The DOI matches its Crossref record.
“Littered with Logos!”: An Investigation into the Relationship between Water Provision, Humanitarian Branding, Donor Accountability, and Self-Reliance in Ugandan Refugee Settlements
Abstract
The branding of humanitarian assets and programme signage (often in English) is common practice in displacement contexts. Such visibility is a reminder of the special status of refugee spaces and a requirement imposed by donors. However, such branding, which forms part of the humanitarian organisations’ accountability to donors, raises profound issues in relation to the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF) and the agenda of refugee self-reliance. Drawing on our work on water access in Ugandan refugee settlements for humanitarian NGOs, we present a case study that explores the humanitarian response and its implications on the sustainability of water provision through the lens of branding and accountability. As donors and taxpayers become the (distant) audiences of visibility strategies, we argue that the branding of water structures, coupled with the lack of accountability to affected populations (AAPs) potentially undermines refugees’ sense of ownership necessary for the future upkeep and maintenance of water sources. The sector may thus compromise the sustainability of programming as advanced by the CRRF. As accountability to donors is prioritised over AAP, we argue that the impact of branding on sustainability of water provision can be better understood by investigating its psychological effects on programme beneficiaries.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
In the citing paper
“Fenomena lain yang menjadi contoh ialah ketika banyak papan informasi ataupun logo-logo partai dan lembaga yang ditempel bahkan tertulis di setiap barang bantuan bencana.Seakan-akan logologo tersebut bertebaran layaknya sampah mendapatkan kritikan bahwa logo organisasi lebih ditonjolkan daripada kebutuhan pengungsi itu sendiri (Martin & Brown, 2021).”
From Riya' sebagai Kritik Moral terhadaap Performative Activism: Kajian Hadis dalam Konteks Bantuan Bencana di Sumatra (2025) · doi:10.63822/gg3w6y07 · cites this paper as Martin & Brown, 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Zahara, M., & Sadida, N. (2025) · Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora · doi:10.63822/gg3w6y07 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Martin, D., & Brown, J.
- Affiliations
- Researcher Field/Legal RECAP Project, Refugee Law Initiative, School of Advanced Study, University of London, Senate House, Malet Street, London, UK
- Associate Head (Global Engagement and Education Partnerships) and Senior Lecturer, School of the Environment, Geography and Geosciences, University of Portsmouth UK
- ORCID
- Martin, Diana
- Venue
- Refugee Survey Quarterly
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2021-10-18
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 433-458
- ISSN
- 1020-4067
- 1471-695X
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: “Littered with Logos!”: An Investigation into the Relationship between Water Provision, Humanitarian Branding, Donor Accountability, and Self-Reliance in Ugandan Refugee Settlements. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/rsq/hdab014
- The paper
- Martin, D., & Brown, J. (2021). “Littered with Logos!”: An Investigation into the Relationship between Water Provision, Humanitarian Branding, Donor Accountability, and Self-Reliance in Ugandan Refugee Settlements. Refugee Survey Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdab014
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.