WES CoP Roadmap

“Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.”

– Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner

Click on the links below or scroll down to learn more about each topic

Communities of Practice (CoPs) played a vital role in connecting wastewater surveillance practitioners in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, fostering equitable access to critical information and resources as they rapidly established surveillance programs and innovated in real time. Well-structured CoPs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) could provide similar support for practitioners within local and regional governments, institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and private entities wishing to initiate and sustain wastewater and environmental surveillance (WES) programs.

This roadmap guides you through the primary considerations for planning and initiating a CoP for WES in low-resource settings. The information shared here is based on the document, Communities of Practice for Wastewater and Environmental Surveillance in Low-resource settings: Approaches for Implementation, authored by the Water Environment Federation, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Association of Public Health Laboratories. Click here to download: 2024-11-22-CoPs-for-WES-in-Low-Resource-Settings.pdf

Considerations before starting a CoP

back to top

“There is no recipe for a successful community of practice, no single approach that will guarantee a successful outcome. In this sense, there are no correct or incorrect ways to convene a community of practice. The point is to form a sustained learning partnership that creates value for members and their organization and is responsive to their needs and aspirations; it is not to comply with a formula. Each community of practice will be unique and reflect all at once the DNA of the organization, the specificity of the domain, and the participation of its members.” 

– Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023

Implementing a CoP

“The essential ingredient of a community’s success is the active participation of members, who find value in the activities of the community. Their community is a place to “talk shop” and learn from each other’s experience. They contribute to and benefit from its collective learning because it helps them address real challenges they face in their day-to-day lives.”

– Wenger-Trayner et al., 2023

Considerations before starting a CoP

Facilitators and leadership

Before developing a CoP, identify a facilitator and leadership group (i.e. advisory committee). The facilitator is an organization or individual responsible for the administrative aspects of the CoP, such as setting agendas and steering the discussions. The leadership group provides strategic direction for the CoP. The leadership group should include members representing each of the parties involved in the CoP. Together, the facilitator and leadership group are responsible for setting the initial structure and guidelines for the CoP by determining the scale, goals, and operations. A team charter may be helpful to document these decisions and guide the CoP as it grows.

CoP scale and organizational approach

Who should make up the CoP? The leadership group will need to decide the scale of the CoP, which could be local, provincial/state, national, or regional. They also need to define its organizational structure. These choices will depend on the needs of the CoP identified by the leadership group. Placing boundaries around who can participate as a CoP member will support effective mission and goal setting.

CoP organization options

There are many ways a WES CoP could be organized. Here are a few example structures that the leadership group might consider:

  • Geographic region (local, national, or regional scale) – this approach may be helpful for encouraging common features among members, including cultural considerations, language, climate, regulations, and target priorities. A local area CoP would likely have more commonalities between participants, while a larger scale regional CoP that may include various countries would have more variation in features but would also allow for more perspectives.  

  • Practice domain – separate CoPs may be set up for laboratories, utilities/water and sanitation service providers, ministries of health/health departments and/or industries involved in WES. This approach allows each group to share knowledge around unique experiences, initiatives, challenges, and solutions with others in their specific field of work. In the United States, the National Wastewater Surveillance System (NWSS) CoPs are organized by practice domain, with three CoPs: health departments, laboratories, utilities. Other types of contributors such as academics and NGOs may also benefit from a CoP, which could foster interdisciplinary discussions, promote research partnerships, and increase the practical application of surveillance findings.

  • Implementation experience – a CoP could be structured based on participants’ WES implementation experience and their need or interest in developing additional capabilities. This could either be for the CoP in its entirety or as a sub-group within a CoP preliminarily organized in a different way. These categorizations could include no experience implementing WES and no WES systems in place, foundational or early stages of implementation, and well-established surveillance programs (which can, if appropriate, be further divided). This approach allows for discussions and resource sharing around progress and challenges tailored to the specific stage of implementation. For example, it may be helpful for a regional CoP to exist between countries that are at similar stages of WES as these countries may be facing the same challenges.

  • Topic area / targets – a WES CoP could be organized around a topic area or target(s) such as specific pathogens, emerging contaminants, or monitoring methods. The shared focus and interest may foster innovation and support participants in honing expertise in specific fields of WES. A one-pathogen focus could limit a national-level CoP, but if the focus is on too many pathogens, it could become unmanageable, and participants could become disengaged. Due to funding limitations, a CoP may begin with a focus on one target, as has been the case with SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic. As surveillance targets expand to multiple targets, the CoP leadership group can consider growing the CoP focus to reflect the same. 

Mission and goals

A clear mission statement briefly describes the purpose of an organization and will ensure that the overall aim and values of the group are clear to the facilitators, leaders, and members. Here is an example:

“The mission of this CoP is to advance judicious use of wastewater and environmental surveillance as a complementary surveillance tool by fostering collaborative research and knowledge exchange among experts in the field, with the aim of enhancing public health through the targeted monitoring of specific pathogens and application of innovative surveillance methods, thereby contributing to a safer and more sustainable community.”

Along with a mission statement, setting goals for the CoP will help it to maintain momentum by providing participants with achievable milestones, encouraging on-going engagement and enthusiasm. For a WES CoP, goals will likely focus on how the CoP can best serve participants and foster the community, considering the COP’s experience with and capacity for WES.

CoP operations

After establishing the mission and goals of the CoP, the next step is to determine how the CoP will operate. This includes identifying the preferred meeting and/or discussion platform, as applicable, securing funding, and outlining recruitment strategies.

  • Platform – select an appropriate platform for hosting CoP interactions to maximize accessibility, interactivity, and effectiveness of the CoP. Consider the CoP goals, which may include facilitating discussions, hosting webinars, and/or sharing documents, as well as bandwidth requirements, data security, and language capabilities. Here are some characteristics to look for when choosing a platform:
    • File storage, organization, and sharing
    • Ability to hold and record meetings (including meeting attendance capacity and call length restrictions, if applicable)
    • Usage capacity with limited internet bandwidth
    • Real-time translation features
    • How widely it is used, which impacts how familiar people are with it and how easy it is to use
    • Mobile usage capability
    • Upfront cost and continuous fees
  • Funding and sustainability – funding needs for a CoP may vary depending on the staffing hours, platform(s) used, and plans for in-person meetings. Consider budgeting for facilitators and leaders’ person-time to plan, organize, and run the CoP. In-person meetings can foster engagement, but are costly. Take advantage of other meetings and conferences that many CoP members may already be planning to attend, scheduling side-meetings for in-person CoP interactions. Create a budget outlining the anticipated costs and think through contingency plans for unexpected expenses or funding cuts. When identifying a funding source, consider how the CoP might operate in the long term and the feasibility of sustained funding. CoP funding could come from organizational budgets, grants, or sponsorships. If possible, diversify the funding streams to prevent vulnerability and reliance on a single funding source. 
  • Recruitment – defining CoP membership criteria, such as qualifications, interests, or affiliations, to align with the goals of the CoP will ensure commonalities among participants and foster community. However, being open to including members with different backgrounds and diverse perspectives may also bring value to the CoP, and it’s important to find a balance between the criteria and flexibility. During the recruitment process, communicate the CoP’s mission and goals with prospective members so they have a clear understanding of what the CoP aims to achieve, how they can contribute to the goals, and what they could gain from the CoP. Also communicate expectations for engagement and participation so that potential members understand the level of commitment required, such as attending meetings, contributing to discussions, sharing knowledge, or other expectations that contribute to the CoP’s mission. It may also be helpful to outline the benefits of CoP membership and explain how participants can gain knowledge and understanding from their involvement through access to valuable resources, networking opportunities or other CoP benefits. Before recruitment begins, establish a clear recruitment process.

Implementing a CoP

Contextual knowledge

Understanding the WES landscape in the CoP region will help the CoP leadership group to better support members. The CoP leadership group may find the following questions helpful to better understand how WES has been implemented in the region.

    • Where have WES programs been implemented? If unsure, begin by checking these resources:
      • Wastewater SPHERE
      • COVIDPoops19
      • Local academics and research institutions
      • Relevant local, regional, and national governmental bodies, which may include health departments, sewerage boards, and Ministries of Health, Water, and Environment
    • Which pathogen(s) or non-infectious targets have been tracked? Are there plans for expansion to other targets? What are the priority targets for WES?
    • Who has been involved in the WES work? Who are the key organizations and individuals? Would a stakeholder assessment be useful for better understanding who is involved, who should be involved, and how each organization should be involved?
    • For how long was the WES conducted? Is it ongoing?
    • What types of sources have been sampled (wastewater, fecal sludge, surface water)?
    • What types of samples were collected (grab, composite, passive) and at what frequency?
    • Which laboratories have been involved in the testing?
    • Who has access to the data? Is it publicly available?
    • Was the WES data integrated or compared with public health data or other data? How?
    • How has the data been used? What were the public health actions resulting from surveillance work?
    • Is any of the work ongoing? Are there plans for expanding ongoing WES work?
    • How was the WES work funded? Is the funding ongoing?
    • What challenges have WES practitioners faced?

If WES has not yet been conducted in the region, see How to start a WES program.

Methods for WES will vary across geographical regions, due to differences in sanitation systems, resources, cultural practices, and targets of interest. Because most WES research and practice has been conducted in high-income countries within predominantly sewered sanitation systems, knowledge gaps currently exist, particularly related to sampling from non-sewered systems. Identifying knowledge gaps and collaborating with local researchers and WES practitioners to address these gaps can provide valuable region-specific support to CoP members. The following are examples of knowledge gaps that may be beneficial to address within LMICs, primarily utilizing non-sewered sanitation:

  • As fecal sludge is highly variable, are there certain types of fecal sludge that can or cannot be sampled? (pit latrine, composting toilet, septic tank, etc.). Which targets can be identified in the different types of fecal sludge?
  • How do sample collection methods vary for different types of fecal sludge?
  • How do grab samples compare to other sample types? Are there ways to make grab samples more representative?
  • How do non-sewage additives (e.g. ash, husks, wash water, trash) impact samples from pit latrines and other fecal sludge storage chambers?
  • When sampling from a fecal sludge storage chamber, from what depth should the sample be collected? How do you collect samples that represent the most recent fecal contributions? How do we know if a sample is representative of multiple users as opposed to a single user? Is it possible to estimate a date of when the sludge was produced?
  • Does the fecal sludge storage chamber emptying interval impact the viability or other characteristics of samples?
  • What are best practices for identifying the population represented by the sample, without identifying specific individuals?
  • Can samples from schools, hospitals, or other institutional settings be used as a proxy for community trends, particularly in locations where non-communal, non-sewered sanitation is prevalent? Are there certain communal sanitation locations that are most representative in terms of WES sampling?
  • What are additional laboratory challenges that are common in the CoP region, such as unreliable electricity and supply chains? How can these challenges be addressed?
  • Are there other laboratory methodologies or emerging technologies that may be more appropriate in resource-limited settings?
  • Are there ways to normalize without flow, population, or fecal marker data? How do those compare to other forms of normalization?
  • Are there best practices for community sensitization to sampling? Sampling in non-sewered settings often means the sampler is much closer to the community as opposed to sampling within sewered networks, which is often at a treatment plant.

Research gaps also exist related to environmental surveillance, including the following examples:

  • How do animal inputs impact WES samples from environmental sources?
  • How does weather (temperature and rainfall) impact samples?
  • What are best practices for placing passive samplers in unprotected flowing water bodies?
  • Does the depth of a passive sampler in a stream or river impact results?

Benefits for CoP participants

Practitioners participating in the CoP gain valuable insights from the exchange of experiences and ideas with their peers within a culture of continuous learning. CoP members share what has worked and what has not worked, challenges, and best practices, contributing to the collective wisdom of the group. The CoP serves as a valuable networking platform, allowing participants to establish connections and identify others working in the same domain, fostering collaboration and a sense of community. Lastly, the CoP functions as a repository for a wealth of resources, knowledge, and current research, empowering members with readily accessible information to enhance their practices and stay informed about the latest developments in WES.

CoP content goals

The content covered by a WES CoP should be determined by the CoP itself, based on the needs of its members. Here are some possible topics to consider, particularly during the startup phase of the CoP:

Sample collection strategies will likely vary by region, and sample collection best practices should be discussed. Some sample collection considerations and discussion topics may include:

  • understanding when different sample types (i.e. grab, composite, passive) are most appropriate
  • sampling approaches for different matrices (i.e. wastewater, fecal sludge, surface water)
  • estimating the contributing population for non-sewered and environmental samples
  • sample storage and transportation best practices

Worker safety is of the utmost importance for WES practitioners, who are likely to come in contact with human feces. Understanding and sharing best practices to protect workers may be a valuable function of a WES CoP. Worker safety topics may include:

  • PPE usage and personal protection measures, such as hand washing and personal hygiene
  • required and recommended vaccinations
  • tools and equipment best practices
  • exposure/incident protocol
  • worker safety/security related to violence, instability, or unrest in the region

The targets of interest will vary over time and by region, depending on what is of most interest to local government and public health officials as well as funding availability. Coordinating the testing of specific targets throughout a region may help public health practitioners gain a more complete understanding of how a pathogen of interest is spreading. Target-specific information that may be useful to discuss within the CoP includes:

  • regional targets of interest
  • strategizing multi-target systems
  • sampling strategies for various targets, including sampling frequency
  • laboratory analysis protocols and assays for various targets
  • potential public health actions for various targets

Securing sustainable funding for WES may be a challenge and will be of interest to CoP members. The CoP could help members to create a unified voice to advocate for sustainable funding within the CoP region. Additionally, members could share successful funding strategies for others to use as a framework for seeking out funds. Although funding is likely country-specific, it would be helpful for practitioners to understand how other countries have found success. Possible funding sources may include the national government, philanthropic foundations, and research institutes.

Ethics, as related to WES, may vary by region and is a topic that the CoP should discuss regularly and adapt as needed. Possible ethical considerations to discuss include:

  • protecting marginalized groups
  • protecting community privacy
  • considering taboos and cultural norms around handling and testing fecal samples that may influence acceptance of testing
  • ensuring WES programs are equitably distributed country-wide
  • evaluating who should be included in decision-making and how to involve general community members (non-CoP members)
  • addressing additional considerations that may arise if testing for high-risk substances, including illicit substances
  • considering data ownership and who benefits if the data is monetized

Many community members will be interested in the WES sampling process, the results, and the use of the data. Community interests are likely to overlap with the ethical considerations described above. Including behavioral scientists on the WES implementation team and ensuring information is available with plain language explanations is critical to ensuring that WES program information is accessible to community members. Some ways to involve community members in the WES process may include:

  • Community meetings
  • Focus groups
  • Informational flyers
  • A public dashboard for data sharing

Developing protocols for managing and using large amounts of data is critical to the success of a WES program. Some data-related topics to consider including for CoP discussion:

  • Data management application options
  • Data security
  • Data sharing
    • What data is shared (appropriate anonymization of data)
    • Who data is shared with (WES practitioners, the public)
    • How/where data is shared
  • How to integrate wastewater and environmental data with clinical, public health and other data sources
  • Recommendations for initiating public health actions, based on the analyzed data
  • Interpreting clinical and WES data for public health action

Feedback and adaptive management

Although an organization, individual, or small group may be responsible for initiating the WES CoP, the CoP should not be fully developed by the initiating entity. A CoP is inherently iterative, as the group determines how the CoP can better serve its needs and makes changes accordingly. A transparent CoP leadership structure, which is shaped by the CoP members and representative of the different interests within the group, will help members to take ownership of the CoP and feel comfortable providing constructive feedback. Regular, open communication between the CoP leadership group and members is critical, and as new knowledge is gained, the CoP must be flexible enough to adapt to the new information. There should be several ways for members to provide feedback, which may include:

  • Polls during meetings or using an online platform to vote on CoP meeting and resource topic preferences
  • Surveys at the end of meetings or via an online platform about the usefulness of the meeting, topic, presenter(s), etc.
  • Online suggestion box to which feedback can be submitted at any time
  • A CoP-specific email address that is monitored by CoP leadership
  • Designated times during meetings for open feedback and discussion
  • Structured discussions with CoP leadership about what is working and what is not

Through open, regular communication among CoP members and between members and leaders, the CoP will remain relevant and helpful to its members.

Role of academics

As discussed above, most WES research has been conducted in high-income countries with sewered sanitation systems and knowledge gaps remain. Partnering with academic researchers may provide the CoP with opportunities to influence the research agenda, ensuring that research is relevant to WES practice in the CoP region. Ways to include academics in the CoP may include:

  • including representatives from academia in the CoP leadership
  • inviting researchers to present to the CoP, providing an opportunity for both the researchers and the CoP members to ask questions of each other
  • sharing information with the CoP about relevant published literature, conferences, or other events
  • collectively prioritizing which research gaps should be addressed most urgently and presenting these prioritized gaps to researchers

Fostering connections between the CoP and academic partners may help the CoP to guide the WES research agenda and grow the knowledge base within its region.

Technology usage

Use of communication technology, both synchronous and asynchronous, may be necessary to facilitate communication among CoP members who are geographically dispersed. CoP leadership may develop criteria to use when selecting technology tools for the group. Such criteria may include:

  • Free and accessible to members to minimize barriers for usage
  • Capable of expanding to accommodate the ultimate expected CoP size
  • Secure, or is regularly updated to incorporate security features
  • Includes the features the CoP thinks will be useful to facilitate communication (e.g. message boards, polls)

Having multiple communication options is important for facilitating participation of members with different needs. These technologies should be considered helpful tools, but if members are not actively engaged or do not value membership, it is unlikely that that these technologies will build a community.

There are many tools available to facilitate asynchronous communication among CoP members, including email lists, message boards, phone-based messaging groups, and social media groups. Websites and services may be designed to provide a customized online “home” for the CoP. Asynchronous communication may better accommodate members who live in different time zones or who have commitments that prevent them from attending meetings, either in-person or online. Some members may feel more comfortable contributing to asynchronous conversations via written text than speaking in front of a group.

Online teleconferencing and videoconferencing are used widely across the globe, thanks in part to the COVID-19 global pandemic. CoP members will likely be familiar with several online meeting platforms. When considering videoconferencing, limited bandwidth availability may be a factor, so some CoP regions may prefer to limit video usage. Whether teleconferencing or videoconferencing, enabling a live chat during meetings provides another option for participation that some members may find preferable. Conferencing tools, such as polling, breakout rooms, and whiteboards, may further increase participation and facilitate quick feedback from members.

Although online communication may be used more frequently than in-person meetings for WES CoPs, members may choose to take advantage of regional meetings or conferences that CoP members may be attending. In-person interactions are valuable and often lead to informal discussions and brainstorming of new ideas. For these situations, a hybrid approach that accommodates both those who are attending in-person and remotely may be the best option. If holding a hybrid meeting, care should be taken to ensure that in-person and remote participants are able to participate equally and effectively.

Implementation concerns & suggestions

Implementing a CoP that may span several countries and time zones throughout a diverse region can be challenging. Here are some suggestions to help the CoP run more smoothly: 

  • Multiple languages/language barriers – either a common, working language should be selected for the CoP, or translation services should be made available.
  • Time zones – with CoP members spanning multiple time zones, care should be taken to find meeting times that are acceptable for all time zones represented. Asynchronous communication options will offer those in other time zones or with inflexible work hours opportunities to participate in the CoP on their own schedule.
  • Varied sanitation types – with a variety of sanitation types represented within the CoP, successful sampling strategies will vary as well. Setting up specialty groups within the CoP membership and/or breakout rooms during regularly scheduled meetings may help those with similar contexts to better communicate and learn from each other.
  • Multiple practice domains within the CoP – if the CoP is defined broadly as a WES CoP, practitioners from multiple practice domains will be represented. Similar to the varied sanitation types discussed above, providing opportunities for practitioners within a single practice domain to communicate will be critical.
  • Funding for the CoP – facilitating a CoP will require funding, as subscriptions, websites, and other tech tools may have a cost associated with them. Paid positions may also be required to successfully facilitate the CoP, as it is a time-consuming role. Is it realistic to ask CoP leaders to volunteer their time? Or should leadership positions be paid? How will these costs be funded?
  • Terminology and jargon – because WES is inherently interdisciplinary, CoP members may find that terms that are common in one field may be unfamiliar in others. Maintaining a list of WES-specific terminology may be useful so that all members can be made aware of the jargon used by other practitioners.

Potential challenges & lessons learned

Based on experiences initiating, facilitating, and leading the NWSS CoPs in the US, the following challenges and “lessons learned” may be helpful to those starting WES CoPs:

  • Lack of engagement from CoP members: this can be addressed by offering multiple communication channels, and consistent messaging and opportunities for interaction
  • Lack of availability of leadership to meet and contribute, related to the fact that the leadership positions may be on a voluntary basis: this can be addressed by minimizing the number of leadership meetings and giving the CoP leadership opportunities outside of meetings to weigh in with their opinions (via online polls, email exchanges)
  • Dilution of CoP information in a world otherwise chock full of information: consistent messaging through multiple channels but with brief messages; don’t be afraid to repeat information or cover topics more than once.
  • Lack of clarity on how to define the boundary of CoP membership: if the CoP is meant to capture a particular sector (e.g., public health), should professionals from other sectors (e.g., water) be included? If the CoP is geography-based, should professionals interested in joining from outside the CoP geography be included? Having a plan from the start about how to address this “membership creep”, and erring on the side of inclusivity, seems to be the best approach.
  • Maintenance of CoP materials in a cohesive, readily-accessible way: This can be addressed by choosing a technology tool, such as an online document sharing platform (e.g. One Drive or Google Docs), that makes it easy to archive (and search for) materials.
  • Challenges prioritizing CoP meeting/resource topics: Leaning on the CoP leadership, but also requesting feedback from the CoP members, is key here.