Wastewater Management Strategies in Rural Communities Using Constructed Wetlands: The Role of Community Participation

Abstract

The lack of access to centralized technologies and economic resources in rural communities makes wastewater management a critical challenge. Decentralized systems such as constructed wetlands offer sustainable solutions by leveraging natural processes for effluent treatment. However, their success and sustainability require active community participation. Currently, there is little evidence of community involvement in the implementation, maintenance, and management of constructed wetlands. Existing strategies for community collaboration in environmental and sanitation projects were analyzed through a literature review covering research conducted in the last 20 years. Only peer-reviewed research in English and Spanish was considered. Based on the findings, a triple helix model integrating academia, government, and society is proposed, compiling the most functional strategies from initial awareness raising to maintenance and dissemination. A case study of community participation is presented under this approach in the Salvador Díaz Mirón rural community, Veracruz, Mexico. The results of this study provide key information for effective strategies designed to manage constructed wetlands, emphasizing that their success depends on both the technology and the genuine commitment of communities to their operation and long-term sustainability. Furthermore, these findings can serve as a reference for decision-makers and project planners seeking to integrate participatory models into decentralized sanitation and water resource conservation.

1. Introduction

While maintaining a close connection with nature and relying heavily on agricultural activities, rural communities are indispensable for the primary sector. Other characteristics, such as their low population density and distance from cities, make them belong to the secondary or tertiary sectors [1,2]. Despite their importance, these communities often lack basic services, including access to drinking water and wastewater treatment. The lack of adequate infrastructure for wastewater management contributes to environmental pollution and threatens public health. According to CONAGUA data for 2020 [3], in Mexico, only 10% of the wastewater generated in rural communities is directed to a single point, and of this, only 23% receives treatment, highlighting the vulnerability of these areas [4]. The United Nations suggests the need to address this problem efficiently [5].

There are several limitations to efficient wastewater treatment in rural communities, primarily geographical, economic, and population density. Housing dispersion and the lack of a single-point wastewater concentration have led to the exploration of tailored solutions to these conditions, such as decentralized approaches [6,7].

Decentralized treatments operate on-site without the need for chemicals or energy-providing equipment, nor do they require minimal maintenance [8]. These treatments do not depend on urban treatment plants and are particularly useful in rural areas where the distance between homes and the lack of infrastructure make the construction of conventional sewer networks unviable.

One of the most effective methods of decentralized treatment is the use of constructed wetlands, which mimic natural water filtration and purification processes [9]. In these systems, wastewater flows through a filter medium composed of gravel, sand, or organic material, while plants and microorganisms help remove contaminants through chemical and biological processes [10,11]. Their approach is not only efficient in reducing water pollution but also represents a low-cost and easy-to-maintain alternative compared to conventional systems. Furthermore, their application in rural communities in developing countries, especially in regions close to the tropics, is benefited by favorable environmental conditions, such as warm temperatures and extended periods of light radiation [12]. However, the successful implementation of constructed wetlands in rural communities goes beyond the technology itself. It requires the active and committed participation of the community in all stages of the process, from planning to ongoing maintenance. Constructed wetlands not only offer environmental benefits but also economic and social opportunities for local communities.

Community participation is positioned as an essential component for decentralized treatment projects success. Close collaboration among the community, wastewater treatment experts, and local authorities is presented as the key to maximizing benefits and ensuring long-term sustainability. Despite this, there is little evidence of community participation in decentralized treatment systems. However, their involvement has played a significant role in improving basic services such as housing, water, and the preservation of protected areas [13]. This study aims to compile existing knowledge on community participation in ecological treatment systems and analyze the strategies and challenges associated with their implementation in rural communities. A case study is presented using collaborative management among government, academia, and society.

2. Materials and Methods

A comprehensive search for studies using mixed approaches (quantitative and qualitative) was conducted in electronic databases (Scopus, Google Scholar, WOS, Web of Science, and ProQuest), in addition to a general Google search. The search terms were combinations of the keywords “Community participation” AND “Water treatment systems”, “Community participation” AND “Wastewater management”, “Community role”, “Water treatment technologies”, “Efficiency of constructed wetlands”, “Rural areas”, and “Community participation” AND “experiences.” These same words were entered into the Spanish databases.

Three eligibility criteria were applied to the inclusion of relevant studies:

• Studies must be written in English and Spanish and peer-reviewed.
• The included studies are within the search range from 2004 to December 2024.
• One of the previously mentioned keywords must be included in the search, as well as including community participation concepts in the development and conservation of constructed wetlands.

The aforementioned criteria have been established to include quality, peer-reviewed articles.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. The Importance of Community Participation in Environmental Management and Water Resource Conservation

In recent decades, community participation has emerged as an essential component of environmental management, being recognized as a fundamental element of social participation. This approach involves individuals within a community actively participating in decision-making related to the environment and local resources, thus promoting a sense of shared responsibility for the protection and sustainable management of the environment [14]. This participatory process not only seeks to maximize socioeconomic benefits for the communities involved, as noted by Aldegheishem et al. [15], but also seeks to empower community members, allowing them to have greater control over their environment and natural resources.

Until now, ignorance and lack of data have underestimated this tool’s potential, especially in areas such as water security [16], and even more so in research on wastewater management. However, community participation has been used to solve various problems, such as ecological preservation and conservation [17,18], forestry development [19,20], environmental impact assessment [21], watershed management [22,23], and others [24].

Studies have shown that sanitation and wastewater treatment systems can be more effective and sustainable when decision-making responsibility is shared with the community itself. In community treatment projects, the planning phase has been found to register high levels of participation, with 94.26% of the community involved in selecting the location and identifying system beneficiaries [25]. Furthermore, in the operation and maintenance phase, community ownership of the system has been strengthened, with 92.62% of residents assuming responsibility for solving problems without external support and 81.97% autonomously managing operating and maintenance funds. This level of commitment demonstrates that when the community is involved from the early stages of the process, wastewater treatment systems sustainability improves significantly.

Environmental education and awareness have been shown to be determining factors in strengthening community participation. A meta-analysis based on 16,420 samples revealed that age is the most positively correlated factor with willingness to engage in water management (R = 0.5462), followed by education (R = 0.4438) and environmental awareness (R = 0.4668), which is consistent with Meidiana et al. [26]. Similarly, studies in Inner Mongolia show that improving environmental awareness and establishing effective participation mechanisms are key factors in increasing social ownership of these systems [27]. In projects where the community has received training, an 81.15% improvement in the system’s maintenance capacity has been recorded, allowing for more autonomous and efficient management [25]. These findings reinforce the importance of implementing educational and awareness programs to promote social appropriation and ensure the success of decentralized sanitation projects. Transparency in decision-making and information accessibility have also been identified as key determinants in strengthening confidence in community water management [28].

While community participation initiatives have highlighted government limitations in providing basic housing and health services adequately due to human and financial resource constraints [29], they have also generated an information gap that has allowed the inclusion of community experiences, perceptions, and needs in the search for solutions to challenges, especially in developing countries where numerous environmental problems are faced, mainly those related to water pollution and the lack of wastewater sanitation.

Community participation plays a crucial role in environmental management by fostering a more inclusive, sustainable, and effective approach to addressing global environmental challenges. Its effective integration into public policies and environmental practices can help ensure the longevity of existing and planned wastewater sanitation infrastructure. This commitment is reflected in the protection and preservation of water resources, as well as in the promotion of more inclusive and sustainable development in rural communities.

3.2. Participatory Strategies for Wastewater Sanitation in Rural Communities

Rural communities can be defined based on different dimensions, highlighting the administrative, demographic, economic, social, cultural, and environmental dimensions, which vary depending on the country. A rural community is considered to be one with fewer than 2500 inhabitants [30]. This characteristic places these areas as “invisible” when addressing problems, especially in the management of drinking water and sanitation, unlike urban areas, as mentioned by Daniel et al. [31], who indicated that in 2017, 61 countries reported having supply and sanitation coverage gaps between rural and urban areas exceeding 20%.

Proper wastewater management in rural communities remains a considerable challenge, mainly due to the technical and financial limitations faced by developing country governments where these areas are located [32]. This includes the non-optimal application of centralized treatment since the costs generated by its implementation are high. Due to their geographical dispersion, these wastewaters are often released without prior treatment into nearby rivers, streams, or springs, as seen in Figure 1, making them extremely vulnerable. This practice has devastating consequences, as it affects the health of the local population, weakens the economy, and causes a negative impact on the surrounding ecosystem [33].

The lack of access to clean, quality water undermines efforts to meet the community’s basic needs, both socially and economically. This absence of wastewater treatment has resulted in a lack of significant progress in order to advance in terms of development levels.

It is common that, when faced with a problem in the community, residents show interest in collaborating to find solutions that generate shared benefits. This phenomenon is even more noticeable in rural populations, where unity and the creation of close ties are distinctive characteristics. Therefore, aspects such as dialog, consensus, cooperation, and planning are key aspects to consider for effective participation [34]. However, the residents perceptions, as well as the different social actors and their role in community participation, are unknown, and the evidence generated is scarce [35]. Several authors state that participatory processes in urban areas are different [36]. Due to the context and characteristics, the problems presented cannot be addressed in the same way, nor can the same participation strategies be used in rural communities.

Various studies have been conducted to implement or evaluate community participation strategies in rural areas. Some relevant studies are listed in

Table 1. Community participation strategies in rural communities under different contexts.

Participation Strategy	Actors	Application	Reference
Ecological assessment and indicator system	Local residents	Ecological development of rural communities	Zhao et al. [37]
Sports and leisure fields, annual community events, culture, informal volunteering, and community development	Retired and non-retired residents over 60 years of age	Improving adults’ life quality	Lengerer et al. [38]
Group meetings, storytelling, and recreational activities	Migrants	Social integration of migrants in urban areas	Zhang et al. [39]
Community surveillance	Local residents	Crime control and prevention in rural areas	Arisukwu et al. [40]
Infrastructure development through government support by means of financing sources	Local residents and government	Domestic wastewater treatment	Arifin & Leksono [41]
Local stakeholder committee creation	Local residents, government, and research center	Greywater management	Dalahmeh et al. [42]
Participatory, consultative, and collaborative approaches	Local residents	Community sanitation systems	Roma & Jeffrey [43]
Ecotourism development and income generation	Local residents and government	Wetlands conservation	Shrestha [44]
Marketing for ornamental plants produced in the wetland	Community women’s group	Wastewater treatment using constructed wetlands	Hernández Alarcón [45]
Problem identification through surveys and exploration	Local residents	Wastewater treatment	Hidayat et al. [46]

.

The aforementioned studies show a growing interest in various regions in encouraging the active participation of their inhabitants in projects, especially in the sanitation area, as it is closely linked to the residents’ health, as mentioned by Madon et al. [47], who highlight the importance of community participation in achieving sustainable health outcomes through adequate sanitation. This phenomenon is directly aligned with Target 6.b of Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6), which focuses on supporting and strengthening local and community participation to improve water and sanitation management. However, despite obtaining favorable results as participatory strategies, not all of them can be focused on wastewater sanitation in rural communities, as existing ones may lack motivation and awareness regarding sanitation systems, as well as training stages for their maintenance and monitoring.

On the other hand, it is worth mentioning that the government’s support and collaboration are necessary to strengthen the proposals and ensure the strategies function properly [48,49,50]. However, there is limited participation of educational institutions in community activities, both in the initial training stages and in ongoing monitoring, as well as in providing necessary support and guidance. This form of collaboration can be seen in Figure 2, where educational institutions provide knowledge for the implementation of government-funded sanitation projects, showing the participation of three important actors.

Regarding the strategies implemented, recreational activities stand out as a form of participation, as well as opinion group creation or collaboration committees. Based on the information obtained, it is useful to address the following point of consideration by stakeholders to improve participation strategies for wastewater sanitation in rural communities:

Community participation in wastewater sanitation involves the active collaboration of various actors, including society, government, and academia (educational institutions). Society plays a fundamental role as the direct beneficiary in water and sanitation quality improvement, as well as by contributing local knowledge and experiences to guide community actions. Government, on the other hand, provides resources, policies, and regulations that support community engagement initiatives, as well as the coordination and oversight of sanitation activities at the local, regional, and national levels, as defined by water governance [51]. In addition, academia provides research, technical expertise, and training to strengthen community capacities for sustainable water and sanitation management.

3.3. Constructed Wetlands: Key Factors in Design and Operation in Rural Areas

Constructed wetlands have emerged as a nature-based solution that can treat different effluents through chemical, physical, and biological processes [52]. Therefore, they are considered an economically viable option for adaptation in rural areas, as they address the challenges of decentralized treatment [53].

The sustainability and functionality of constructed wetlands in rural communities also depend on the technical design and operational parameters that influence treatment efficiency. A well-designed constructed wetland can optimize pollutant removal, facilitate maintenance, and improve social acceptance among the local population [54]. It is essential to understand the key factors that influence the effectiveness and sustainability of constructed wetlands in rural areas, highlighting hydraulic configuration, vegetation selection, substrate composition, hydraulic retention time, and maintenance strategies [55,56,57].

3.3.1. Hydraulic Configuration and Flow Type

There are many classifications of constructed wetlands (CW), and design is one of the most important factors, as the disposal process depends on their characteristics. Free-flowing shallow constructed wetlands (CW-FWS) are characterized by emergent vegetation and a water depth of 20 to 40 cm. They are notable for their efficient removal of organic matter and the settling of colloidal particles. Their most common use is for the treatment of diffuse water pollution [58]. That is, pollution that does not originate from a specific point source.

Subsurface flow wetlands consist of gravel beds or filter media planted with emergent wetland vegetation [59]. Wastewater flows through the filter media, simulating the processes of natural wetlands but in more controlled environments. These systems are the most suitable option for rural wastewater treatment due to their low energy consumption and minimal investment [60]. In horizontal subsurface flow wetlands (HF-CW), organic compounds are degraded primarily by microbial degradation under anoxic or anaerobic conditions due to the absence of oxygen in the system’s cells. In the case of vertical flow subsurface wetlands (VF-CW), they were designed to improve aerobic conditions, which are enhanced by their design and operating conditions [61]. As wastewater flows vertically from the top to the bottom, it promotes organic matter mineralization and improves nitrification at the same time.

3.3.2. Vegetation Selection and Its Role in Pollutant Removal

The vegetation used in CWs plays a fundamental role in their treatment efficiency, as it contributes to the absorption of pollutants, oxygenates the rhizosphere, and stabilizes sediments. Furthermore, its influence on hydrological performance improves the response capacity to rainfall events and reduces clogging of soil bio-retention media [62,63]. Vegetation selection should consider local adaptability, tolerance to high pollutant loads, and biomass productivity.

Among the most widely used species, Phragmites spp. stands out for its pathogen reduction [64] and heavy metal accumulation efficiency of 59% [65]. Other studies, such as that of Liu et al. [66], have identified that species such as Alternanthera philoxeroides and Zizania latifolia can achieve accumulation efficiencies of 69.7% for Cd, Pb, and Zn. Likewise, Typha latifolia has been widely studied [67] given its high biomass accumulation capacity and efficiency in removing nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen from municipal wastewater.

More recent research has incorporated the use of ornamental plants. A study by García-Ávila et al. [68] points out that, since 2011, the publications on this topic have increased, highlighting Mexico as the most active country in research related to the use of ornamental plants planted in constructed wetlands. Among the species of ornamental plants used for the treatment of wastewater in rural areas, Canna hybrids, Zantedeschia aethiopica, Alpinia purpurata, Hedychium coronarium, Heliconia psittacorum, and Strelitzia reginae stand out, among others [69,70,71,72], in which efficiencies above 80% have been found for BDO₅, COD, TN, and TP. The incorporation of these species has not only improved the landscape incorporation but also the community perception and social acceptance.

3.3.3. Filter Media Selection and Contaminant Removal Efficiency

Filter media selection plays a fundamental role in water purification efficiency in CW. Several studies have evaluated different materials, such as zeolite, gravel, limestone, clay minerals, industrial byproducts, and even recycled products [56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73]. Filter substrates or media can remove organic contaminants through adsorption and retention, provided there is proper interaction between the substrate and the vegetation used [74]. For nitrogen removal, several authors recommend high-porosity substrates, as this allows for efficient oxygenation of the CW, resulting in removal rates of up to 39% [75]. A low dissolved oxygen (DO) content hinders the nitrification process, which inhibits efficient nitrogen removal. Phosphorus removal efficiency has reached 87% when using the substrate, as it is removed through physical adsorption and chemical precipitation processes [76]. pH is a key indicator of phosphorus removal. Some authors suggest a strong positive relationship between high pH and lower phosphorus concentrations in water [77].

One of the most recurring challenges in CW substrates is clogging. Clogging is the accumulation of organic matter within the substrate and is considered the main operational and maintenance risk in CW. In oxygen-depleted environments, there is a greater potential for long-term environmental damage, in addition to poor hydraulic system efficiency [78]. According to Fu et al. [79], in order to reduce the problem of organic matter accumulation, it is necessary to determine the contained components biodegradability. In addition, it is advisable to place previous treatments before entering the wastewater into the CW system [4].

In rural areas, the choice of filter media should consider costs in addition to filtration capacity [80]. In small communities, access to certain substrates can be an economic limitation. Therefore, the use of existent materials in the application area is recommended.

The correct selection of elements not only maximizes contaminant removal efficiency but also improves system stability and adaptability to local conditions. The incorporation of native and ornamental vegetation in particular has proven to be an effective strategy for strengthening community perception and social acceptance. Furthermore, substrate optimization and management allow for a stable treatment process and minimize- the required maintenance.

3.3.4. Challenges to Be Addressed So as to Improve Wastewater Treatment in Rural Communities

Constructed wetlands offer significant advantages in rural wastewater treatment primarily due to their low investment and operating costs, representing a suitable alternative for developing countries facing severe pollution problems and limited access to economic resources [52]. However, existing challenges affecting their efficiency and long-term sustainability must be addressed.

Among the main factors requiring attention is land availability. High costs of the land can limit the adoption of CWs in urban areas with high population density [81]. However, their implementation in rural areas represents an advantage, as these regions often have available land due to low population density and the prevalence of recurrent agricultural activities [82]. However, it is essential to ensure that the selected spaces are not subject to irregular processes and are free of both agricultural and housing conflicts. It is necessary to explore strategies to optimize the design and reduce the required area.

Another limitation is climatic variability. This influences the stability and efficiency of CWs directly [83], especially in full-scale systems. Seasonal factors such as external temperatures, prolonged droughts, and intense rainfall can affect the removal of organic matter and nutrients [84]. In cold climate regions, microbial activity can be reduced [85], while in prolonged drought areas, there may be a reduction in flow causing substrate dehydration and vegetation loss. In addition, high temperatures cause environments with low DO contents; the optimal temperatures for bacterial development are between 20 and 30 °C [86,87]. In areas with intense rainfall, the increase in hydraulic load can reduce the hydraulic retention time (HRT) and decrease the pollutant removal efficiency [88]. This is because the longer the wastewater is retained in the wetland, the more contaminating nutrients will be removed. Future lines of research suggest evaluating climatological parameters simultaneously [89], in addition to establishing long-term evaluation of real-scale systems, in order to establish climate and seasonality influence on pollutant elimination in tropical climates.

Maintenance is a key factor for CW success; however, the available information on maintenance processes is limited [90]. New lines of research suggest, in addition to improving technology, the development of effective maintenance strategies to be essential in order to ensure the systems sustainability and efficiency. Turon et al. [91] identified the variability of procedures from one CW to another and proposed an Environmental Decision Support System based on five steps: 1. Problem analysis, 2. Data collection and knowledge acquisition, 3. Model selection, 4. Model implementation, and 5. Validation. The authors suggest the use of basic tools for this monitoring, such as the monitoring notebook and the operation manual, where the system’s design characteristics and sensitivity conditions of the receiving environment are mainly taken into account. In another study carried out by Carty et al. [92], recommendations are mentioned for each of the integrated elements in CWs, such as vegetation maintenance, pipe maintenance, drainage, effluent monitoring, and access and security control. Aydın Temel et al. [93] suggest that pre-treatment systems should be changed and constantly monitored and the filter media should be regenerated. In general, most studies refer to including periodic inspections, sediment accumulation control, vegetation monitoring, and measures to prevent system clogging.

In addition to maintenance, it is essential to consider the environmental effects that arise over time in CWs. These systems can experience soil changes, sediment accumulation, and alterations in aquatic ecosystems, which require mitigation strategies and continuous monitoring.

Table 2. Long-term implications of constructed wetlands and recommended sustainability measures.

Evaluated Aspect	Long-Term Implications	Sustainability Measures	Reference
Land impact	Permeability reduction, affecting the structural stability of the CW	Good structural stability selections and substrate rehabilitation	Purnawanti et al. [25]
Sediments and organic matter accumulation	Severe obstruction due to excessive sediment and organic matter accumulation	Periodic cleaning, vegetation control, and filter media regeneration	Kadlec & Wallace [94]
Sediment movement and subsurface contamination	Contaminants released are trapped in the substrate affecting groundwater quality	Implementation of leachate pretreatment and monitoring systems	Ding et al. [27]
Phosphorus and heavy metals release	Massive release of phosphorus and heavy metals into the water	Use of high absorption capacity materials and substrate programmed regeneration	Vymazal [65]
Organic matter and iron residue interaction	Alteration of microbial composition and variations in nutrient bioavailability	Iron and organic matter level evaluation to avoid adverse effects on the microbiota	Zhao et al. [28]
Changes in aquatic biodiversity	Endangered species displacement and biodiversity reduction	Ecological restoration and vegetation diversification used in wetlands	Vymazal [58]
Anoxic conditions generation	Severe anoxic conditions that reduce system efficiency	Optimization of natural aeration and DO monitoring	McConville & Mihelcic [95]

presents a summary of these long-term effects, along with measures to ensure their sustainability.

Constructed wetlands long-term success depends on the ability to address these challenges through appropriate design, adaptation strategies to changing environmental conditions, and effective community management schemes such as system financing and regulation. These systems implementation must consider not only technical aspects but also the social, economic, and environmental factors that influence their acceptance and operation, promoting a comprehensive approach that ensures their operational viability and environmental benefits in rural communities.

3.4. Managing Constructed Wetlands in Rural Areas Through Community Participation

Despite significant advances in this technology, there is a deficiency in community participation strategies, from the planning phase to the systems’ maintenance. This has led to abandonment cases and total or partial deterioration of constructed wetlands [45], as well as resource underutilization that these ecosystems could provide. Relevant aspects such as lack of knowledge and a sense of belonging are evident. According to a study by Chan et al. [96], other reasons that contribute to this problem are mentioned, such as the population’s complete lack of trust in the government to address the issue, which makes them feel that their participation is unnecessary. Furthermore, the constant occupations of residents also play an important role. Evidence generation is necessary to promote participation, which will strengthen the systems’ resilience and sustainability. However, various studies and pilot projects have documented cases where constructed wetlands have failed completely or partially due to a lack of effective community engagement strategies and technical support.

Table 3. Cases of constructed and natural wetlands with documented deterioration or risk of abandonment.

Community/Project	Location (Country)	Type of Wetland	Installation Year	Current State	Participation Opportunities	Identified Risk Factors	Reference
Pinoltepec	Veracruz, Mexico	Constructed	2012	In operation (high risk)	Participatory maintenance, community committee establishment, ongoing training	Dependence on external actors, low community ownership, lack of clear maintenance rules	Pedraza López [97]
Xalapa Urban Wetlands (Molinos de San Roque, Huemac, and Los Lagos)	Xalapa, Mexico	Natural	-	In operation (high risk)	Ecological restoration, community monitoring, environmental educational workshops, possible integration of constructed wetlands to improve water quality	Fragmentation, wastewater pollution, eutrophication, high flood risk, lack of knowledge, and community ownership	Martínez-Salazar et al. [98]
Wetland in the Second Section of Chapultepec Forest	Mexico City, Mexico	Constructed	2023	Abandoned	Citizen monitoring, coordination of actions among the community, academia, and government	Lack of maintenance after change in government, disarticulation of responsible actors, institutional abandonment	Reforma [99]
Lamiako Wetland	Leioa, Spain	Natural	-	In serious deterioration (risk of disappearance)	Ecological restoration, citizen monitoring, collaboration with universities and NGOs	Fragmentation by urban development projects, biodiversity loss, associated ecosystems alteration, and lack of effective protection	Ecologistas en Acción [100]
La Conejera Wetland	Bogota, Colombia	Natural	-	In deterioration (partial abandonment)	Participatory ecological restoration, community processes strengthening, environmental educational programs	Urban expansion, wastewater pollution, vegetation cover alteration, weakening of citizen participation, lack of effective surveillance	Razón Pública [101]

presents documented examples of constructed and natural wetlands that, despite their potential, have faced abandonment or significant deterioration due to social, economic, and organizational causes.

The reported cases analysis shows that the lack of sustainability in constructed and natural wetlands happens not only due to technical or financial limitations but also because of an absence of a collaborative management model that articulates academia, government, and the local community effectively. It is relevant to apply the Triple Helix Model, which is generally used to merge the university-industry-government relationship as an operational strategy to promote the development of knowledge-based economies that have evolved and adapted to social and environmental contexts [102]. This has allowed universities and other knowledge-producing organizations to play a fundamental role not only in the generation of scientific knowledge but also in the development of collaborative processes with the government and society to promote sustainable strategies.

Table 4. Triple helix model of community engagement strategies.

Actor		Action/Stage	Strategy
Community	Academia	Raise community awareness through environmental education mechanisms	1. Identify priorities 2. Space creation for conversation and debate
		Group creation	1. Identify problems 2. Participative evaluation
		Community action plan	1. Selection of treatment technology 2. Identify skills
	Government	Implementation	1. Responsibilities assignment 2. Financial resources contribution 3. Self-employment
		Maintenance and monitoring	1. Continuous surveillance plan 2. Communication networks 3. Maintenance manuals
		Diffussion	1. Environmental awareness 2. Income-generating activities 3. Ecotourism

presents a proposal detailing the community engagement stages focused on wastewater sanitation, considering the three main actors mentioned above. The strategies included have been adapted from recommendations in the reviewed literature, with specific contributions from Roma & Jeffrey [43], Shrestha [44], Hidayat et al. [46], and Hernández Alarcón [45]. These strategies were organized following the triple helix model and selected after analyzing their application in documented case studies.

It is important to highlight that, under this approach, society and local communities are central actors, as they interact and actively participate in all the stages described. The integration of academia and government does not replace community leadership but rather strengthens their capacities, promotes social ownership, and fosters a model of shared co-responsibility, where environmental, social, and economic sustainability is a common goal.

3.4.1. Success Story: Thematic Ornamental Constructed Wetland, Salvador Díaz Mirón Rural Community, Veracruz, Mexico

The ornamental constructed wetland developed in Salvador Díaz Mirón, which is a rural community located in the mountainous area of the municipality of Misantla, Veracruz, with 1042 inhabitants, represents a concrete example of how the triple helix model can be applied to the community management of decentralized sanitation systems, ensuring the integration of academia, government, and the community in a collaborative process that strengthens the system’s sustainability. The key stages and each stakeholder’s participation are described below, following the triple helix structure adapted to the context of constructed wetlands.

Community Assessment and Awareness

The first stage consisted of a participatory assessment of local issues related to domestic wastewater management, using the collaborative governance approach promoted by the triple helix model. The academy, through the Misantla Higher Technological Institute, conducted systematic sampling of water quality in receiving bodies and assessed the pollution load of untreated domestic wastewater discharges. Awareness workshops were held by wastewater treatment experts to inform the community about the benefits of implementing sustainable technologies (Figure 3). Recognizing the environmental and health impacts associated with pollution, the community expressed its willingness to collaborate in the search for sustainable alternatives based on the sociocultural and productive conditions of the region. This process began in January 2022.

Collaborative Planning and Design

During the planning phase, the collaborative approach among stakeholders allowed the definition of a nature-based solution (NBS) adapted to the local context. The academy proposed the installation of an ornamental constructed wetland, integrating technical treatment criteria and considering the incorporation of native and ornamental plant species with ecosystem and landscape value. The municipal government, in its role as facilitator and manager, coordinated the financial resource procurement through the Veracruz Ministry of the Environment, securing funding of $25,000 in 2022 for project implementation. The community contributed to the co-design process, suggesting that the wetland spatial arrangement adopt the shape of a coffee bean as shown in Figure 4, thus representing the local coffee identity and promoting social appropriation by integrating cultural values into the technical design. Although modifications to the design occurred during the construction process, the aim was to preserve the essence of the initial proposal. A horizontal flow subsurface wetland system and a free-flow cell were implemented, and a sedimentation tank was used as primary treatment. Ornamental plants such as Alocasia odora, Hedychium coronarium, Heliconia psittacorum, Zantedeschia aethiopica, and Canna indica were integrated.

Joint Construction and Implementation

The construction of the wetland was the result of a collaborative implementation process, which consolidated the interaction among academia, government, and the community. The academy provided technical advice on excavation, substrate selection, vegetation establishment, and hydraulic configuration of the system, in addition to holding training workshops for the community on the wetland’s operation and objectives. The municipal government facilitated the provision of machinery, materials, and operating personnel, ensuring compliance with local regulations. The community participated in site preparation, as shown in Figure 5a–d, vegetation planting (Figure 6), labor collaboration sessions, and the delimitation of protected areas, thus strengthening its sense of ownership and generating a social foundation for the system’s future maintenance.

Operation, Maintenance, and Participatory Monitoring

To strengthen the wetland operational sustainability, a participatory monitoring and maintenance scheme was developed, adapted to local capacities. The academy developed simplified operation and maintenance manuals, as well as a community monitoring protocol focused on recording basic water quality parameters (Figure 7), which were analyzed in the Wetlands and Environmental Sustainability Laboratory of the Instituto Tecnológico Superior de Misantla to verify compliance with Mexican wastewater discharge regulations [103]. In

Table 5. Results of parameters evaluated in the system in compliance with the Official Mexican Standard. NOM-001-SEMARNAT-2021. Average ± Error. n = 24.

Parameter	Unit	Influent	Effluent	Allowed Value	Accordance
pH	pH unit	6.35	7.15	6–9	Fulfills
COD	mg/L	375.24 ± 11.14	27.052 ± 5.22	150	Fulfills
NT	mg/L	38.50 + 5.78	15.4 ± 2.45	25	Fulfills
TP	mg/L	18.55 ± 1.47	5.92 ± 2.60	15	Fulfills

, a water quality assessment report is presented, detailing its compliance with the current regulations.

In addition, students from all levels, including undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral degrees, were involved in maintenance and timely monitoring. The municipal government, through its environmental department, promoted the creation of a community maintenance committee, responsible for coordinating periodic cleaning, replanting, and surveillance activities. The community, organized through this committee, assumed joint responsibility for daily operations, facilitating the timely detection of incidents and strengthening local capacities for adaptive wetland management.

Dissemination and Social Appropriation

The process and results obtained in Salvador Díaz Mirón were documented by academia as a case of collaborative governance in decentralized sanitation. They have been presented in academic forums and environmental outreach events, as well as ongoing workshops for children and young people (Figure 8a). The municipal government has promoted the wetland as a replicable model for other rural communities, integrating it into its local environmental education strategy. From the community level, the community committee has promoted environmental awareness activities in local schools and organized guided tours, highlighting the wetland as an educational, recreational, and conservation space (Figure 8b), thus consolidating its eco-systemic and social value within the community dynamic.

3.5. Future Prospects and Challenges for Community Participation in Decentralized Treatment Management

Community participation is essential in decentralized treatment management because it improves the systems’ efficiency and sustainability. When local communities are involved in the planning, implementation, and maintenance of treatment systems, their sense of ownership and responsibility for water resources increases. Authors such as Hidayat et al. [46] mention that the success of wastewater management and treatment infrastructure development is primarily due to the correct selection of technology and organization, and this largely depends on social approaches such as community participation. Success stories from around the world have demonstrated that active community participation can lead to more effective and adaptive resource management, primarily driven by environmental conservation.

3.5.1. Technical, Economic, and Social Challenges

Community participation in decentralized treatment management faces several challenges. One of the main obstacles is the lack of knowledge and technical training in local communities. Without a proper understanding of how these systems work and their benefits, it is difficult to mobilize active and sustained participation. Furthermore, economic barriers represent a significant challenge, as many communities, especially in low-income regions, lack the necessary financial resources to adopt and maintain adequate decentralized infrastructure [104], which in many cases has led to project failure. Likewise, there are social and cultural barriers that can limit community participation, such as a lack of social cohesion or gender inequalities, which make it difficult to include all members in decision-making.

Financing is a key aspect in the viability of constructed wetlands in rural areas. Although these systems represent a smaller investment compared to conventional treatments, they require an initial expenditure that must be subsidized by the government or assumed by the community. Furthermore, costs are not limited to installation but require ongoing financial support to ensure their maintenance and functionality [105].

Among the difficulties in accessing subsidies are complex technical bureaucratic procedures, a lack of adequate advice, and inflexible contracts that make it difficult to monitor and ensure funding sustainability [106]. Another significant barrier is the absence of a legal framework to facilitate the implementation of these systems [107]. It is essential that constructed wetlands be recognized within environmental regulations and integrated into rural development plans, which would allow access to specific funds for decentralized sanitation and ensure their proper implementation.

3.5.2. Emerging Innovations and Technologies

Technological innovations offer new opportunities to overcome some of the challenges associated with community participation in decentralized treatment management. Information and communication technologies are increasingly becoming a means of communication for water resource management [108], so their application supports providing communities with access to vital information on water resource management and enabling greater coordination and collaboration. Decentralized systems can be very well accepted by residents when they are clearly informed of their objectives and advantages, including economic ones [109], and communication technologies are a very useful communication tool.

3.5.3. Governance Models and Public Policies

To foster community participation in decentralized treatment management, it is necessary to develop collaborative governance models that promote inclusion and collaboration. Currently, legal frameworks lack clear participation objectives, limiting governance outcomes [110]. Public policies should focus on creating an enabling environment for community participation. While local-level policies reshape the rules to foster participation, they can do little to change the sociocultural environment and communication habits within society [111].

A successful approach may be the implementation of collaborative governance models, where local authorities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and communities work together to address environmental problems [112], including water resource management. These models may include the creation of community-level water management committees, where community members play an active role in decision-making and oversight of treatment systems.

3.5.4. Sustainability and Resilience

The sustainability of decentralized treatment systems depends largely on community participation. Casey [113] argues that effective decentralization requires changing power structures and improving community participation. In rural communities, these aspects need to be developed due to limited knowledge and a significant gap in the acceptance of treatment systems. Future research should focus on attitudes and behaviors toward decentralized water systems to develop specific policies that strengthen these systems resilience [114].

3.5.5. Education and Awareness

Education and awareness are essential to promote community participation in decentralized treatment systems management [103]. However, the mechanisms currently employed have not been adequate. Motivation for treatment systems that emphasize ownership and responsibilities is required.

Environmental education programs can help communities understand the importance of treatment systems and the benefits they can offer. Furthermore, technical training can empower community members to actively participate in system management and maintenance.

Awareness-raising initiatives that involve all segments of the community, including women and young people, can be particularly effective. These initiatives not only increase knowledge and technical capacity but also foster a sense of shared responsibility [14] for water resources and the environment in general.

Although significant challenges exist, such as a lack of technical knowledge, economic barriers [104], and social and cultural constraints, technological innovations and collaborative governance models [112] offer new opportunities to overcome these obstacles.

Maximizing the benefits of community engagement requires investment in education and training, developing public policies that promote inclusion and collaboration, and adopting adaptive management strategies that increase system resilience. With a holistic approach that integrates technical, social, and political aspects, it is possible to create decentralized treatment systems that are not only effective and sustainable but also empower communities and improve their quality of life.

4. Conclusions

Constructed wetlands are an effective and sustainable alternative for decentralized wastewater treatment in rural communities. However, their long-term success depends on community participation and institutional support. This study highlights the importance of collaborative governance, environmental education, and ongoing funding as key factors for their sustainability. Based on the analysis, the following findings stand out:

• Community participation is an important tool in constructed wetlands management. In the planning phase, 94.26% of residents were found to participate in the site selection and beneficiary selection. However, in the construction phase, participation drops to 32.79%, highlighting the need for training and technical support.
• Rural communities face structural barriers. Lack of funding, limited technical advice, and the absence of regulations hinder the implementation and sustainability of these systems.
• Long-term sustainability depends on community ownership. Of the total number of residents, 92.62% are responsible for maintenance, and 81.97% manage operating funds. Without stable funding, systems can deteriorate or be abandoned.
• Low participation compromises system functionality. A lack of ongoing involvement can lead to infrastructure deterioration, reducing its treatment capacity and ecosystem benefits.
• Environmental education and community monitoring are essential. Awareness increases social ownership and improves operational efficiency. Technology facilitates participatory monitoring, ensuring long-term sustainability.
• Funding must cover the entire system life cycle. It should not be limited to installation but should be guaranteed for maintenance, monitoring, and rehabilitation. It is key to establish regulations that facilitate approval and ensure that institutions are more accessible and flexible in their support processes.
• Collaborative governance is essential. The triple helix model (academia, government, and society) distributes responsibilities equitably, promoting community resilience and constructed wetlands sustainability.

Future research is recommended to analyze the effectiveness of different governance models, sustainable financing schemes, and the impact of community participation on the functionality of constructed wetlands. An interdisciplinary and adaptive approach will consolidate these systems as a viable alternative for sanitation in rural communities, ensuring their long-term success.