 82% (211) of included articles were published since 2010, providing evidence that aligns with previous anecdotal observations that empowerment is increasingly a focus in water and sanitation research [28, 39]. Both the large body of work identified and its growth, which is consistent with growth in the broader field of women’s empowerment, [307] further justify the need to assess learning to date. Importantly, 124 (48%) included articles did not use ‘empowerment’ or related words (e.g. “empower”) in their text, but were included because they specifically reported on empowerment sub-domains (e.g safety, decision-making) aligned with our guiding model. Of the 133 (52%) articles that did use empowerment or related terms in their text, only 17 (13%; or 7% of total) provided a definition or conceptualization of women’s empowerment to inform their work. Our assessment aligns with a reflection by Dery et al. (2019) that the definition of empowerment in WASH research lacks clarity [38]. As this line of research continues, it is essential that researchers use empowerment-related terminology deliberately. Without solid conceptualization, whether by articulating a clear guiding definition or framework a priori, or by eliciting a local understanding of empowerment via the research (See Bisung and Dickin (2019) [64]), terms may be misused or become devoid of meaning [33]. The tool we created and used (Fig 1) can be adopted to assess engagement of empowerment concepts in future research.

We identified only one article that used a quantitative tool to assess women’s empowerment related to WASH, the Empowerment in WASH Index, [308] highlighting an opportunity for future work. Additional tools are under development, such as the Agency, Resources, and Institutional Structures for Sanitation-related Empowerment (ARISE) Scales, [309] and Kayser et al. (2019) propose four priority areas for assessing gender equality and empowerment related to WASH [24] Adjacently related, another tool is under development focusing specifically on gender equality: the Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Gender Equality Measure (WASH-GEM) [310]. The momentum around measuring empowerment and WASH, while exciting, merits caution. In her critical review of current practices for measuring women’s empowerment, Richardson (2018) provides three recommendations to ensure sound measurement: measures should draw on theory; analytic methods should be used to minimize implicit judgement and bias; and comprehensive information should be collected (like data from men or complementary qualitative data) [33]. Yount et al. (2018) note that empowerment measures should rigorously assess validity and reliability [311]. Furthermore, research on empowerment from other sectors teaches that a multitude of measures can also hinder learning by limiting comparability between studies, [32] and that tools should be selected intentionally based on context and need [35]. If WASH-related empowerment is to be monitored at scale, a consensus on indicators and associated measures will be needed eventually. As tools emerge, there will be a need to review and assess the similarities, differences, strengths, weaknesses, specific uses, and gaps to continue strengthening this line of research.

Although existing measurement is limited, this review illuminates how water and sanitation circumstances and conditions have resulted in myriad negative impacts related to various sub-domains of women’s empowerment that remain unmonitored and under-evaluated. Illustratively, considerable research shows how compromised water and sanitation environments have contributed to women’s risk or experience of harassment or physical and sexual violence; (_((((xxx))))_)[61, 62, 70, 76, 86, 89, 101, 108, 110, 111, 123, 135, 138, 143, 144, 153, 168, 171175, 177, 179, 181184, 186191, 198, 199, 201, 214, 217, 226, 231, 233, 238240, 243, 251, 255, 257266, 268270] compromised mental well-being; [2, 76, 90, 96, 100, 108, 123, 139, 163, 165, 168, 170, 172, 173, 175, 177, 178, 185, 188, 189, 192, 198, 201, 202, 205, 209, 229, 271, 274, 275, 280, 283, 289] resulted in illness, infirmity, and bodily harm (_((((xxx))))_)[62, 63, 65, 70, 76, 78, 81, 86, 90, 101, 111, 118, 122, 123, 135, 141, 143, 144, 154, 158, 168170, 172174, 177179, 181, 182, 184, 186191, 195, 197199, 201, 202, 208, 214, 220, 223, 225, 226, 231, 239241, 244, 247, 256259, 261, 272, 273, 276278, 284, 285, 287, 288, 290, 296] or limiting of hygiene, food, and water; [76, 86, 98, 100, 123, 135, 144, 165, 168, 174, 179, 184, 192, 197, 198, 200, 202, 212, 224, 229, 232, 281] and suppression of urination, defecation and menstrual hygiene needs, [2, 62, 181, 184, 188, 190, 191, 214, 217, 224, 229, 235, 236, 238, 240, 241, 247, 248, 250, 270] among other impacts. However, estimates of the burden of inadequate WASH remain focused on disease outcomes [8]. Our review shows that the true burden of inadequate WASH is likely far greater, supporting calls to collect and report sex-disaggregated and gender-specific data that also considers intersectionalities, [312, 313] and to not discount or ignore impacts predominantly or only experienced by women and girls [314]. Specifically, the bodily integrity, health, and safety and security sub-domains are particularly relevant when assessing the health-related burdens of inadequate WASH. Finally, this review confirms the need to set goals for measuring, monitoring, and reporting the specific impacts of WASH on women and girls, including impacts that extend beyond health (e.g. time, freedom of movement, privacy) [22].

Despite the numerous studies that have documented impacts of water and sanitation conditions on sub-domains of women and girls’ empowerment, there has been scant action in response, warranting greater investment in programs and evaluations to create and assess change. For example, the Safety and Security domain is well-researched; 82 (32%) articles document links between WASH and safety and security, yet only one study evaluated a program that improved perceived safety [257]. Furthermore, WASH programs have the potential to catalyze change across domains of empowerment and to be transformative in the lives of women and girls, but only a few studies have documented these linkages and transformative change. Research in Ghana showed how a water project resulted in time savings, which further benefited well-being among women [194]. A water intervention in Kenya also enabled time savings, which led to improved intra-familial relationships [210]. WASH programming in Vietnam provided knowledge and skills, which women reported improved their decision-making, public participation, and relations [58]. Programs aiming to achieve transformative change should be evaluated to deepen the knowledge base on WASH and empowerment. To start, more research on Agency is warranted. Agency, which includes decision-making, leadership, collective action, and freedom of movement, is “the heart of empowerment” and transformation, [45] yet is the domain least studied. Research should aim to further understand Agesncy, including all sub-domains, in the context of WASH, including its relationship with other domains. Finally, political will and investment are necessary to ensure women and girls are prioritized in WASH initiatives. At a minimum, WASH initiatives should engage women meaningfully and not cause harm by bypassing them [102, 122, 124]. We summarize research and practice opportunities in text box 1.

Box 1. Research and practice opportunities related to women’s and girls’ empowerment

  • Acknowledge importance of empowerment in water and sanitation research and practice. This review elevates a substantial body of research that should be leveraged to inform research and practice moving forward.
  • Measure, monitor, and report. Negative impacts on women and girls related to water, sanitation, and the sub-domains of empowerment are extensive, yet underassessed, rendering them invisible. Further work to improve measurement, monitoring, and reporting is needed to assess and enable change via programmes and policies.
  • Act and Evaluate. Initiatives are needed to address, challenge, and transform systemic constraints related to women’s and girls’ resources and agency. Relevant existing evidence should be considered from the design phase. Investment is needed to fund and evaluate such initiatives to assess impact and enable further learning.
  • Use empowerment terminology deliberately. There is a need to deliberately define the term empowerment when used in research and practice, by leveraging an existing definition, model, or framework, or by eliciting a local understanding via research itself.
  • Expand populations engaged in research and programming. The majority of research to date is in Asia and Africa and among adult women. There is an opportunity to learn from men, boys, transgender, and non-binary individuals, to do so across varied life stages and geographies, and to engage them in relevant programming.
  • Expand research focus. The Resources domain in water and sanitation research is dominant. Further research across and between the other domains is warranted, specifically Agency, which is least represented, yet central to transformation. Research investigating the relationships between domains is also warranted.

Strengths and limitations

This review has leveraged an existing model of empowerment to analyze full texts of an extensive volume of research, resulting in the most comprehensive and rigorous synthesis on women’s and girls’ empowerment and water and sanitation to date. This review only captures studies available in English, does not include grey literature, could have engaged additional databases—particularly those that engage disciplines beyond public health—and broadened search terms to capture more relevant work, and research has continued to emerge since the search—all factors that may limit this review’s comprehensiveness. Further, other models of empowerment exist that could have framed the review. Still, this review provides a valuable base and resource from which to develop programming and further research, and does capture literature beyond public health because of our inclusion of ancestry and descendancy search methodologies. While this review captures research on menstruation, it only does so in the context of water and sanitation research and cannot be considered a comprehensive review of menstruation and empowerment. Hygiene was not a focus and should be considered in future reviews. Finally, while we intended to register the review, we began extraction to inform other work prior to registering and recent revisions to guidelines now stipulate extraction should not have started prior to registration and thus we were no longer eligible.


Water and sanitation research specifically engaging women’s and girls’ empowerment in a well-defined or conceptualized manner is limited. However, a substantial body of research examining domains and sub-domains of empowerment exists that should be leveraged to develop and evaluate programs focused on improving the life outcomes of women and girls. Importantly, the integration of a gender lens into WASH research, and program and policy planning and evaluation, can enable the identification of inequities and potential harms and benefits, [312] and should be mainstreamed across the WASH sector [23]. Emergent discussions about ‘transformative WASH’ call for interventions that radically reduce fecal contamination [315] and chemicals [316] to impact health. However, our findings underscore the need for a more comprehensive ‘transformative WASH,’ which extends beyond reductions in contamination, to impact health and well-being more inclusively. Specifically, WASH researchers and practitioners should also integrate gender-transformative approaches that challenge and reduce systemic constraints on women’s and girls’ resources and agency, which is not only warranted but long overdue.

Supporting information

S1 Table.

PRISMA checklists for (a) abstract and (b) full manuscript.


S3 Table. Included studies and key characteristics.


S4 Table. Quality appraisal of all included articles using the mixed methods appraisal tool.


S5 Table. Articles that define or explore definitions of women’s empowerment.


S6 Table. Articles that engage menstrual hygiene management by domain and sub-domain.


S1 Fig. Number of articles included in search by date of publication, through 4 May 2020 (N = 257).


S2 Fig. Number of articles addressing each domain and sub-domain of empowerment, by water, sanitation, or water and sanitation focus.



We are grateful for the artistic contributions of Fernanda Kuri who assisted the authors in adapting the empowerment conceptual model by Van Eerdewijk et al. (2017) to be specific to this work (Fig 2).


  1. 1. Bisung E, Elliott SJ. Psychosocial impacts of the lack of access to water and sanitation in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review. J Water Health. 2016:wh2016158.
  2. 2. Caruso BA, Cooper HLF, Haardörfer R, Yount KM, Routray P, Torondel B, et al. The association between women’s sanitation experiences and mental health: A cross-sectional study in Rural, Odisha India. SSM Popul Health. 2018;5:257–66. pmid:30094321
  3. 3. Clasen TF, Alexander KT, Sinclaire D, Boisson S, Peletz R, Chang HH, et al. Interventions to improve water quality for preventing diarrhoea. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; 2015. pmid:26488938
  4. 4. Dangour AD, Watson L, Cumming O, Boisson S, Che Y, Velleman Y, et al. Interventions to improve water quality and supply, sanitation and hygiene practices, and their effects on the nutritional status of children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; 2013.
  5. 5. Ejemot-Nwadiaro RI, Ehiri JE, Arikpo D, Meremikwu MM, Critchley JA. Hand washing promotion for preventing diarrhoea. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; 2015. pmid:26346329
  6. 6. Freeman MC, Garn JV, Sclar GD, Boisson S, Medlicott K, Alexander KT, et al. The impact of sanitation on infectious disease and nutritional status: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2017;220(6):928–49. pmid:28602619
  7. 7. Hutton G, Chase C. The knowledge base for achieving the sustainable development goal targets on water supply, sanitation and hygiene. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13. pmid:27240389
  8. 8. Pruss-Uston AJ, Wolf J, Bartram J, Clasen T, Cumming O, Freeman MC, et al. Burden of disease from inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene for selected adverse health outcomes: An updated analysis with a focus on low- and middle-income countries. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2019;222:765–77. pmid:31088724
  9. 9. Sclar GD, Garn JV, Penakalapati G, Alexander KT, Krauss J, Freeman MC, et al. Effects of sanitation on cognitive development and school absence: a systematic review. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2017;220:917–27. pmid:28697975
  10. 10. Speich B, Croll D, Fürst T, Utzinger J, Keiser J. Effect of sanitation and water treatment on intestinal protozoa infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16(1):87–99. pmid:26404667
  11. 11. Stelmach RD, Clasen T. Household water quantity and health: A systematic review. Int J Env Res Public Health. 2015;12(6):5954–74. pmid:26030467
  12. 12. Strunz EC, Addis DG, Stocks ME, Ogden S, Utzinger J, Freeman MC. Water, sanitation, hygiene, and soil-transmitted helminth infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2014;11:e1001620. pmid:24667810
  13. 13. Wolf J, Hunter PR, Freeman MC, Cumming O, Clasen T, Bartram J, et al. Impact of drinking water, sanitation and handwashing with soap on childhood diarrhoeal disease: updated meta‐analysis and meta‐regression. Trop Med Int Health. 2018;23(5):508–25. pmid:29537671
  14. 14. Sclar GD, Penakalapati G, Caruso BA, Rehfuess EA, Garn JV, Alexander KT, et al. Exploring the relationship between sanitation and mental and social well-being: A systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Soc Sci Med. 2018;217:121–34. pmid:30316053
  15. 15. United Nations. Sustainable Development Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all United Nations2016 [Available from:
  16. 16. Joint Monitoring Programme. Progress on household drinking water sanitation, sanitation and hygiene 2000–2017. Special focus on inequalities. New York: JMP, WHO, UNICEF; 2019.
  17. 17. Burt Z, Nelson K, Ray I. Toward gender equality through sanitation access. UN WOMEN; 2016.
  18. 18. Graham JP, Hirai M, Kim S. An analysis of water collection labor among women and children in 24 sub-Saharan African countries. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0155981. pmid:27248494
  19. 19. Women Ray I., water, and development. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2007;32:421–49.
  20. 20. Sorenson SB, Morssink C, Campos PA. Safe access to safe water in low income countries: Water fetching in current times. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(9):1522–6. pmid:21481508
  21. 21. Amebelu A, Ban R, Bhagwan J, Chilengi R, Chandler C, Colford JM, et al. The Lancet Commission on water, sanitation and hygiene, and health. Lancet. 2021.
  22. 22. Caruso BA, Sevilimedu V, Fung IC-H, Patkar A, Baker KK. Gender disparities in water, sanitation, and global health. Lancet. 2015;386:650–1.
  23. 23. Caruso BA, Sinharoy SS. Gender data gaps represent missed opportunities in WASH. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(12):e1617. pmid:31708141
  24. 24. Kayser GL, Rao N, Jose R, Raj A. Water, sanitation and hygiene: Measuring gender equality and empowerment. Bull WHO. 2019;97:438–40. pmid:31210683
  25. 25. Sinharoy SS, Caruso BA. On World Water Day, gender and equality and empowerment require attention. Lancet Planet Health. 2019;3:e202–e03. pmid:30898511
  26. 26. Willetts J, Halcrow G, Carrard N, Rowland C, Crawford J. Addressing two critical MDGs together: Gender in water, sanitation and hygiene initiative. Pacific Economic Bulletin. 2010;25(1):162–76.
  27. 27. Carrard N, Crawford J, Halcrow G, Rowland C, Willetts J. A framework for exploring gender equality outcomes from WASH programmes. Waterlines. 2013:315–33.
  28. 28. Fisher J, Cavill S, Reed B. Mainstreaming gender in the WASH sector: Dilution or distillation? Gend Dev. 2017;25(2):185–204.
  29. 29. Gerard K. Rationalizing ’gender-wash’: empowerment, efficiency and knowledge construction. Rev Int Polit Econ. 2019;26:1022–44.
  30. 30. Grant M, Soeters S, Bunthoeun I, Willetts J. Rural piped-water enterprises in Cambodia: A pathway to women’s empowerment? Water. 2019;11(12):2541.
  31. 31. Kabeer N. Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment. Dev Change. 1999;30(3):435–64.
  32. 32. Pratley P. Associations between quantitative measures of women’s empowerment and access to care and health status for mothers and their children: a systematic review of evidence from the developing world. Soc Sci Med. 2016;169:119–31. pmid:27716549
  33. 33. Richardson RA. Measuring women’s empowerment: A critical review of current practices and recommendations for researchers. Social Indicators Research. 2018;137(2):539–57.
  34. 34. Richardson RA. Measuring women’s empowerment: a need for context and caution. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;6(1):e30. pmid:29241608
  35. 35. Santoso MV, Kerr RB, Hoddinott J, Garigipati P, Olmos S, Young SL. Role of women’s empowerment in child nutrition outcomes: A systematic review. Adv Nutr. 2019;10(6):1138–51. pmid:31298299
  36. 36. Thorpe S, VanderEnde K, Peters C, Bardin L, Yount KM. The influence of women’s empowerment on child immunization coverage in low, lower-middle, and upper-middle income countries: A systematic review of the literature. Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2016;20(1):172–86. pmid:26511131
  37. 37. United Nations. Sustainable Development Goal 5: Achieve Gender Equality and Empower All Women United Nations2016 [Available from:
  38. 38. Dery F, Bisung E, Dickin S, Dyer M. Understanding empowerment in water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH): a scoping review. J Water Sanit Hyg Dev. 2020;10:5–15.
  39. 39. MacArthur J, Carrard N, Willetts J. WASH and gender: a critical review of the literature and implications for gender-transformative WASH research. J Water Sanit Hyg Dev. 2020.
  40. 40. Pouramin P, Nagabhatla N, Miletto M. A systematic review of water and gender interlinkages: Assessing the intersection with health. Front Water. 2020;2:6.
  41. 41. Caruso BA, Conrad A, Salinger A, Patrick M, Youm A, Sinharoy S. A Conceptual Framework to Inform National and Global Monitoring of Gender Equality in WASH. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply, Sanitation, and Hygiene; 2021.
  42. 42. Caruso BA, Salinger A, Patrick M, Conrad A, Shinharoy S. A Review of Measures and Indicators for Gender in WASH. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply, Sanitation, and Hygiene; 2021.
  43. 43. Macura B, Del Duca L, Soto A, Carrard N, Gosling L, Hannes K, et al. 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. 2021;17(2):e1164.
  44. 44. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal. 2009;26(2):91–108. pmid:19490148
  45. 45. Van Eerdewijk AHJM, Wong F, Vaast C, Newton J, Tyszler M, Pennington A. White paper: A conceptual model on women and girls’ empowerment. Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute (KIT); 2017.
  46. 46. Kabeer N. The conditions and consequences of choice: Reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD); 1999.
  47. 47. Alsop R, Bertelsen MF, Holland J. Empowerment in practice: From analysis to implementation. Washington DC: World Bank Publications; 2006.
  48. 48. Martinez EM, Wu D. Women’s Empowerment at CARE. Atlanta, GA: CARE; 2009.
  49. 49. Krug EG, Mercy JA, Dahlberg LL, Zwi AB. The world report on violence and health. Lancet. 2002;360(9339):1083–8. pmid:12384003
  50. 50. Sinharoy SS, Conrad A, Patrick M, McManus S, Caruso BA. Protocol for development and validation of instruments to measure women’s empowerment in urban sanitation across countries in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa: the Agency, Resources and Institutional Structures for Sanitation-related Empowerment (ARISE) scales. BMJ Open. 2022;12(2):e053104. pmid:35177447
  51. 51. Carroll C, Booth A, Cooper K. A worked example of" best fit" framework synthesis: a systematic review of views concerning the taking of some potential chemopreventive agents. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):1–9. pmid:21410933
  52. 52. VERBI Software. MAXQDA. 12 ed. Berlin, Germany2015.
  53. 53. Malterud K. Qualitative metasynthesis: a research method for medicine and health sciences: Routledge; 2019.
  54. 54. Pluye P, Gagnon M, Griffiths F, Johnson-Lafleur J. A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in mixed studies reviews. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46(4):529–46. pmid:19233357
  55. 55. Hong QN, Pluye P, Fabregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) Version 2018 User Guide. McGill Department of Family Medicine; 2018.
  56. 56. Aladuwaka S, Momsen J. Sustainable development, water resources management and women’s empowerment: the Wanaraniya Water Project in Sri Lanka. Gend Dev. 2010;18(1):43–58.
  57. 57. Clement F, Karki E. When water security programmes seek to empower women–a case study from Western Nepal. In: Fröhlich C, Gioli G, Cremades R, Myrttinen H, editors. Water Security Across the Gender Divide: Springer; 2018. p. 151–69.
  58. 58. Leahy C, Winterford K, Nghiem T, Kelleher J, Leong L, Willetts J. Transforming gender relations through water, sanitation, and hygiene programming and monitoring in Vietnam. Gend Dev. 2017;25(2):283–301.
  59. 59. Leder S, Clement F, Karki E. Reframing women’s empowerment in water security programmes in Western Nepal. Gend Dev. 2017;25(2):235–51.
  60. 60. Varua ME, Ward J, Maheshwari B, Dave S, Kookana R. Groundwater management and gender inequalities: The case of two watersheds in rural India. Groundw Sustain Dev. 2018;6:93–100.
  61. 61. Yerian S, Hennink M, Greene LE, Kiptugen D, Buri J, Freeman MC. The role of women in water management and conflict resolution in Marsabit, Kenya. Environ Manage. 2014;54(6):1320–30. pmid:25167777
  62. 62. O’Reilly K. Combining sanitation and women’s participation in water supply: An example from Rajasthan. Dev Pract. 2010;20(1):45–56.
  63. 63. Aguilar L. Water as a source of equity and empowerment in Costa Rica. 2005. In: Opposing Currents The Politics of Water and Gender in Latin America [Internet]. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh PressPitt Latin American Studies; [123–34].
  64. 64. Bisung E, Dickin S. Concept mapping: Engaging stakeholders to identify factors that contribute to empowerment in the water and sanitation sector in West Africa. SSM Popul Health. 2019;9:100490. pmid:31993485
  65. 65. Gabrielsson S, Ramasar V. Widows: Agents of change in a climate of water uncertainty. J Clean Prod. 2013;60:34–42.
  66. 66. Indarti N, Rostiani R, Megaw T, Willetts J. Women’s involvement in economic opportunities in water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in Indonesia: Examining personal experiences and potential for empowerment. Development Studies Research. 2019;6(1):76–91.
  67. 67. James AJ, Verhagen J, Van Wijk C, Nanavaty R, Parikh M, Bhatt M, editors. Transforming time into money using water: A participatory study of economics and gender in rural India. Nat Resour Forum; 2002: Wiley Online Library.
  68. 68. Mmbengwa VM, Ntili TP, Haines R, Groenewald JA, Van Schalkwyk HD. Analysis of women empowerment in South African water boards: A special reference to historically disadvantaged individuals (HDIs) in South Africa. Gender and Behaviour. 2014;12(2):6436–48.
  69. 69. O’Reilly K. “Traditional” women,“modern” water: Linking gender and commodification in Rajasthan, India. Geoforum. 2006;37(6):958–72.
  70. 70. Oluyemo CA. Women’s empowerment as determinant for maintanance and sustainability of portable water and sanitation facilities in Ekiti State, Nigeria. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences. 2012;6(4).
  71. 71. Tam TNTP. Participation of women in rural water supply and sanitation projects: visible or invisible actors? The case of the sub-district of Maubara (Liquiçá, Timor-Leste). International Journal of Multidisciplinary Thought. 2012;2(4):149–70.
  72. 72. Cairns MR, Workman CL, Tandon I. Gender mainstreaming and water development projects: Analyzing unexpected enviro-social impacts in Bolivia, India, and Lesotho. Gender, Place & Culture. 2017;24(3):325–42.
  73. 73. DeVries K, Rizo A. Empowerment in action: Savings groups improving community water, sanitation, and hygiene services. Enterprise Development & Microfinance. 2015;26(1):34–44.
  74. 74. Panda SM, Sannabhadti R. Improving process of natural resources management at the grassroots: The case of the Self Employed Women’s Association (SEWA). In: Zwarteveen M, Ahmed S, Guatam SR, editors. Diverting the Flow: Gender Equity and Water in South Asia. New Delhi: Zubaan; 2012. p. 523–45.
  75. 75. Torri MC. Power, structure, gender relations and community-based conservation: The Cawswe Study of the Sariska Region, Rajasthan, India. J Int Womens Stud. 2010;11(4):1–18.
  76. 76. Abu TZ, Bisung E, Elliott SJ. What if your husband doesn’t feel the pressure? An exploration of women’s involvement in WaSH decision making in Nyanchwa, Kenya. Int J Env Res Public Health. 2019;16(10):1763. pmid:31109038
  77. 77. Akolgo EA, Ayentimi DT. Community-level mechanisms and strategies for managing sustainable water supply systems: lessons from Bongo district of northern Ghana. Environ Dev Sustainability. 2020;22(4):3739–56.
  78. 78. Assaad M, El Katsha S, Wins S. Involving women in water and sanitation initiatives; an action/research project in an Egyptian village. Water Int. 1994;19(3):113–20.
  79. 79. Bastidas EP. Women and water in the northern Ecuadorean Andes. In: Bennett V, Dávila-Poblete S, Rico MN, editors. Opposing Currents The Politics of Water and Gender in Latin America. Pitt Latin American Studies. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburg Press; 2005. p. 154–69.
  80. 80. Bastola A. Gender and governance: a case of Jalswarajya Project. In: Cronin AA, Mehta PK, Prakash A, editors. Gender Issues in Water and Sanitation Programmes: Lessons from India: SAGE Publications Pvt. Ltd; 2015. p. 120–38.
  81. 81. Bhandari B, Grant M. Strategic gender needs: the missing element in water supply projects of Nepal. J Rural Dev. 2009;28(2).
  82. 82. Bisung E, Elliott SJ, Schuster-Wallace CJ, Karanja DM, Bernard A. Social capital, collective action and access to water in rural Kenya. Soc Sci Med. 2014;119:147–54. pmid:25181474
  83. 83. Boateng JD, Brown CK, Tenkorang EY. Gender and water management practices in Ghana. Journal of Environment and Earth Science. 2013;3(5):88–103.
  84. 84. Boateng JD, Brown CK, Tenkorang EY. Socio-economic status of women and its influence on their participation in rural water supply projects in Ghana. International Journal of Development and Sustainability. 2013;2(2):871–90.
  85. 85. Carmi N, Alsayegh M, Zoubi M. Empowering women in water diplomacy: A basic mapping of the challenges in Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan. J Hydrol. 2019;569:330–46.
  86. 86. Chipeta L. Water crisis in Blantyre City and its impact on the women: A case of Mbayani and Ntopwa Area. J Int Womens Stud. 2009;10(4):17–33.
  87. 87. Coulter JE, Witinok-Huber RA, Bruyere BL, Dorothy Nyingi W. Giving women a voice on decision-making about water: barriers and opportunities in Laikipia, Kenya. Gender, Place & Culture. 2018.
  88. 88. Crow B, Swallow B, Asamba I. Community organized household water increases not only rural incomes, but also men’s work. World Dev. 2012;40(3):528–41.
  89. 89. Das P. Women’s participation in community-level water governance in urban India: The gap between motivation and ability. World Dev. 2014;64:206–18.
  90. 90. Devasia L. Safe drinking water and its acquisition: Rural women’s participation in water management in Maharashtra, India. Int J Water Resour Dev. 1998;14(4):537–46.
  91. 91. Devasia VV. Tribal women in sustainable development through watershed programmes in Vidarbha. Int J Water Resour Dev. 1998;14(4):527–35.
  92. 92. El Katsha SE, White AU. Women, water, and sanitation: Household behavioral patterns in two Egyptian villages. Water Int. 1989;14(3):103–11.
  93. 93. Ennis-McMillan MC. Women, equity, and household water management in the valley of Mexico. In: Bennett V, Dávila-Poblete S, Rico MN, editors. Opposing currents: The politics of water and gender in Latin America. Pitt Latin American Studies. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; 2005. p. 137–53.
  94. 94. Gate S. Empowerment of women in watershed management: Guraiya panchayat, Madhya Pradesh. Indian J Gend Stud. 2001;8(2):247–56.
  95. 95. Ge J, Resurreccion BP, Elmhirst R. Return migration and the reiteration of gender norms in water management politics: Insights from a Chinese village. Geoforum. 2011;42(2):133–42.
  96. 96. Harris L, Kleiber D, Goldin J, Darkwah A, Morinville C. Intersections of gender and water: Comparative approaches to everyday gendered negotiations of water access in underserved areas of Accra, Ghana and Cape Town, South Africa. J Gend Stud. 2017;26(5):561–82.
  97. 97. Lebel L, Lebel P, Sriyasak P, Ratanawilailak S, Bastakoti RC, Bastakoti GB. Gender relations and water management in different eco-cultural contexts in Northern Thailand. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology. 2015;11(3–4):228–46.
  98. 98. Mandara CG, Niehof A, van der Horst HM. Does women’s representation in local water management lead to better meeting women’s domestic water needs? International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity Studies. 2013;5(1):43–62.
  99. 99. Mandara CG, Niehof A, van der Horst H. Women and rural water management: Token representatives or paving the way to power? Water Alternatives. 2017;10(1):116–33.
  100. 100. Mason LR. Gender and asset dimensions of seasonal water insecurity in urban Philippines. Weather Clim Soc. 2012;4(1):20–33.
  101. 101. Mehta PK, Saxena N. Unleashing the gender differentials in water management: The rural milieu. In: Cronin AA, Mehta PK, Prakash A, editors. Gender Issues in Water and Sanitation Programmes: Lessons from India: SAGE Publications Pvt. Ltd; 2015. p. 139–54.
  102. 102. Naiga R, Penker M, Hogl K. Women’s crucial role in collective operation and maintenance of drinking water infrastructure in rural Uganda. Soc Nat Resour. 2017;30(4):506–20.
  103. 103. Padmaja R, Kasala K, Pramanik S, Duche VD, Yadav US, Whitbread AM, et al. Gender transformative impacts from watershed interventions: Insights from a mixed methods study in the Bundelkhand region, India. Trans ASABE. 2020;63(1):153–63.
  104. 104. Prokopy LS. Women’s participation in rural water supply projects in India: Is it moving beyond tokenism and does it matter? Water Policy. 2004;6(2):103–16.
  105. 105. Sijbesma C, Verhagen J, Nanavaty R, James AJ. Impacts of domestic water supply on gender and income: Results from a participatory study in a drought-prone region in Gujarat, India. Water Policy. 2009;11:95–105.
  106. 106. Singh N. Women’s participation in local water governance: Understanding institutional contradictions. Gend Technol Dev. 2006;10(1):61–76.
  107. 107. Singh S, Bhardwaj N, Kumar B. Role of institutions related to gender mainsreaming in integrated watershed management project. Green Farming. 2018;9(1):144–7.
  108. 108. Stevenson EGJ, Greene LE, Maes KC, Ambelu A, Tesfaye YA, Rheingans R, et al. Water insecurity in 3 dimensions: An anthropological perspective on water and women’s psychosocial distress in Ethiopia. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(2):392–400. pmid:22575697
  109. 109. Sultana F. Community and participation in water resources management: Gendering and naturing development debates from Bangladesh. Trans Inst Br Geogr. 2009;34(3):346–63.
  110. 110. Sultana F. Fluid lives: Subjectivities, gender and water in rural Bangladesh. Gender, Place and Culture. 2009;16(4):427–44.
  111. 111. Thai NV, Guevara JR. Women and water management: A policy assessment—A case study in An Giang Province, Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Asia Pac J Rural Dev. 2019;29(1):77–97.
  112. 112. Tortajada C. Professional women and water management: Case study from Morocco: A Water Forum contribution. Water Int. 2003;28(4):532–9.
  113. 113. Trinies V, Caruso BA, Sogoré A, Toubkiss J, Freeman MC. Uncovering the challenges to menstrual hygiene management in schools in Mali. Waterlines. 2015;34(1):31–40.
  114. 114. Wutich A. Gender, water scarcity, and the management of sustainability tradeoffs in Cochabamba, Bolivia. In: Cruz-Torres ML, McElwee P, editors. Gender and Sustainability: Lessons from Asia and Latin America: University of Arizona Press; 2012. p. 97–120.
  115. 115. Yuerlita . Women’s participation in a rural water supply and sanitation project: A case study in Jorong Kampung Baru, Solok, West Sumatra, Indonesia. In: Febriamansyah R, Yonariza , Ullah R, Shivakoti GP, editors. The Reciprocal Relationship between Governance of Natural Resources and Socio-Ecological Systems Dynamics in West Sumatra, Indonesia. Redefining Diversity & Dynamics of Natural Resources Management in Asia: Elsevier; 2017. p. 89–102.
  116. 116. Ali R. Women’s participation in the water, sanitation and hygiene program at community level in Bangladesh. J Third World Stud. 2013;30(1):193–208.
  117. 117. BeBe K, Bing W. Outsourcing and local public administration: Water and sanitation services delivery and women participation in urban areas. Journal of Public Administration and Governance. 2015;5(4):112–32.
  118. 118. Halvorson SJ. Women’s management of the household health environment: Responding to childhood diarrhea in the Northern Areas, Pakistan. Health Place. 2004;10(1):43–58. pmid:14637286
  119. 119. Jha N. Reducing a community’s water and sanitation burden: Insights from Maharashtra. In: Zwarteveen M, Ahmed S, editors. Diverting the Flow: Gender Equity and Water in South Asia. New Delhi: Zubaan; 2012. p. 203–39.
  120. 120. Makoni FS, Manase G, Ndamba J. Patterns of domestic water use in rural areas of Zimbabwe, gender roles and realities. Phys Chem Earth. 2004;29(15–18):1291–4.
  121. 121. Rautanen S, Baaniya U. Technical work of women in Nepal’s rural water supply and sanitation. Water Int. 2008;33(2):202–13.
  122. 122. Reddy BS. Appropriate sanitation: Perceptions and experiences amongst a heterogeneous group of the urban poor. ICFAI Journal of Public Administration. 2008;4(3):52–68.
  123. 123. Remigios MV. Women–water–sanitation: The case of Rimuka high-density suburb in Kadoma, Zimbabwe. Agenda: Empowering Women for Gender Equity. 2011;25(2):113–21.
  124. 124. Routray P, Torondel B, Clasen T, Schmidt W. Women’s role in sanitation decision making in rural coastal Odisha, India. PLoS One. 2017;12(5):e0178042. pmid:28542525
  125. 125. Scott K, George AS, Harvey SA, Mondal S, Patel G, Ved R, et al. Beyond form and functioning: Understanding how contextual factors influence village health committees in northern India. PLoS One. 2017;12(8):e0182982. pmid:28837574
  126. 126. Scott K, George AS, Harvey SA, Mondal S, Patel G, Sheikh K. Negotiating power relations, gender equality, and collective agency: Are village health committees transformative social spaces in northern India? Int J Equity Health. 2017;16(84).
  127. 127. Sijbesma C, Mathew K, Nishshanka R, Jayaweera P, Snel M, Heinonen-Tanski H, et al. Adopting a gender approach in a water and sanitation project: The case of the 4WS Project in coastal communities in South Asia. In: Zwarteveen M, Ahmed S, Gautam SR, editors. Diverting the Flow: Gender Equity and Water in South Asia. New Delhi: Zubaan; 2012.
  128. 128. Azeez AEP, Negi DP, Mishra A. Women’s experiences of defecating in the open: A qualitative study. Indian J Gend Stud. 2019;26(1–2):160–70.
  129. 129. Baluchova B, Mamova A. The role of implementation and communication of MANTRA Water, sanitation and hygiene program in improving public health in Odisha state (India). Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2017;38(Suppl 1):35–9.
  130. 130. Bhatt N, Budhathoki SS, Lucero-Prisno DEI, Shrestha G, Bhattachan M, Thapa J, et al. What motivates open defecation? A qualitative study from a rural setting in Nepal. PLoS One. 2019;14(7):e0219246. pmid:31260506
  131. 131. Czerniewska A, Muangi WC, Aunger R, Massa K, Curtis V. Theory-driven formative research to inform the design of a national sanitation campaign in Tanzania. PLoS One. 2019;14(8):e0221445. pmid:31442255
  132. 132. Dwipayanti NMU, Rutherford S, Chu C. Cultural determinants of sanitation uptake and sustainability: local values and traditional roles in rural Bali, Indonesia. J Water Sanit Hyg Dev. 2019;9(3):438–49.
  133. 133. Elledge M, Parker A, Toolaram A, Stoner B. A gender lens into sanitation technology innovation. J Manage Eng. 2020;36(4):06020002.
  134. 134. Hirai M, Graham JP, Sandberg J. Understanding women’s decision making power and its link to improved household sanitation: The case of Kenya. J Water Sanit Hyg Dev. 2016;6(1):151–60.
  135. 135. Khanna T, Das M. Why gender matters in the solution towards safe sanitation? Reflections from rural India. Glob Public Health. 2016;11(10):1185–201. pmid:26278418
  136. 136. Lee YJ. Informing women and improving sanitation: Evidence from rural India. J Rural Stud. 2017;55:203–15.
  137. 137. Mannan F. Are organizations accountable? Disconnect between gender and sanitation in Bangladesh. Environment and Urbanization Asia. 2018;9(1):101–6.
  138. 138. Mohankumar A. Narrating the Stench Testimonies of Women Engaged in Manual Scavenging in Udaipur, Rajasthan. Indian Journal of Dalit and Tribal Social Work. 2015;3(2):45–68.
  139. 139. Pardeshi G. Women in total sanitation campaign: a case study from Yavatmal district, Maharashtra, India. J Hum Ecol. 2009;25(2):79–85.
  140. 140. Routray P, Torondel B, Jenkins MW, Clasen T, Schmidt W. Processes and challenges of community mobilisation for latrine promotion under Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan in rural Odisha, India. BMC Public Health. 2017;17:453. pmid:28511653
  141. 141. Shahid M. Manual scavenging: Issues of caste, culture and violence. Soc Change. 2015;45(2):242–55.
  142. 142. Simiyu S, Swilling M, Cairncross S. Decision-making on shared sanitation in the informal settlements of Kisumu, Kenya. Int J Environ Health Res. 2017;27(5):377–93. pmid:28705015
  143. 143. Thuita W, Conn C, Wilson K. The role of marginalised women in sanitation initiatives: Somali women in northern Kenya. Dev Pract. 2017;27(1):16–25.
  144. 144. Varickanickal J, Bisung E, Elliott SJ. Water risk perceptions across the life-course of women in Kenya. Health Prom Int. 2019.
  145. 145. von Medeazza G, Jain M, Tiwari A, Shukla JP, Kumar N. Women-led total sanitation: Saving lives and dignity. In: Cronin AA, Mehta PK, Prakash A, editors. Gender Issues in Water and Sanitation Programmes: Lessons from India: SAGE Publications Pvt. Ltd.; 2015. p. 231–49.
  146. 146. Waterkeyn J, Cairncross S. Creating demand for sanitation and hygiene through Community Health Clubs: A cost-effective intervention in two districts in Zimbabwe. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(9):1958–70. pmid:15927329
  147. 147. Winter SC, Barchi F, Dzombo MN. Not just any toilet–women’s solutions to sanitation in informal settlements in Nairobi. Dev Pract. 2019;29(1):15–25.
  148. 148. Bustamente RR, Peredo E, Udaeta ME. Women in the "water war" in the Cochabamba Valleys. Opposing Currents The Politics of Water and Gender in Latin America. Pitt Latin American Studies. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; 2005. p. 72–89.
  149. 149. Delgado JV, Zwarteveen M. The public and private domain of the everyday politics of water: the constructions of gender and water power in the Andes of Perú. Int Fem J Polit. 2007;9(4):503–11.
  150. 150. Mommen B, Humphries-Waa K, Gwavuya S. Does women’s participation in water committees affect management and water system performance in rural Vanuatu. Waterlines. 2017;36(3):216–32.
  151. 151. Sam J, Todd SK. Women as hand pump technicians: Empowering women and enhancing participation in rural water supply projects. Dev Pract. 2020;30(3).
  152. 152. Singh N. The changing role of women in water management: Myths and realities. In: Kalnická Z, editor. Water & Women in Past, Present, and Future. Wagadu: A Journal of Transnational Women’s and Gender Studies2006. p. 94–113.
  153. 153. Van Houweling E. “A good wife brings her husband bath water”: Gender roles and water practices in Nampula, Mozambique. Soc Nat Resour. 2016;29(9):1065–78.
  154. 154. O’Reilly K, Louis E. The toilet tripod: Understanding successful sanitation in rural India. Health Place. 2014;29:43–51. pmid:24954614
  155. 155. Hoque BA, Aziz KM, Hasan KZ, Sack RB. Women’s involvement in a rural Bangladesh water and sanitation project. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 1994;25(1):67–73. pmid:7825028
  156. 156. Pardeshi G, Shirke A, Jagtap M. SWOT analysis of total sanitation campaign in Yavatmal district of Maharashtra. Indian J Community Med. 2008;33(4):255–9. pmid:19876501
  157. 157. Smith MA, Garbharran H, Edwards MJ, O’Hara-Murdock P. Health promotion and disease prevention through sanitation education in South African Zulu and Xhosa women. J Transcult Nurs. 2004;15(1):62–8. pmid:14768417
  158. 158. Gender Acey C. and community mobilisation for urban water infrastructure investment in southern Nigeria. Gend Dev. 2010;18(1):11–26.
  159. 159. Anderson K, Clow B, Haworth-Brockman M. Carriers of water: Aboriginal women’s experiences, relationships, and reflections. J Clean Prod. 2013;60:11–7.
  160. 160. Bisung E, Elliott SJ, Abudho B, Karanja DM, Schuster-Wallace CJ. Using photovoice as a community based participatory research tool for changing water, sanitation, and hygiene behaviours in Usoma, Kenya. BioMed Res Int. 2015;2015.
  161. 161. de Moraes AFJ, Rocha C. Gendered waters: the participation of women in the ‘One Million Cisterns’ rainwater harvesting program in the Brazilian Semi-Arid region. J Clean Prod. 2013;60:163–9.
  162. 162. Enabor B, Sridhar MKC, Olaseha IO. Integrated water management by urban poor women: A Nigerian slum experience. Int J Water Resour Dev. 1998;14(4):505–12.
  163. 163. Ennis‐McMillan MC. Suffering from water: social origins of bodily distress in a Mexican community. Med Anthropol Q. 2001;15(3):368–90. pmid:11693037
  164. 164. Kernecker M, Vogl CR, Meléndez AA. Women’s local knowledge of water resources and adaptation to landscape change in the mountains of Veracruz, Mexico. Ecol Soc. 2017;22(4).
  165. 165. Mushavi RC, Burns BFO, Kakuhikire B, Owembabazi M, Vořechovská D, McDonough AQ, et al. “When you have no water, it means you have no peace”: A mixed-methods, whole-population study of water insecurity and depression in rural Uganda. Soc Sci Med. 2020;245:112561. pmid:31790879
  166. 166. Nerkar SS, Tamhankar AJ, Johansson E, Lundborg CS. Improvement in health and empowerment of families as a result of watershed management in a tribal area in India-a qualitative study. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2013;13(42).
  167. 167. Privott M. An ethos of responsibility and indigenous women water protectors in the #NoDAPL movement. Am Indian Q. 2019;43(1):74–100.
  168. 168. Bapat M, Agarwal I. Our needs, our priorities; women and men from the slums in Mumbai and Pune talk about their needs for water and sanitation. Environ Urban. 2003;15(2):71–86.
  169. 169. Bisung E, Elliott SJ, Abudho B, Schuster-Wallace CJ, Karanja DM. Dreaming of toilets: Using photovoice to explore knowledge, attitudes and practices around water–health linkages in rural Kenya. Health Place. 2015;31:208–15. pmid:25576836
  170. 170. Bisung E, Elliott SJ. ‘Everyone is exhausted and frustrated’: Exploring psychosocial impacts of the lack of access to safe water and adequate sanitation in Usoma, Kenya. J Water Sanit Hyg Dev. 2016;6(2):205–14.
  171. 171. Belur J, Parikh P, Daruwalla N, Joshi R, Fernandes R. Perceptions of gender-based violence around public toilets in Mumbai slums. Int J Comp Appl Crim Justice. 2017;41(1–2):63–78.
  172. 172. Hirve S, Lele P, Sundaram N, Chavan U, Weiss M, Steinmann P, et al. Psychosocial stress associated with sanitation practices: Experiences of women in a rural community in India. J Water Sanit Hyg Dev. 2015;5(1):115–26.
  173. 173. Joshi N. Low-income women’s right to sanitation services in city public spaces: A study of waste picker women in Pune. Environ Urban. 2018;30(1):249–64.
  174. 174. Kulkarni S, O’Reilly K, Bhat S. No relief: Lived experiences of inadequate sanitation access of poor urban women in India. Gend Dev. 2017;25(2):167–83.
  175. 175. Shiras T, Cumming O, Brown J, Muneme B, Nala R, Dreibelbis R. Shared latrines in Maputo, Mozambique: Exploring emotional well-being and psychosocial stress. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2018;18(30). pmid:30045729
  176. 176. Coles A. Domestic water provision and gender roles in drylands. Hagar Studies in Culture, Policy and Identities. 2009;9(1):175–91.
  177. 177. Faisal IM, Kabir MR. An analysis of gender–water nexus in rural Bangladesh. J Dev Soc. 2005;21(1–2):175–94.
  178. 178. MacRae ER, Clasen T, Dasmohapatra M, Caruso BA. ’It’s like a burden on the head’: Redefining adequate menstrual hygiene management throughout women’s varied life stages in Odisha, India. PLoS One. 2019;14(8):e0220114. pmid:31369595
  179. 179. Pommells M, Schuster-Wallace C, Watt S, Mulawa Z. Gender violence as a water, sanitation, and hygiene risk: Uncovering violence against women and girls as it pertains to poor WaSH access. Violence Against Women. 2018;24(15):1851–62. pmid:29546802
  180. 180. Singh N, Jacks G, Bhattacharya P. Women and community water supply programmes: An analysis from a socio‐cultural perspective. Nat Resour Forum. 2005;29(3):213–23.
  181. 181. Hulland KRS, Chase RP, Caruso BA, Swain R, Biswal B, Sahoo KC, et al. Sanitation, stress, and life stage: A systematic data collection study among women in Odisha, India. PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0141883. pmid:26551866
  182. 182. Routray P, Schmidt W, Boisson S, Clasen T, Jenkins MW. Socio-cultural and behavioural factors constraining latrine adoption in rural coastal Odisha: An exploratory qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:880. pmid:26357958
  183. 183. Sommer M, Munoz-Laboy M, Wilkinson Salamea E, Arp J, Falb KL, Rudahindwa N, et al. How narratives of fear shape girls’ participation in community life in two conflict-affected populations. Violence Against Women. 2018;24(5):565–85. pmid:29332551
  184. 184. Caruso BA, Clasen TF, Hadley C, Yount KM, Haardörfer R, Rout M, et al. Understanding and defining sanitation insecurity: Women’s gendered experiences of urination, defecation and menstruation in rural Odisha, India. BMJ Glob Health. 2017;2(4):e000414. pmid:29071131
  185. 185. Ellis A, Haver J, Villasenor J, Parawan A, Venkatesh M, Freeman MC, et al. WASH challenges to girls’ menstrual hygiene management in Metro Manila, Masbate, and South Central Mindanao, Philippines. Waterlines. 2016;35(3):306–23.
  186. 186. Kwiringira J, Atekyereza P, Niwagaba C, Günther I. Gender variations in access, choice to use and cleaning of shared latrines; experiences from Kampala Slums, Uganda. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):1180. pmid:25407788
  187. 187. Nallari A. “All we want are toilets inside our homes!” The critical role of sanitation in the lives of urban poor adolescent girls in Bengaluru, India. Environ Urban. 2015;27(1):73–88.
  188. 188. Rheinländer T, Gyapong M, Akpakli DE, Konradsen F. Secrets, shame and discipline: School girls’ experiences of sanitation and menstrual hygiene management in a peri-urban community in Ghana. Health Care Women Int. 2019;40(1):13–32. pmid:29485336
  189. 189. Sahoo KC, Hulland KRS, Caruso BA, Swain R, Freeman MC, Panigrahi P, et al. Sanitation-related psychosocial stress: a grounded theory study of women across the life-course in Odisha, India. Soc Sci Med. 2015;139:80–9. pmid:26164119
  190. 190. Singh KK, Mishra P. Understanding women’s access to sanitation: A study of the slums in Delhi. Journal of Social Inclusion Studies. 2019;5(2):200–9.
  191. 191. Winter SC, Barchi F, Dzombo MN. Drivers of women’s sanitation practices in informal settlements in sub-Saharan Africa: A qualitative study in Mathare Valley, Kenya. Int J Environ Health Res. 2018;28(6):609–25. pmid:30027750
  192. 192. Aihara Y, Shrestha S, Sharma J. Household water insecurity, depression and quality of life among postnatal women living in urban Nepal. J Water Health. 2016;14(2):317–24. pmid:27105416
  193. 193. Andajani S, Chirawatkul S, Saito E. Gender and water in Northeast Thailand: inequalities and women’s realities. J Int Womens Stud. 2015;16(2):200–12.
  194. 194. Arku FS. Time savings from easy access to clean water: Implications for rural men’s and women’s well-being. Prog Dev Stud. 2010;10(3):233–46.
  195. 195. Baker KK, Padhi B, Torondel B, Das P, Dutta A, Sahoo KC, et al. From menarche to menopause: A population-based assessment of water, sanitation, and hygiene risk factors for reproductive tract infection symptoms over life stages in rural girls and women in India. PLoS One. 2017;12(12):e0188234. pmid:29206842
  196. 196. Bisung E, Elliott SJ. Improvement in access to safe water, household water insecurity, and time savings: A cross-sectional retrospective study in Kenya. Soc Sci Med. 2018;200:1–8. pmid:29355826
  197. 197. Chew JF, Corlin L, Ona F, Pinto S, Fenyi-Baah E, Osei BG, et al. Water source preferences and water quality perceptions among women in the eastern region, Ghana: a grounded theory study. Int J Env Res Public Health. 2019;16(20):3835. pmid:31614511
  198. 198. Collins SM, Mbullo Owuor P, Miller JD, Boateng GO, Wekesa P, Onono M, et al. "I know how stressful it is to lack water!’ Exploring the lived experiences of household water insecurity among pregnant and postpartum women in western Kenya. Glob Public Health. 2019;14(5):649–62. pmid:30231793
  199. 199. Crow B, Sultana F. Gender, class, and access to water: Three cases in a poor and crowded delta. Soc Nat Resour. 2002;15(8):709–24.
  200. 200. Crow B, Odaba E. Access to water in a Nairobi slum: Women’s work and institutional learning. Water Int. 2010;35(6):733–47.
  201. 201. Hanrahan M, Mercer N. Gender and water insecurity in a subarctic Indigenous community. Can Geogr. 2019;63(2):211–24.
  202. 202. Krumdieck NR, Collins SM, Wekesa P, Mbullo P, Boateng GO, Onono M, et al. Household water insecurity is associated with a range of negative consequences among pregnant Kenyan women of mixed HIV status. J Water Health. 2016;14(6):1028–31. pmid:27959881
  203. 203. Malhotra A, Goli S, Coates S, Mosquera-Vasquez M. Factors associated with knowledge, attitudes, and hygiene practices during menstruation among adolescent girls in Uttar Pradesh. Waterlines. 2016;35(3):277–305.
  204. 204. Trinies V, Freeman MC, Hennink M, Clasen T. The role of social networks on the uptake of household water filters by women in self-help groups in rural India. J Water Sanit Hyg Dev. 2011;1(4):224–32.
  205. 205. Tsai AC, Kakuhikire B, Mushavi R, Vořechovská D, Perkins JM, McDonough AQ, et al. Population-based study of intra-household gender differences in water insecurity: Reliability and validity of a survey instrument for use in rural Uganda. J Water Health. 2016;14(2):280–92. pmid:27105413
  206. 206. Van Houweling E, Hall R, Diop AS, Davis J, Seiss M. The role of productive water use in women’s livelihoods. Evidence from rural Senegal. Water Alternatives. 2012;5(3):658.
  207. 207. Wall LL, Teklay K, Desta A, Belay S. Tending the ‘monthly flower:’a qualitative study of menstrual beliefs in Tigray, Ethiopia. BMC Womens Health. 2018;18(1):183. pmid:30424763
  208. 208. Wood S, Foster J, Kols A. Understanding why women adopt and sustain home water treatment: insights from the Malawi antenatal care program. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(4):634–42. pmid:22051403
  209. 209. Wutich A. Intrahousehold disparities in women and men’s experiences of water insecurity and emotional distress in urban Bolivia. Med Anthropol Q. 2009;23(4):436–54. pmid:20092053
  210. 210. Zolnikov TR, Salafia EB. Improved relationships in eastern Kenya from water interventions and access to water. Health Psychol. 2016;35(3):273. pmid:26690642
  211. 211. Boosey R, Prestwich G, Deave T. Menstrual hygiene management amongst schoolgirls in the Rukungiri district of Uganda and the impact on their education: a cross-sectional study. Pan Afr Med J. 2014;19(253). pmid:25852796
  212. 212. Bora S, Chatterjee A, Rani P, Chakrabarti D. On-the-job stress: Interventions to improve the occupational well-being of policewomen in Assam, India. J Int Womens Stud. 2016;18(1):260–72.
  213. 213. Connolly S, Sommer M. Cambodian girls’ recommendations for facilitating menstrual hygiene management in school. J Water Sanit Hyg Dev. 2013;3(4):612–22.
  214. 214. Datta A, Ahmed N. Intimate infrastructures: The rubrics of gendered safety and urban violence in Kerala, India. Geoforum. 2020;110:67–76.
  215. 215. Hall NL. Women and girls in remote Indigenous Australian communities: Cultural, financial and knowledge barriers to menstrual hygiene management. Australian Indigenous Health Bulletin. 2018;18(2).
  216. 216. Jewitt S, Ryley H. It’s a girl thing: Menstruation, school attendance, spatial mobility and wider gender inequalities in Kenya. Geoforum. 2014;56:137–47.
  217. 217. Joshi D, Fawcett B, Mannan F. Sanitation for the urban poor: Gender matters. In: Zwarteveen M, Ahmed S, editors. Diverting the Flow: Gender Equity and Water in South Asia. New Delhi: Zubaan; 2012. p. 175–202.
  218. 218. Joshy N, Prakash K, Ramdey K. Social taboos and menstrual practices in the Pindar Valley. Indian J Gend Stud. 2019;26(1–2):79–95.
  219. 219. Karin S, Chowdhury A, Shamim I. Status of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh: A comparative study with emphasis on aspects of women and girls in camps of Kutupalong, Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. OAlib. 2020;7(01):e5831.
  220. 220. Mbatha T. Addressing girls’ challenges of water and sanitation in a rural schooling context in Swaziland. Agenda. 2011;25(2):35–42.
  221. 221. McMahon SA, Winch PP, Caruso BA, Obure AF, Ogutu EA, Ochari IA, et al. ’The girl with her period is the one to hang her head’ Reflections on menstrual management among schoolgirls in rural Kenya. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2011;11(7).
  222. 222. Nalugya R, Tanton C, Hytti L, Kansiime C, Nakuya K, Namirembe P, et al. Assessing the effectiveness of a comprehensive menstrual health intervention program in Ugandan schools (MENISCUS): Process evaluation of a pilot intervention study. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2020;6(51):1–15. pmid:32346485
  223. 223. Norling M, Stenzelius K, Ekman N, Wennick A. High school students’ experiences in school toilets or restrooms. J Sch Nurs. 2016;32(3):164–71. pmid:26475260
  224. 224. Rajagopal S, Mathur K. ‘Breaking the silence around menstruation’: Experiences of adolescent girls in an urban setting in India. Gend Dev. 2017;25(2):303–17.
  225. 225. Rajbangshi PR, Nambiar D. “Who will stand up for us?” the social determinants of health of women tea plantation workers in India. Int J Equity Health. 2020;19(29). pmid:32111206
  226. 226. Reddy BS, Snehalatha M. Sanitation and personal hygiene: what does it mean to poor and vulnerable women? Indian J Gend Stud. 2011;18(3):381–404.
  227. 227. Reddy YM, Raghavan S, Vedala SC. A narrative exposition on public toilet usage by women: A study from Warangal. Indian J Gend Stud. 2019;26(1–2):108–37.
  228. 228. Schmitt ML, Clatworthy D, Ratnayake R, Klaesener-Metzner N, Roesch E, Wheeler E, et al. Understanding the menstrual hygiene management challenges facing displaced girls and women: Findings from qualitative assessments in Myanmar and Lebanon. Confl Health. 2017;11(19). pmid:29046714
  229. 229. Silva BB, Sales B, Lanza AC, Heller L, Rezende S. Water and sanitation are not gender-neutral: Human rights in rural Brazilian communities. Water Policy. 2020;22:102–20.
  230. 230. Sommer M. Where the education system and women’s bodies collide: The social and health impact of girls’ experiences of menstruation and schooling in Tanzania. J Adolesc. 2010;33(4):521–9. pmid:19395018
  231. 231. Thompson JA, Gaskin SJ, Agbor M. Embodied intersections: Gender, water and sanitation in Cameroon. Agenda. 2017;31(1):140–55.
  232. 232. Wutich A, Ragsdale K. Water insecurity and emotional distress: Coping with supply, access, and seasonal variability of water in a Bolivian squatter settlement. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(12):2116–25. pmid:18954928
  233. 233. Abrahams N, Mathews S, Ramela P. Intersections of ‘sanitation, sexual coercion and girls’ safety in schools’. Trop Med Int Health. 2006;11(5):751–6. pmid:16640629
  234. 234. Alam M, Luby SP, Halder AK, Islam K, Opel A, Shoab AK, et al. Menstrual hygiene management among Bangladeshi adolescent schoolgirls and risk factors affecting school absence: Results from a cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open. 2017;7(7):e015508. pmid:28694347
  235. 235. Anyarayor BK, Alhassan A, Faisal AM. Access to improved sanitation facilities and female school attendance: a study of Savelugu Municipality of Ghana. Journal of Arts and Humanities. 2019;9(1):56–67.
  236. 236. Camenga DR, Brady SS, Hardacker CT, Williams BR, Hebert-Beirne J, James AS, et al. US adolescent and adult women’s experiences accessing and using toilets in schools, workplaces, and public spaces: A multi-site focus group study to inform future research in bladder health. Int J Env Res Public Health. 2019;16(18):3338.
  237. 237. Carolini GY. Framing water, sanitation, and hygiene needs among female-headed households in periurban Maputo, Mozambique. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(2):256–61. pmid:22390441
  238. 238. Caruso BA, Clasen T, Yount KM, Cooper HLF, Hadley C, Haardörfer R. Assessing women’s negative sanitation experiences and concerns: the development of a novel sanitation insecurity measure. Int J Env Res Public Health. 2017;14(7):755. pmid:28696405
  239. 239. Corburn J, Hildebrand C. Slum sanitation and the social determinants of women’s health in Nairobi, Kenya. J Environ Public Health. 2015;2015. pmid:26060499
  240. 240. Corburn J, Karanja I. Informal settlements and a relational view of health in Nairobi, Kenya: Sanitation, gender and dignity. Health Prom Int. 2016;31(2):258–69. pmid:25421267
  241. 241. Coswosk ÉD, Neves-Silva P, Modena CM, Heller L. Having a toilet is not enough: the limitations in fulfilling the human rights to water and sanitation in a municipal school in Bahia, Brazil. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):137. pmid:30704435
  242. 242. Dudeja P, Sindhu A, Shankar P, Gadekar T. A cross-sectional study to assess awareness about menstruation in adolescent girls of an urban slum in western Maharashtra. Int J Adolesc Med Health. 2016;30(4). pmid:27740925
  243. 243. Girod C, Ellis A, Andes KL, Freeman MC, Caruso BA. Physical, social, and political inequities constraining girls’ menstrual management at schools in informal settlements of Nairobi, Kenya. J Urban Health. 2017;94(6):835–46. pmid:28875308
  244. 244. Kher J, Aggarwal S, Punhani G. Vulnerability of poor urban women to climate-linked water insecurities at the household level: A case study of slums in Delhi. Indian J Gend Stud. 2015;22(1):15–40.
  245. 245. Kookana RS, Maheshwari B, Dillon P, Dave SH, Soni P, Bohra H, et al. Groundwater scarcity impact on inclusiveness and women empowerment: Insights from school absenteeism of female students in two watersheds in India. Int J Inc Educ. 2016;20(11):1155–71.
  246. 246. Krusz E, Hall N, Barrington DJ, Creamer S, Anders W, King M, et al. Menstrual health and hygiene among Indigenous Australian girls and women: Barriers and opportunities. BMC Womens Health. 2019;19. pmid:31775735
  247. 247. McCammon E, Bansal S, Hebert LE, Yan S, Menendez A, Gilliam M. Exploring young women’s menstruation-related challenges in Uttar Pradesh, India, using the socio-ecological framework. Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2020;28(1):1–12. pmid:32308152
  248. 248. Nagpal A, Hassan M, Siddiqui MA, Tajdar A, Hashim M, Singh A, et al. Missing basics: A study on sanitation and women’s health in urban slums in Lucknow, India. GeoJournal. 2019:1–13.
  249. 249. Ngila WM, Role E, Makewa LN. Safety, sexual harassment, sanitary facilities, and household chores as threats to girl child in mixed secondary schools. Journal of International Forum of Researchers in Education (JIFORE). 2014;1(1):36–53.
  250. 250. Rajaraman D, Travasso SM, Heymann SJ. A qualitative study of access to sanitation amongst low-income working women in Bangalore, India. J Water Sanit Hyg Dev. 2013;3(3):432–40.
  251. 251. Scorgie F, Foster J, Stadler J, Phiri T, Hoppenjans L, Rees H, et al. “Bitten by shyness”: Menstrual hygiene management, sanitation, and the quest for privacy in South Africa. Med Anthropol. 2016;35(2):161–76. pmid:26436841
  252. 252. Senior E. We love our school toilets: Involving primary school students in improving their school toilets. Glob Health Promot. 2014;21(1):23–8. pmid:24449799
  253. 253. Sommer M, Ackatia-Armah N, Connolly S, Smiles D. A comparison of the menstruation and education experiences of girls in Tanzania, Ghana, Cambodia and Ethiopia. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. 2015;45(4):589–609.
  254. 254. Whale K, Cramer H, Joinson C. Left behind and left out: The impact of the school environment on young people with continence problems. Br J Health Psychol. 2018;23(2):253–77. pmid:29228510
  255. 255. Winter SC, Barchi F, Dzombo MN. Neighborhood disorganization and women’s sanitation utilization practices in Mathare Valley, Kenya. Environ Behav. 2019;51(5):530–60.
  256. 256. Winter SC, Dreibelbis R, Barchi F. Women’s sanitation practices in informal settlements: A multi-level analysis of factors influencing utilisation in Nairobi, Kenya. Glob Public Health. 2019;14(5):663–74. pmid:30311548
  257. 257. You J, Staddon C, Cook A, Walker J, Boulton J, Powell W, et al. Multidimensional Benefits of Improved Sanitation: Evaluating ‘PEE POWER®’in Kisoro, Uganda. Int J Env Res Public Health. 2020;17(7):2175. pmid:32218207
  258. 258. Asaba RB, Fagan H, Kabonesa C, Mugumya F. Beyond distance and time: Gender and the burden of water collection in rural Uganda. wH2O: Journal of Gender and Water. 2013;2(1):31–8.
  259. 259. Fonjong LN, Ngekwi MA. Challenges of water crisis on women’s socio-economic activities in the Buea Municipality, Cameroon. Journal of Geography and Geology. 2014;6(4):122.
  260. 260. Karim KMR, Emmelin M, Resurreccion BP, Wamala S. Water development projects and marital violence: Experiences from rural Bangladesh. Health Care Women Int. 2012;33(3):200–16. pmid:22325022
  261. 261. Van Houweling E. Gendered water spaces: A study of the transition from wells to handpumps in Mozambique. Gender, Place & Culture. 2015;22(10):1391–407.
  262. 262. Barchi F, Winter SC. Non-partner violence in Sub-Saharan Africa and the built environment: a multicountry analysis of the effects of sanitation, water access, and urban settings. Violence Against Women. 2020;26(10):1101–19. pmid:31230569
  263. 263. Adriaenssens S, Hendrickx J. “Bad jobs”: a case study of toilet attendants. Employee Relations: The International Journal. 2019;41(3):489–505.
  264. 264. Bangdiwala SI, Ramiro L, Sadowski LS, Bordin IAS, Hunter W, Shankar V. Intimate partner violence and the role of socioeconomic indicators in WorldSAFE communities in Chile, Egypt, India and the Philippines. Inj Control Saf Promot. 2004;11(2):101–9. pmid:15370346
  265. 265. Gonsalves GS, Kaplan EH, Paltiel AD. Reducing sexual violence by increasing the supply of toilets in Khayelitsha, South Africa: a mathematical model. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0122244. pmid:25923105
  266. 266. Hassan F, Sadowski LS, Bangdiwala SI, Vizcarra B, Ramiro L, De Paula CS, et al. Physical intimate partner violence in Chile, Egypt, India and the Philippines. Inj Control Saf Promot. 2004;11(2):111–6. pmid:15370347
  267. 267. Hennegan J, Zimmerman L, Shannon AK, Exum NG, OlaOlorun F, Omoluabi E, et al. The relationship between household sanitation and women’s experience of menstrual hygiene: Findings from a cross-sectional survey in Kaduna State, Nigeria. Int J Env Res Public Health. 2018;15(5):905. pmid:29751539
  268. 268. Jadhav A, Weitzman A, Smith-Greenaway E. Household sanitation facilities and women’s risk of non-partner sexual violence in India. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):1139. pmid:27821158
  269. 269. Winter SC, Barchi F. Access to sanitation and violence against women: Evidence from Demographic Health Survey (DHS) data in Kenya. Int J Environ Health Res. 2015;26(3):291–305. pmid:26593879
  270. 270. Winter SC, Dreibelbis R, Dzombo MN, Barchi F. A mixed-methods study of women’s sanitation utilization in informal settlements in Kenya. PLoS One. 2019;14(3):e0214114. pmid:30897125
  271. 271. Aihara Y, Shrestha S, Kazama F, Nishida K. Validation of household water insecurity scale in urban Nepal. Water Policy. 2015;17(6):1019–32.
  272. 272. Brewis A, Choudhary N, Wutich A. Low water access as a gendered physiological stressor: Blood pressure evidence from Nepal. Am J Hum Biol. 2019;31(3):e23234. pmid:30900309
  273. 273. Buor D. Water needs and women’s health in the Kumasi metropolitan area, Ghana. Health Place. 2004;10(1):85–103. pmid:14637289
  274. 274. Cooper-Vince CE, Kakuhikire B, Vorechovska D, McDonough AQ, Perkins J, Venkataramani AS, et al. Household water insecurity, missed schooling, and the mediating role of caregiver depression in rural Uganda. Glob Ment Health. 2017;4:e15.
  275. 275. Cooper-Vince CE, Arachy H, Kakuhikire B, Vořechovská D, Mushavi RC, Baguma C, et al. Water insecurity and gendered risk for depression in rural Uganda: A hotspot analysis. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1143. pmid:30257659
  276. 276. Geere J, Bartram J, Bates L, Danquah L, Evans B, Fisher MB, et al. Carrying water may be a major contributor to disability from musculoskeletal disorders in low income countries: A cross-sectional survey in South Africa, Ghana and Vietnam. J Glob Health. 2018;8(1).
  277. 277. Mehretu A, Mutambirwa C. Gender differences in time and energy costs of distance for regular domestic chores in rural Zimbabwe: A case study in the Chiduku Communal Area. World Dev. 1992;20(11):1675–83.
  278. 278. Nankinga O, Aguta D. Determinants of anemia among women in Uganda: Further analysis of the Uganda demographic and health surveys. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:1757. pmid:31888579
  279. 279. Narain V. Shifting the focus from women to gender relations: Assessing the impacts of water supply interventions in the Morni–Shiwalik hills of northwest India. Mt Res Dev. 2014;34(3):208–13.
  280. 280. Siddiqui RN, Pandey J. Coping with environmental stressors by urban slum dwellers. Environ Behav. 2003;35(5):589–604.
  281. 281. Stevenson EGJ, Ambelu A, Caruso BA, Tesfaye Y, Freeman MC. Community water improvement, household water insecurity, and women’s psychological distress: An intervention and control study in Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0153432. pmid:27124391
  282. 282. White S, Kuper H, Itimu-Phiri A, Holm R, Biran A. A qualitative study of barriers to accessing water, sanitation and hygiene for disabled people in Malawi. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0155043. pmid:27171520
  283. 283. Winter SC, Obara LM, McMahon S. Intimate partner violence: A key correlate of women’s physical and mental health in informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya. PLoS One. 2020;15(4):e0230894. pmid:32240207
  284. 284. Cheng JJ, Schuster-Wallace CJ, Watt S, Newbold BK, Mente A. An ecological quantification of the relationships between water, sanitation and infant, child, and maternal mortality. Environ Health. 2012;11(1):4.
  285. 285. Das P, Baker KK, Dutta A, Swain T, Sahoo S, Das BS, et al. Menstrual hygiene practices, WASH access and the risk of urogenital infection in women from Odisha, India. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0130777. pmid:26125184
  286. 286. Klugman J, Li L, Barker KM, Parsons J, Dale K. How are the domains of women’s inclusion, justice, and security associated with maternal and infant mortality across countries? Insights from the Women, Peace, and Security Index. SSM Popul Health. 2019;9:100486. pmid:31998827
  287. 287. Sommer JM, Shandra JM, Restivo M, Coburn C. Water, sanitation, and health in sub-Saharan Africa: A cross-national analysis of maternal and neo-natal mortality. Hum Ecol Rev. 2015;22(1):129–52.
  288. 288. Winter SC, Dzombo MN, Barchi F. Exploring the complex relationship between women’s sanitation practices and household diarrhea in the slums of Nairobi: a cross-sectional study. BMC Infect Dis. 2019;19(1):242. pmid:30871485
  289. 289. Winter SC, Obara LM, Barchi F. Environmental correlates of health-related quality of life among women living in informal settlements in Kenya. Int J Env Res Public Health. 2019;16(20):3948. pmid:31627277
  290. 290. Janmohamed A, Karakochuk CD, McLean J, Green TJ. Improved sanitation facilities are associated with higher body mass index and higher hemoglobin concentration among rural Cambodian women in the first trimester of pregnancy. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016;95(5):1211–5. pmid:27549631
  291. 291. Tegegne TK, Sisay MM. Menstrual hygiene management and school absenteeism among female adolescent students in Northeast Ethiopia. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):1118. pmid:25355406
  292. 292. Boateng GO, Collins SM, Mbullo P, Wekesa P, Onono M, Neilands TB, et al. A novel household water insecurity scale: Procedures and psychometric analysis among postpartum women in western Kenya. PLoS One. 2018;13(6):e0198591. pmid:29883462
  293. 293. Daniel D, Diener A, Pande S, Jansen S, Marks S, Meierhofer R, et al. Understanding the effect of socio-economic characteristics and psychosocial factors on household water treatment practices in rural Nepal using Bayesian Belief Networks. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2019;222(5):847–55. pmid:31047815
  294. 294. Fiasorgbor DA. Water and sanitation situation in Nima and Teshie, Greater Accra region of Ghana. J Toxicol Environ Health Sci. 2013;5(2):23–8.
  295. 295. Ilahi N, Grimard F. Public infrastructure and private costs: Water supply and time allocation of women in rural Pakistan. Econ Dev Cult Change. 2000;49(1):45–75.
  296. 296. Prasad S, Acharya S, Basu S. Leadership and participation: Role of gender. In: Cronin AA, Mehta PK, Prakash A, editors. Gender Issues in Water and Sanitation Programmes: Lessons from India: SAGE Publications Pvt. Ltd.; 2015. p. 190–208.
  297. 297. Prasad CSS, Ray I. ’When you start doing this work, it is hard to eat dal’: Life and work of manual scavengers. Econ Polit Wkly. 2018;53(32):25–7.
  298. 298. Kodjebacheva GD, Lapeyrouse LM, Rahrig J, Walker L, Campbell K. Strategies to promote safe water drinking identified by and for women of reproductive age. Am J Health Promot. 2019;33(5):756–9. pmid:30587006
  299. 299. Leventhal KS, DeMaria LM, Gillham JE, Andrew G, Peabody J, Leventhal SM. A psychosocial resilience curriculum provides the “missing piece” to boost adolescent physical health: A randomized controlled trial of Girls First in India. Soc Sci Med. 2016;161:37–46. pmid:27239706
  300. 300. Dreibelbis R, Greene LE, Freeman MC, Saboori S, Chase RP, Rheingans R. Water, sanitation, and primary school attendance: A multi-level assessment of determinants of household-reported absence in Kenya. Int J Educ Dev. 2013;33(5):457–65.
  301. 301. Arku FS, Arku C. I cannot drink water on an empty stomach: A gender perspective on living with drought. Gend Dev. 2010;18(1):115–24.
  302. 302. Irianti S, Prasetyoputra P. The struggle for water in Indonesia: The role of women and children as household water fetcher. J Water Sanit Hyg Dev. 2019;9(3):540–8.
  303. 303. Porter G, Hampshire K, Abane A, Tanle A, Esia-Donkoh K, Obilie Amoako-Sakyi R, et al. Mobility, education and livelihood trajectories for young people in rural Ghana: a gender perspective. Child Geogr. 2011;9(3–4):395–410.
  304. 304. Ramanaik S, Collumbien M, Prakash R, Howard-Merrill L, Thalinja R, Javalkar P, et al. Education, poverty and" purity" in the context of adolescent girls’ secondary school retention and dropout: A qualitative study from Karnataka, southern India. PLoS One. 2018;13(9):e0202470. pmid:30183747
  305. 305. McLean L, Heise LL, Stern EA. Shifting and transforming gender-inequitable beliefs, behaviours and norms in intimate partnerships: The Indashyikirwa couples programme in Rwanda. Cult Health Sex. 2019:1–18.
  306. 306. Aluko OO, Oloruntoba EO, Chukwunenye UA, Henry EU, Ojogun E. The dynamics and determinants of household shared sanitation cleanliness in a heterogeneous urban settlement in Southwest Nigeria. Public Health. 2018;165:125–35. pmid:30390425
  307. 307. Priya P, Venkatesh A, Shukla A. Two decades of theorising and measuring women’s empowerment: Literature review and future research agenda. Womens Stud Int Forum. 2021;87:102495.
  308. 308. Dickin S, Bisung E, Nansi J, Charles K. Empowerment in water, sanitation and hygiene index. World Dev. 2021;137:105158.
  309. 309. Sinharoy S, Conrad A, Patrick M, McManus S, Caruso B. Development and validation protocol for an instrument to measure women’s empowerment in urban sanitation across countries: The Agency, Resources, and Institutional Structures for Sanitation-related Empowerment (ARISE) Scales. medRxiv; 2021.
  310. 310. Carrard N, MacArthur J, Leahy C, Soeters S, Willetts J, editors. The water, sanitation and hygiene gender equality measure (WASH-GEM): Conceptual foundations and domains of change. Womens Stud Int Forum; 2022: Elsevier. pmid:35528390
  311. 311. Yount KM, Peterman A, Cheong YF. Measuring women’s empowerment: a need for context and caution. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;6(1):e29. pmid:29241607
  312. 312. Lawry LL, Lugo-Robles R, McIver V. Improvements to a framework for gender and emerging infectious diseases. Bull WHO. 2021;99(9):682. pmid:34475606
  313. 313. Hawkes S, Haseen F, Aounallah-Skhiri H. Measurement and meaning: reporting sex in health research. Lancet. 2019;393(10171):497–9. pmid:30739669
  314. 314. Caruso BA, Sommer M, Phillips-Howard PA. All of women’s health needs are worthy of attention. Lancet. 2019;393(10186):2119. pmid:31226041
  315. 315. Pickering AJ, Null C, Winch PJ, Mangwadu G, Arnold BF, Prendergast AJ, et al. The WASH Benefits and SHINE trials: interpretation of WASH intervention effects on linear growth and diarrhoea. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(8):e1139–e46. pmid:31303300
  316. 316. Kearns J. Moving towards transformational WASH. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(11):e1493. pmid:31607461