Mainstreaming gender in the WASH sector: Dilution or distillation?
Open accessAbstract
The way women’s issues have been conceptualised and acted on in the context of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) has changed over the past four decades. The discourses and trends in development studies – from the Women in Development approach of the 1970s to Gender and Development in the 1980s – were mirrored in the WASH sector. The WASH sector has contributed to, and been shaped by, debates on women’s needs and, latterly, on gender perspectives based on a combined argument for equity and efficiency. In addition, in the last decade, the WASH sector has developed its own distinctive initiatives, such as menstrual hygiene management and, recently, specific WASH considerations relating to gender-based violence. This paper assesses whether the result of this sector-specific response has been a dilution or distillation of gender issues. It concludes that the WASH sector has not disregarded the goals of women’s empowerment and gender equality; rather, it has contributed to understandings of how resources – such as infrastructure and services – underpin that empowerment. This allows an important recognition of the value and impact of WASH-sector priorities and actions for the wider well-being of women.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
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.
“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].”
From Water, sanitation, and women’s empowerment: A systematic review and qualitative metasynthesis (2022) · cites this paper as [28]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 44 · Cited by 58
- Authors
- Fisher, J., Cavill, S., & Reed, B.
- Affiliations
- Loughborough University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Fisher, Julie
- ORCID
- Reed, Brian
- Venue
- Gender & Development
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-05-04
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 185-204
- ISSN
- 1355-2074 (ISSN-L)
- 1364-9221
- OpenAlex
- W2719635423
- Cited by
- 58
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 7.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- dspace.lboro.ac.uk
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- Gender & Development (publishedVersion)
- Loughborough University Institutional Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Loughborough University Research Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Gender, Education, and Development Issues
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Studies and Social Issues
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Water Resource Management and Quality
- Keywords
- gender mainstreaming, water, sanitation and hygiene, women's empowerment, gender equality, women in development, gender and development, menstrual hygiene management, gender-based violence, equity and efficiency, women's needs
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review