Inequalities in Drinking Water Access in Piura (Peru): Territorial Diagnosis and Governance Challenges

Abstract

Latin American countries continue to face critical challenges in ensuring safe and continuous access to drinking water, particularly in rural and peri-urban areas. This article presents a territorial and institutional diagnosis of drinking water access in the Piura region (Peru). It is a coastal region with approximately 2 million inhabitants, characterized by environmental stress, governance fragmentation, and social inequality. The study adopts a structural documentary approach based on academic literature and validated institutional data to analyze spatial disparities in water coverage, continuity, and quality. It identifies structural and institutional barriers—such as overlapping mandates, limited local capacity, and the absence of monitoring systems—to universal access. The findings also highlight the limitations of isolated innovation efforts, such as pilot projects led by universities and private companies, which often lack mechanisms for institutional integration and policy scaling. The analysis is framed within international water governance frameworks, including the OECD Principles and the Integrated Water Resources Management paradigm, and aligns with Sustainable Development Goal 6. The study offers a multi-scalar perspective grounded in local realities and identifies governance research gaps in rural Peru. Results underscore the need for territorialized planning, strengthened coordination, and inclusive governance to achieve sustainable and equitable water access in fragile contexts.

1. Introduction

Access to safe and reliable drinking water is a fundamental human right recognized in international frameworks, most notably the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Goal 6 (SDG 6) explicitly commits countries to ensure the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all [1]. Despite this commitment, the global water crisis remains one of the most pressing challenges of our time. More than two billion people worldwide still lack access to safely managed drinking water services, while climate change, environmental pollution, and unsustainable land use patterns continue to exacerbate global water insecurity [2]. Despite holding nearly a third of the world’s freshwater, Latin America continues to face critical disparities in water access, particularly among rural and low-income populations [3].

Peru is no exception. Its highly heterogeneous geography, combined with a fragmented institutional landscape, results in significant disparities in water service provision across the territory. According to the Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática (INEI, National Institute of Statistics and Informatics), over 3.5 million Peruvians still rely on non-piped or alternative sources of water, primarily in highland provinces and coastal peripheries [4]. These water sources are often unsafe, intermittent, and lacking basic treatment. To provide a national context, Figure 1 shows the geopolitical map of Peru with the Piura region located in the northwest part of the country. The Andes Mountain range runs vertically through the middle of the territory, dividing Peru into three main areas: coast, highlands, and jungle.

1.1. Territorial and Institutional Context in Piura

Within this national panorama, the Piura region stands out as one of the most vulnerable. Situated on the arid northern coast, Piura faces a complex interplay of environmental, social, and infrastructural stressors. Accelerated population growth and urban sprawl without formal planning have intensified structural deficiencies in the region’s water governance systems. Increasing exposure to climatic variability—especially to recurrent El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events—has further exacerbated these weaknesses [5,6,7]. The imbalance between demand and sustainable supply is particularly acute in several peri-urban and rural provinces of Piura. In these areas, access is frequently interrupted or dependent on cistern trucks and unregulated providers [5,6]. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has highlighted these intra-regional disparities as a critical barrier to achieving universal access, emphasizing the need for localized, data-driven planning mechanisms and stronger subnational coordination [8].

These vulnerabilities are worsened by historical underinvestment in water infrastructure and weak enforcement of basin-level management policies [5]. Piura’s territory includes diverse hydrographic units—most notably the Chira River and Piura River basins—which are subject to both seasonal droughts and destructive flooding. Water infrastructure, particularly for treatment and distribution, is unevenly distributed and often outdated. In many peri-urban and rural communities, access to water is intermittent, low in quality, or dependent on informal suppliers [9]. These challenges are not only technical or financial but reflect deeper governance issues, such as limited coordination among institutions, insufficient planning at the watershed level, and weak enforcement of regulatory frameworks [6].

Although the analysis is centered on Piura, the governance challenges described—such as fragmented institutions, underinvestment, and territorial disparities—are also observed in other low-income and remote regions globally [2,3].

1.2. Research Gap and Conceptual Relevance

Numerous academic and institutional reports have examined water resource management in Peru [7]. However, most of these studies focus on national-level diagnostics or address isolated dimensions of the problem. For instance, some works emphasize technical aspects, such as infrastructure performance and its health impacts [10], while others examine community-based governance models without integrating institutional or technical components [11]. Additionally, the northern coastal region—despite facing acute water governance challenges—remains understudied in the scientific literature.

In response to these deficiencies in the literature, several recent studies [12,13,14,15] have offered valuable conceptual tools to address water governance challenges through localized and multidimensional approaches. These works emphasize the integration of ecosystem services, adaptation strategies, and socio-institutional indicators—particularly in hydro-socially complex contexts such as Piura. Although not always region-specific, these frameworks help bridge the gap between technical assessments and inclusive governance models, offering critical insights for territorial water planning in vulnerable areas.

Building on this conceptual groundwork, the present study contributes to the international governance literature by examining how global water frameworks—such as the OECD Principles and IWRM—translate (or fail to translate) into territorial implementation in vulnerable contexts. It offers both a conceptual and diagnostic contribution by grounding these frameworks in the empirical realities of northern Peru.

More specifically, this study offers a comprehensive analysis of the state of drinking water access in Piura, addressing both the technical and socio-institutional dimensions of the problem. The focus is placed on identifying spatial disparities, institutional limitations, and the potential for transition toward a more sustainable and inclusive model of water governance. Similar approaches have been applied in other regions of Peru, such as Ancash, where integrated planning frameworks for water resources have been developed to strengthen resilience and promote territorial equity [9].

1.3. Research Objectives and Questions

This study addresses the knowledge gap through a regionally focused and integrative assessment of drinking water management in Piura. The research adopts a territorial perspective, emphasizing institutional, infrastructural, and environmental variables. It aligns with sustainability science principles, which call for context-sensitive diagnostics and evidence-based planning. The central objective is to identify critical inequalities in water access across Piura’s territory, assess the institutional and governance frameworks in place, and explore feasible pathways toward more sustainable, resilient, and equitable water management models. The methodological approach is consistent with the broader literature in sustainability, which highlights the importance of decentralization [16], technological adaptability [17], and context-sensitive governance mechanisms [18] for addressing water access inequalities.

To guide the analysis, the study addresses the following research questions: (i) What are the current conditions and geographic disparities in access to drinking water in the Piura region? (ii) What structural, institutional, and environmental factors contribute to these disparities? (iii) To what extent do recent governance and infrastructure efforts in Piura reflect—or fall short of—the principles set forth in international water governance frameworks (IWRM, OECD Principles, and SDG 6)?

1.4. Stakeholders and Innovation Cases in the Region

Despite formal progress in the development of national water policies, the institutional landscape governing water resources in Piura remains fragmented and frequently inefficient [19,20]. Multiple agencies operate with overlapping mandates and limited coordination. At the national level, three core institutions are responsible for water governance. The Autoridad Nacional del Agua (ANA, National Water Authority) leads the planning and management of water resources and oversees basin-level governance, under the Water Resources Law (Law No. 29338). The Organismo Técnico de la Administración de los Servicios de Saneamiento (OTASS, Technical Agency for Water and Sanitation Services Management) provides technical assistance and support to municipal water utilities, particularly in small-scale and rural systems, as established in the Universal Access to Drinking Water and Sanitation Law (Law No. 1280). The Superintendencia Nacional de Servicios de Saneamiento (SUNASS, National Superintendency of Sanitation Services) regulates tariffs and service quality standards for both urban and rural sanitation providers, in accordance with the General Regulatory Framework for Private Investment Oversight in Public Utilities (Law No. 27332). However, their operational presence in rural and peri-urban areas remains limited, and coordination between them is often weak or reactive [21,22].

At the regional and municipal levels, governance structures are often underfunded, technically limited, or politically constrained [20,23,24]. In the case of Piura, the Gobierno Regional de Piura (GORE Piura, Regional Government of Piura) plays a supporting role in regional planning and coordinates with national agencies for infrastructure and environmental programs, although its influence in rural water provision remains limited. Municipal governments are directly responsible for rural water and sanitation services, including the supervision of community-based providers. These responsibilities are outlined in the Organic Law of Regional Governments (Law No. 27867) and the Organic Law of Municipalities (Law No. 27972). Public utilities such as EPS Grau S.A.—which provides water and sanitation services in urban areas of Piura—face significant operational and financial challenges that affect service coverage and quality [4,24].

In territories where institutional presence is weak and government is fragmented, informal actors—such as community water boards, neighborhood associations, and tanker truck operators—often take the lead in filling the service delivery gap. However, these actors typically operate without regulatory oversight, technical support, or sustainable financing mechanisms. The 2024 United Nations World Water Development Report underscores how such informal arrangements proliferate in fragile territories, particularly where state capacity is limited and access to water remains unequal and insecure [19]. Similarly, the 2021 OECD Toolkit for Water Policies and Governance highlights the growing role of non-state water providers in underserved areas and emphasizes the need to identify, coordinate, and integrate these actors into broader governance frameworks to promote equity and service sustainability [8]. This multiplicity of actors, with misaligned priorities and fragmented responsibilities, severely hampers the development of a coherent and long-term strategy for water access in the region [20,23].

In addition to governmental and informal actors, international cooperation has played a strategic role in northern Peru through targeted water-related initiatives. For example, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) supported institutional training for rural water management in the northern area of Perú, focusing on local governments and community boards [25]. The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) co-financed a pilot project to improve groundwater access in the rural area [26]. The German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ) contributed to national programs on water security and resilience, which included technical support for selected regions [27]. Although relevant, these efforts often lacked continuity and alignment with regional planning, limiting their long-term impact.

Similarly, pilot projects implemented in provinces such as Sullana and Sechura—financed by the Programa Nacional de Desarrollo Tecnológico e Innovación (PROINNOVATE, National Program for Technological Development and Innovation)—have demonstrated promising results in expanding water access. Funded by the Ministry of Production of Peru, the program provides non-reimbursable grants of approximately USD 100,000 to 200,000 to private entities (which lead project implementation) and universities (which contribute technical expertise) through competitive calls [24]. These initiatives introduced solar-powered pumping systems, portable surface water treatment prototypes, and participatory monitoring strategies to serve rural and peri-urban populations with limited access to conventional infrastructure, promoting scalable and sustainable alternatives [28,29]. Although limited in territorial scope, such efforts underscore the importance of integrating academic research, territorial innovation, and public–private collaboration in advancing effective water governance in northern Peru.

Figure 2 presents the geopolitical organization of the Piura region and serves as a territorial reference to support the spatial framing of the case study. The region is composed of eight provinces, which reflect a marked geographical diversity: the coastal provinces (Paita, Talara, Sechura, Sullana, and Piura) lie mostly below 200 m above sea level; the highland provinces (Ayabaca and Huancabamba) range between 1500 and 3000 m above sea level; and the transitional provinces (Sullana and Morropón) occupy intermediate altitudes between 200 and 1500 m. This territorial structure underpins many of the disparities discussed throughout the analysis.

The article is structured as follows: Section 2 outlines the methodological approach, including the criteria for document selection and analysis. Section 3 presents the main findings related to water coverage, continuity, and quality, as well as institutional and territorial shortcomings. Section 4 discusses the implications of these findings, considering national and international frameworks, while Section 5 summarizes key conclusions and outlines directions for future research and policy development.

2. Materials and Methods

This study employed a structured documentary analysis design that combines descriptive synthesis, a review of peer-reviewed academic literature, and the examination of validated institutional sources. In addition to international frameworks (OECD, UN-Water), the study integrates grey literature from Peruvian government agencies such as the National Water Authority (ANA) and the Plan Nacional de Recursos Hídricos (PNRH, National Water Resources Plan), which provide localized insights critical for the territorial lens adopted. Validation strategies were applied to ensure source reliability.

In practice, this territorial lens was operationalized to classify and compare findings across rural dispersed, peri-urban, and urban contexts within the Piura region. Each category was analyzed in relation to institutional responsibilities, service performance indicators, and documented interventions, allowing the identification of spatial patterns in governance gaps and service inequalities. This segmentation also facilitated the integration of key performance indicators (the table in Section 3.1) with institutional and policy analysis, linking coverage, continuity, and oversight differences to distinct territorial conditions.

The methodological approach was structured around three research questions previously stated in the introduction. The scope of analysis covers the Piura region in northwestern Peru, with a focus on both rural and peri-urban areas.

2.1. Research Design and Data Sources

The methodology followed a territorial and documentary approach, integrating both academic literature and official institutional data. The study is based on two main components:

• Structured review of the scientific literature: articles from Q1 and Q2 journals were selected through targeted keyword searches in high-impact academic databases, focusing on terms such as “rural water access”, “inequality”, “Latin America”, and “Peru”. Both global and regional perspectives were considered to contextualize Piura’s situation within broader development trends.
• Review of institutional reports and policy frameworks: sources included documents from the OECD, United Nations Inter-Agency Coordination Mechanism for Water (UN-Water), the ANA, the Ministerio de Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento (MVCS, Ministry of Housing, Construction and Sanitation), and OTASS. Additional national sources included the National Water Resources Management Plan (PNRH) and regional planning documents.

These reports and documents were selected based on technical relevance, normative validity, and alignment with national water governance priorities. Preference was given to official publications, regulatory guidelines, and program evaluations with institutional endorsement. This ensured triangulation between peer-reviewed literature and validated institutional data [17,23].

2.2. Literature Screening and Synthesis

A targeted literature review was conducted between March and August 2025. A total of 40 peer-reviewed articles (2017–2025), indexed in MDPI, Scopus, or Web of Science and published in Q1 and Q2 journals, were initially identified through the structured search process. The review focused on identifying patterns in access disparities, governance models, and institutional innovations; 21 articles were ultimately retained for detailed examination. Exclusion criteria included lack of direct geographic or thematic relevance to Piura’s context, insufficient methodological transparency, or duplication of findings already covered in higher-quality sources. The study adopted principles of rigor, transparency, and replicability, drawing on Codina’s structured documentary analysis methodology, which served as the core analytical technique [30]. This approach included a targeted search strategy, clear inclusion criteria, a comparative reading matrix, and source triangulation—ensuring that the methodology goes beyond a general literature review.

Institutional documents were retrieved from official repositories and validated portals such as OECD iLibrary, UNESDOC, and the Peruvian government’s data platforms.

2.3. Analytical Strategy

The study adopted a multi-scalar approach that progressively moves from global and regional analyses to the specific context of Piura. This progression allows for the identification of general patterns and subsequently their translation into local realities, enhancing both external relevance and territorial specificity.

The analysis was organized into three thematic blocks aligned with the research questions: (i) territorial disparities in drinking water access, (ii) structural and institutional drivers, and (iii) governance efforts and illustrative interventions. The findings were grouped accordingly and presented in Section 3. The first block reveals significant territorial inequality in access to drinking water, with marked differences between urban and rural areas and across districts. The second block highlights institutional fragmentation, limited technical capacity, and weak monitoring as recurrent structural obstacles. Notably, while the first two research questions yielded substantial academic and institutional evidence, the third—focused on governance interventions in rural Peru—revealed a marked void in the peer-reviewed literature, which is acknowledged and addressed through complementary sources.

3. Results

This section presents the study’s core findings, organized into three thematic components corresponding to the research questions. Each component integrates academic literature and empirical data from Piura to examine territorial disparities, institutional constraints, and governance interventions. This structure provides a comprehensive understanding of regional water challenges and identifies leverage points for planning and policy reform.

3.1. Territorial Disparities in Drinking Water Access

Access to drinking water in the Piura region exhibits stark territorial disparities, consistent with broader trends observed in rural areas of Latin America and other developing regions. Rural dispersed areas face lower connection rates and continuity, often under three hours per day; peri-urban zones have better coverage but still experience irregular supply; and urban centers, while showing the best continuity, continue to face governance and coordination challenges. These disparities reflect the intersection of geographic, socioeconomic, and infrastructural barriers.

At the global level, rural populations in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia remain disproportionately underserved, with access rates as low as 28% in some regions and pervasive reliance on unimproved or contaminated sources [31,32,33]. Factors such as infrastructure deficiencies, fecal contamination, and household poverty contribute to these inequities, particularly in geographically remote areas [34,35]. In countries with large rural populations, limited investment in decentralized water systems and the absence of territorial planning exacerbate service discontinuity and quality deficiencies [36].

In Latin America, more than 65% of those without basic water services reside in rural zones, where households frequently lack piped water and face elevated health risks due to poor water quality and limited treatment options [37,38]. Studies from Brazil, Mexico, and Peru highlight the compounding role of income inequality, weak regulation, and service intermittency in reinforcing access disparities [39,40]. The OECD identifies a persistent “urban–rural divide” in water security across the region, largely driven by uneven infrastructure investment and institutional fragmentation [36]. Similarly, UN-Water emphasizes that closing water access shortfalls in Latin America requires multilevel governance strategies, coordinated financing, and localized monitoring systems [19].

The Piura region provides a vivid illustration of these challenges. Despite relatively high piped water coverage (above 70%), service is highly intermittent, often below 8 h per day, with serious implications for hygiene and reliability [41]. This issue affects both urban and rural districts, particularly in coastal areas like Sullana and Sechura. Moreover, recent studies report widespread chemical (arsenic, pesticides) and microbiological (E. coli) contamination, even in households using indoor tap water [41,42]. Vulnerability increases when water is stored in containers, a common practice among low-income households [42].

Institutional reports by the National Water Authority (ANA) and the National Institute of Statistics and Informatics (INEI) corroborate these patterns. In Piura, more than 150,000 inhabitants rely on informal sources such as cisterns, shallow wells, or untreated river water [20]. These conditions are aggravated during climate-related disruptions, such as droughts or flooding events linked to El Niño episodes. Access to safe drinking water is not only spatially uneven but also deeply affected by seasonality, political instability in service provision, and the technical capacity of local operators.

These patterns vary by territory: rural areas concentrate the largest gaps in coverage, continuity, and source reliability; peri-urban zones present mixed service conditions; and urban centers, although better served, still face inequities linked to income levels and infrastructure resilience.

Table 1. Key territorial disparities in drinking water access: global and regional evidence.

Domain	Description	Geographic Focus	Sources
Coverage	Low service penetration in rural and peri-urban zones (e.g., <30% in Sub-Saharan Africa, <50% in rural highlands of Peru, and <70% in rural Piura)	Sub-Saharan Africa; Highlands of Peru; Piura, Peru	[4,19,31,37,38]
Continuity	Service often available (≥50% of piped systems in low-income countries are intermittent; <8 h/day in some Andean districts and <3 h/day in rural Piura)	Global (low-income countries—LICs); Andean Peru; Piura, Peru	[19,34,35,41,42]
Water quality	Presence of pathogens and chemicals (e.g., ~70% of waterborne disease burden in Southeast Asia linked to untreated water; arsenic detected in rural Peru; ≥40% of households in Piura report E. coli contamination)	Southeast Asia; Piura, Peru	[35,41]
Source reliability	Reliance on informal sources (e.g., ~30% of rural households in Latin America rely on unimproved water sources; >150,000 people in Piura use cistern trucks, shallow wells, or untreated surface water)	Rural Latin America; Piura, Peru	[42]
Income-based inequity	Access disparities correlate with income (e.g., ~60% of those without access in Latin America are rural poor; households in the lowest income quintile in Peru are >2× more likely to lack safely managed water)	Latin America; Peru	[4,38,39,40]

presents key performance indicators (KPIs) illustrating territorial disparities in five key domains: service coverage, continuity, water quality, source reliability, and income-based equity. These indicators span global, national (Peru), and regional (Piura) levels and provide a quantitative baseline for understanding access inequalities in drinking water systems.

The benchmarking indicators presented in Table 1 offer a comparative perspective on critical shortcomings in drinking water access, encompassing global, national, and regional levels. Values are based on reliable sources, including household surveys, peer-reviewed studies, and validated institutional datasets (e.g., INEI, UN-Water, OECD). Although some variability in data collection methods exists, all indicators were selected for their methodological transparency and relevance to the territorial context of Piura. This ensures consistency in cross-scalar comparison and supports evidence-based governance analysis.

3.2. Structural and Institutional Drivers of Disparity

The persistent inequality in access to drinking water in Piura is deeply rooted in structural and institutional weaknesses that transcend physical infrastructure. Across developing regions, literature points to four recurring governance challenges: regulatory fragmentation, limited technical capacity at the local level, insufficient monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, and weak inter-institutional coordination [37,43,44]. These issues are compounded by unstable funding flows, short-term political cycles, and the marginalization of rural users in decision-making processes.

In Latin America, rural water governance often relies on decentralized or community-based models that struggle to operate effectively without ongoing technical and administrative support. Many small water operators face difficulties in maintaining systems, applying quality standards, and securing financial sustainability [38,44]. Moreover, the absence of integrated territorial planning and data systems hinders national agencies from identifying local needs and targeting investments accordingly [36].

In Peru, institutional fragmentation and overlapping mandates have undermined efforts to improve service delivery. National entities such as the ANA, OTASS, and SUNASS have distinct roles but limited local presence, leading to implementation failures [7,20]. Regulatory enforcement remains weak, especially in rural districts, where informal water providers or household-level solutions are prevalent. Recent analyses confirm that intermittent service is more acute in regions with low state capacity and limited oversight [42].

Validated academic theses such as Benites [24], Moscol [28], and Periche [29] document similar governance challenges in the Piura region. These include deficiencies in operator training, lack of clarity in community roles, and poor documentation of infrastructure performance. In all cases, local authorities reported difficulties coordinating national programs and sustaining interventions over time (see

Table 2. Key structural and institutional barriers to rural water access in Latin America.

Type of Barrier	Description	Manifestation in Piura	Sources
Regulatory fragmentation	Multiple overlapping institutions without unified mandates	Disjointed interventions (ANA, OTASS)	[7,20]
Technical capacity	Lack of trained personnel at municipal or community level	Informal or poorly maintained systems	[28,42]
Monitoring deficit	Absence of reliable service data and quality control	No baseline to assess water continuity	[24,38]
Institutional coordination	Weak articulation between local and national actors	Delays, overlap, limited accountability	[29,43]

).

In summary, the persistence of water access inequality in Piura cannot be dissociated from broader structural limitations. Addressing these requires not only infrastructure upgrades but also institutional reform, stable financing, and effective local engagement mechanisms.

3.3. Governance Efforts and Illustrative Interventions

Efforts to improve access to drinking water in rural and underserved areas increasingly recognize the central role of governance. This section evaluates to what extent recent governance and infrastructure efforts in Piura reflect—or fall short of—the principles set forth in international water governance frameworks. Specifically, the OECD Water Governance Principles [36] and the United Nations’ Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) approach [19] emphasize coordination across sectors and administrative levels, long-term planning, financial transparency, and citizen engagement.

In Latin America, several countries have introduced governance reforms aimed at improving rural water access. Brazil’s expansion of decentralized water boards, Colombia’s use of public–community partnerships, and Mexico’s investment in water rights registries and regional planning tools reflect distinct attempts to strengthen institutional performance [39,40]. While outcomes have varied, key lessons include the importance of local technical support, community legitimacy, and cross-institutional collaboration. Nonetheless, few of these efforts have been systematically evaluated, and the literature often overlooks subnational dynamics and territorial disparities.

In the case of Peru, multiple government programs have sought to address water access through rural utility management (OTASS) and policy tools such as the National Water Resources Plan (PNRH) [7]. This plan is structured around five policy pillars and defines 30 investment programs that address water quantity, quality, governance, culture, and climate resilience. It sets the national framework for basin management, water licensing, environmental flows, and information systems. However, the plan operates at a general level and does not provide region-specific interventions. In the case of Piura, localized priorities are instead developed through the Chira–Piura Basin Water Resources Management Plan, which aligns with the PNRH but includes tailored diagnostics and stakeholder engagement at the basin scale.

As part of this broader strategy, the ANA has promoted integrated watershed management and improved monitoring systems in several regions [20]. However, coordination limitations remain, especially between national and local authorities, and many initiatives operate in isolation or face implementation delays. In Piura, interventions supported by public investment programs and university partnerships—including pilot technologies for treatment and community training—have shown promise but lack sustained institutional support. Implemented between 2021 and 2023, these projects were led by private entities in partnership with local universities and demonstrated successful deployment of solar-powered pumping and filtration systems, benefiting over 50 households in the peri-urban provinces of Sechura and Sullana.

While reviewing the academic literature for this study, no Q1 or Q2 peer-reviewed articles were found that directly evaluate governance interventions for drinking water access in rural Peru. This leads to a significant knowledge gap in the field. The evidence used in this section is thus drawn from validated institutional reports, national policy documents, and case studies derived from academic theses. Together, they offer practical insights into what has been tried, what challenges persist, and where policy innovations may be most impactful (see

Table 3. Illustrative governance interventions to improve rural water access.

Level	Type of Intervention	Key Characteristics	Sources
Global	IWRM Framework (UN-Water)	Multisector coordination, basin-level planning	[19]
Regional	Public–Community Partnerships (Colombia, Brazil)	Decentralization, community co-management	[36,44]
National (Peru)	ANA watershed governance programs	Monitoring, integration, local committees	[36]
Piura (Piura)	University–community pilot projects	Treatment tech, training, limited scalability	[41]

).

In sum, improving water access in Piura and similar contexts will depend not only on infrastructure but also on durable governance mechanisms.

Taken together, the three subsections reveal that water access disparities in Piura are not only a result of geographic or infrastructural limitations but are also embedded in deeper institutional and governance structures. While recent initiatives show potential, their limited scalability and weak institutional integration underscore the difficulty of translating global governance principles—such as IWRM and the OECD Water Governance Framework—into effective territorial implementation. This reinforces the need for multilevel approaches that combine investment in infrastructure, regulatory clarity, capacity building, and evidence-based planning.

4. Discussion

The following section discusses the main findings of the study, considering the research questions and international frameworks presented earlier. Through a multi-layered interpretation, it explores the interrelation between territorial disparities, governance barriers, and innovation efforts, while drawing lessons for future planning and policy. Each sub-section highlights a key analytical axis that emerged from the results.

4.1. Integrative Analysis of Findings

The results presented in Section 3 underscore the multidimensional nature of drinking water challenges in Piura. Far from being isolated technical failures, the observed disparities in access, continuity, and quality reflect deeper structural and institutional tensions. This section synthesizes the findings across the three thematic blocks to highlight cross-cutting dynamics and interdependencies that shape water governance outcomes in the region.

First, the territorial analysis revealed significant spatial inequalities. While official coverage rates appear relatively high, they obscure the reality of intermittent supply, seasonal disruptions, and reliance on unsafe or informal sources—especially in rural and peri-urban districts. These disparities are not random but systematically correlated with socioeconomic status, infrastructure quality, and exposure to climatic stressors. In Piura, for example, low-income households often rely on water storage practices that increase contamination risk. The most underserved provinces tend to coincide with areas lacking reliable infrastructure and most exposed to droughts or flooding associated with El Niño events. These patterns are consistent with broader regional evidence reported by Alvarez et al. [38], OECD [16], and UN-Water [19], which emphasize the intersection between poverty, institutional weakness, and environmental vulnerability as key drivers of inequality in rural water access (see Table 1).

Second, the institutional analysis exposed a fragmented and under-resourced governance structure. Local service providers often operate without adequate technical support or oversight, while national agencies lack the territorial presence or coordination mechanisms required to implement integrated strategies. The absence of reliable monitoring systems further hampers efforts to plan and prioritize investments. These findings align with broader patterns observed in Latin America, where decentralization has often occurred without the corresponding transfer of capacity or accountability [36,38]. Moreover, in Piura, these institutional weaknesses are reflected in service intermittency, insufficient technical documentation, and limited ability to sustain interventions beyond the scope of individual projects.

Third, although some promising interventions have been identified—particularly those involving university-led innovation or pilot projects supported by public programs—these remain limited in scale and disconnected from long-term institutional strategies. The experience in Piura illustrates a critical disconnect between isolated innovation and systemic transformation. Without mechanisms to integrate successful pilots into public policy or regional planning frameworks, their impact remains marginal and unsustainable.

Taken together, the findings suggest that water access challenges in Piura are driven by a complex interplay of geographic vulnerability, institutional fragmentation, and insufficient policy coordination. Addressing these challenges requires moving beyond infrastructure-centric approaches to embrace integrated models that align technical, institutional, and community-level capacities within a coherent territorial framework.

Table 4. Cross-cutting factors influencing drinking water inequality in Piura.

Dimension	Manifestation in Piura	Interlinked Factors
Territorial disparities	Intermittent access, unsafe storage, rural–urban gaps	Income, location, climate exposure
Institutional weakness	Fragmented mandates, lack of monitoring, low enforcement capacity	Coordination failures, underfunding, decentralization
Isolated innovations	University-led pilots without scale-up	No institutional linkage, absence of policy integration

presents this typology of interrelated factors in a structured format, offering a foundational analytical tool to guide future empirical research on causal dynamics and governance interventions in fragile contexts like Piura.

4.2. Alignment with International Frameworks and SDGs

The findings from Piura reflect both alignment with and deviations from international water governance frameworks and development goals. At the core, the challenges identified in territorial disparities, institutional fragmentation, and limited continuity of services underscore the partial and uneven implementation of global principles and national commitments related to water security and sustainability.

The OECD’s Principles on Water Governance emphasize effectiveness, efficiency, and trust, promoting integrated planning, multilevel coordination, and inclusive stakeholder engagement [36]. While Peru has adopted these principles in its national frameworks—such as the National Water Resources Plan and the institutional role of the ANA—their implementation at the subnational level remains limited. In Piura, weak inter-institutional articulation and a lack of consistent technical monitoring dilute the effectiveness of policy implementation, reflecting what the OECD terms the “implementation gap” in Latin American water governance [36].

Similarly, the UN’s Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) approach advocates for coordination across sectors and governance scales, basin-level planning, and the balancing of economic, social, and environmental objectives [19]. The evidence in Piura suggests that, despite formal acknowledgment of these principles, practical application is constrained by institutional silos, weak coordination, insufficient funding, and the absence of adaptive territorial planning. This aligns with global evaluations by UN-Water, which indicate that progress toward IWRM implementation is particularly limited in decentralized contexts with low capacity and inadequate resources [19].

With respect to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the situation in Piura reveals a partial fulfillment of SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), particularly Target 6.1 (universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water) [1]. While nominal access rates are relatively high, actual service continuity, safety, and reliability fall short—especially for rural and peri-urban populations. In this context, SDG 6 serves not as a claim of achievement, but rather as a normative benchmark for assessing territorial gaps in water access and governance capacity. Moreover, the absence of localized data systems and community-based monitoring limits the ability to track progress and ensure accountability, contradicting the enabling conditions envisioned under Target 6.b, which calls for community participation in water management (see

Table 5. Alignment of findings with international water governance frameworks.

Global Framework	Key Principle or Target	Observed Condition in Piura
OECD water governance	Coordination, effectiveness, trust	Implementation gap at local level
IWRM (UN-Water)	Multisector integration, basin-scale planning	Weak territorial articulation, institutional silos
SDG 6.1	Universal access to safe and affordable drinking water	Coverage achieved, but continuity and quality remain weak
SDG 6.b	Community participation in water and sanitation management	Limited data systems and community monitoring

).

In sum, the Piura case illustrates the tensions between formal policy alignment and operational realities. While Peru has committed to globally endorsed governance frameworks, their territorial deployment remains fragmented and under-resourced. Bridging this disconnect requires a shift from compliance-based models to capacity-building strategies that embed international principles within localized governance systems. This may involve strengthening multilevel coordination mechanisms, ensuring mandatory territorial presence of regulatory agencies, and implementing targeted financial instruments to support underserved areas. Additionally, simplified regulatory schemes and community-led monitoring initiatives could enhance accountability and responsiveness, especially in rural contexts [2,7,23].

4.3. Lessons for Policy and Territorial Innovation

The Piura experience offers relevant lessons for public policy and territorial innovation, particularly in contexts marked by institutional fragmentation and unequal access to basic services. The first key lesson is the importance of territorialized planning. National frameworks are insufficient unless adapted to local environmental and social conditions. This calls for greater investment in regional diagnostic tools, decentralized decision-making, and the integration of community knowledge in planning processes.

Second, the value of pilot experiences—such as university-led initiatives and public–private collaborations—demonstrates that context-sensitive innovation is possible even under resource constraints. However, their limited scalability underscores the need for stronger institutional mechanisms to replicate and expand successful practices. Policy instruments such as innovation funds, territorial laboratories, and regional coordination platforms could serve as bridges between isolated innovation and broader policy transformation.

Third, the findings point to the need for capacity building and institutional continuity. Local governments and rural water operators often lack the technical and administrative capacity to sustainably manage and monitor water systems. Strategies for long-term sustainability must therefore include continuous training, inter-municipal cooperation, and the establishment of technical support networks, as suggested in studies on successful rural water governance in Brazil and Colombia.

These lessons extend beyond Piura, informing broader efforts to close water access disparities in other regions of Peru and Latin America, particularly where structural constraints and territorial disparities persist. In this regard, recent literature suggests that addressing water governance challenges in rural and arid regions requires a deeper emphasis on spatial equity and cultural legitimacy. For example, Hurlber et al. advocate for decolonizing water governance frameworks through greater community authority and the inclusion of indigenous knowledge systems [45]. Similarly, Williams et al. evidence the need for equity-based vulnerability assessments to inform territorial planning and prioritize interventions where contamination risks and institutional deficiencies intersect [46]. These approaches offer complementary perspectives that reinforce the importance of grounded, participatory, and context-aware solutions for rural water governance.

4.4. Limitations and Research Gaps

This study offers a comprehensive diagnosis of drinking water management in the Piura region; however, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the analysis relies exclusively on secondary data sources—specifically scientific publications from Q1 and Q2 journals and validated institutional documents from national and international organizations—which, while robust, may not fully capture the lived experiences or informal governance dynamics in rural and peri-urban communities. Incorporating primary fieldwork or direct stakeholder engagement in future research would enhance the granularity of the findings, particularly in relation to cultural practices, gendered access patterns, and informal governance mechanisms.

Second, the study is based on a qualitative and documentary approach and does not include geospatial modeling, water quality measurements, or cost-benefit analysis of interventions. As such, the conclusions drawn are more strategic than operational and should be complemented in future work by empirical assessments at the household or district level. The regional focus provides depth and territorial specificity but may limit the applicability of the findings to other areas of Peru or Latin America.

From a research perspective, the most critical gap identified is the scarcity of peer-reviewed studies evaluating water governance interventions in rural Peru. As noted in Section 3.3, few academic articles document the design, implementation, or impact of projects aimed at improving drinking water access through institutional innovation, particularly in decentralized or fragile settings. This hinders comparative analysis and the development of evidence-based policy tools.

Addressing these gaps requires a twofold effort: expanding academic research on rural water governance in northern Peru and enhancing collaboration between universities, government agencies, and local communities. Mixed-methods studies combining spatial analysis, ethnographic inquiry, and participatory evaluation could yield more actionable insights and support the design of scalable, context-sensitive interventions.

Building on this diagnostic, future research will focus on two key areas: (i) the design of a territorialized Water Resource Management (WRM) model tailored to the Piura region and (ii) a deeper investigation into the absence of documented governance interventions in rural Peru, particularly those that respond to institutional innovation and multilevel coordination. These two topics—proposed as standalone studies—will build on the identified gaps and translate them into actionable recommendations and comparative frameworks for other vulnerable territories in Latin America.

5. Conclusions

This final section summarizes the key findings of the study, outlines their implications for water policy and territorial planning, and highlights the main scientific contributions of the research. It also positions the study as a foundation for future empirical work and applied innovations in water governance.

5.1. Synthesis of Key Findings

This study shows that access to drinking water in the Piura region faces persistent inequalities that are not only infrastructural but also institutional and territorial. Three main factors underpin this problem: (1) territorial disparities in service continuity and quality; (2) structural barriers from institutional fragmentation and weak governance capacity; and (3) the limited scale and integration of innovation efforts. These factors reinforce each other, constraining progress toward universal, safe, and sustainable water access. In Piura, fragmented mandates, weak local oversight, and disconnected innovation initiatives hinder the adoption of internationally promoted solutions—such as IWRM or OECD-aligned coordination frameworks. Addressing these challenges requires reinterpreting technical solutions through localized governance dynamics, coupled with policy reform, capacity building, and territorial planning grounded in empirical realities.

5.2. Policy and Practical Implications

The evidence gathered in this study has clear implications for water governance policy and territorial development in Piura and similar regions. First, there is an urgent need to strengthen coordination mechanisms between national agencies (ANA, OTASS, SUNASS) and local service providers. Without aligned mandates, technical support, and shared monitoring systems, even well-designed policies often fail to improve service outcomes.

Second, the findings underscore the importance of localized planning. Municipal and regional authorities need greater autonomy and resources to adapt national frameworks to local realities. This includes investing in diagnostic tools, data infrastructure, and participatory mechanisms that integrate citizens and community organizations into decision-making.

Third, innovation efforts should shift from isolated pilot projects to scalable, policy-integrated initiatives. The Piura experience shows that partnerships among academia, local governments, and civil society can produce context-sensitive solutions. However, without institutional pathways for adoption and sustained funding, these innovations risk remaining peripheral.

Ultimately, achieving equitable and sustainable water access requires a dual commitment: addressing structural governance deficiencies and promoting locally grounded models that align policy with practice.

5.3. Scientific Contribution

This study contributes to the academic literature on water governance and sustainability by offering a territorially grounded analysis of drinking water challenges in northern Peru—an area that has received limited scholarly attention. Unlike national-level assessments or hydrological studies centered on the Andes or Amazon basin, this work addresses an empirical and conceptual gap by focusing on the institutional, infrastructural, and territorial dimensions that shape access to water in Piura. However, as it relies exclusively on secondary sources, the study cannot capture community-level dynamics, informal governance mechanisms, or perception dimensions—requiring complementary fieldwork for deeper analysis.

Methodologically, the study combines a structured review of high-quality scientific publications (Q1 and Q2) with validated institutional sources to construct a multi-scalar diagnostic. This approach bridges global frameworks—such as the OECD Principles on Water Governance and the IWRM paradigm—with the realities of decentralized service delivery and governance fragmentation. In doing so, it advances the application of sustainability science in fragile or unequal contexts.

Moreover, the identification of research gaps—particularly the absence of peer-reviewed evaluations of governance interventions—positions this paper as a foundation for subsequent empirical work. By identifying the governance and institutional barriers that undermine implementation in Piura, this diagnosis offers an entry point for designing and evaluating interventions that are both scalable and sustainable. Its analytical framing and typology of structural barriers may serve as a reference for future comparative studies in other Latin American regions facing similar territorial constraints.

As a foundational step in a broader research agenda, this study provides the analytical basis for future work on water governance innovation in northern Peru and other vulnerable territories across Latin America. By pinpointing structural deficiencies and institutional weaknesses, it paves the way for applied research that can inform scalable, inclusive, and resilient strategies tailored to fragile governance contexts.