4.2 Article

Identifying the Built, Natural, and Social Factors of Successful and Failed Rural Alaskan Water Projects: Perspectives from State and Regional Professionals

期刊

ACS ES&T WATER
卷 2, 期 12, 页码 2323-2332

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsestwater.2c00201

关键词

drinking water; rural water systems; water management; Alaskan water

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigates drinking water projects in rural Alaskan communities and identifies the factors that contribute to their success or failure. It emphasizes the importance of considering the climate, geography, and culture of the region in designing sustainable projects.
Drinking water projects in rural Alaskan communities face a myriad of issues, often due to environmental challenges and financial constraints. These issues threaten community members' access to clean drinking water. Here, we report the built, natural, and social system factors that contribute to the failures and successes of water projects based on 20 semistructured interviews with engineers, program managers, service providers, and researchers whose work involves some element of water infrastructure in rural Alaska. Using a hybrid deductive and inductive approach to qualitative coding analysis, we aimed to uncover common themes in the perspectives of the individuals who maintain and operate drinking water projects to advance understanding of rural water access. Interviewee responses indicate the importance of the interactions between built system factors (e.g., operations and maintenance), social factors (e.g., community engagement), and natural system factors (e.g., water quality) in determining the success of drinking water projects. Generally, the respondents agreed that design efforts that are rooted in the built and social systems (e.g., sociomaterial approaches) and that consider rural Alaskan communities' climate, geography, and cultures allow for the effective implementation of sustainable drinking water projects.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据