Descending the sanitation ladder in urban Uganda: evidence from Kampala Slums

BMC Public Health

Isabel Günther²  Charles Niwagaba¹  Peter Atekyereza⁴  Japheth Kwiringira³ 

[1]Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, Design Art and Technology (CEDAT), Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda

[2]Swiss Federal Institute of Technology –Zurich (ETH-Z) and Centre for Development and Cooperation (NADEL), Zürich, Switzerland

[3]Department of Sociology, Kyambogo University, P.O. Box 1 Kyambogo, Kampala, Uganda

[4]Department of Sociology and Anthropology, School of Social Sciences, College of Humanities and Social Sciences (CHUSS), Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda

关键词: Slums;    Kampala;    Maintenance;    Open defecation;    Cleaning;    Latrine use;    Unimproved sanitation;    Improved sanitation;    Sanitation ladder;   

Others  :  1129186
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-624

 received in 2013-11-20, accepted in 2014-06-09,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

While the sanitation ladder is useful in analysing progressive improvements in sanitation, studies in Uganda have not indicated the sanitation barriers faced by the urban poor. There are various challenges in shared latrine use, cleaning and maintenance. Results from Kampala city indicate that, failure to clean and maintain sanitation infrastructure can lead to a reversal of the potential benefits that come with various sanitation facilities.

Methods

A cross sectional qualitative study was conducted between March and May 2013. Data were collected through 18 focus group discussions (FGDs) held separately; one with women, men and youth respectively. We also used pictorial methods; in addition, 16 key informant interviews were conducted. Data were analysed using content thematic approach. Relevant quotations per thematic area were identified and have been used in the presentation of the results.

Results

Whether a shared sanitation facility was improved or not, it was abandoned once it was not properly used and cleaned. The problem of using shared latrines began with the lack of proper latrine training when people do not know how to squat on the latrine hole. The constrained access and security concerns, obscure paths that were filthy especially at night, lack of light in the latrine cubicle, raised latrines sometimes up to two metres above the ground, coupled with lack of cleaning and emptying the shared facilities only made a bad situation worse. In this way, open defecation gradually substituted use of the available sanitation facilities. This paper argues that, filthy latrines have the same net effect as crude open defection.

Conclusion

Whereas most sanitation campaigns are geared towards provision of improved sanitation infrastructure, these findings show that mere provision of infrastructure (improved or not) without adequate emphasis on proper use, cleaning and maintenance triggers an involuntary descent off the sanitation ladder. Understanding this reversal movement is critical in sustainable sanitation services and should be a concern for all actors.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Kwiringira et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Murray C, Newby H: Data Resource Profile: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Int J Epidemiol 2012, 41(6):1595-1601.
• [2]Un-habitat: State of the World’s Cities 2010/2011: Bridging the Urban Divide. In Bridging the Urban Divide. Routledge; 2010.
• [3]Isunju JB, Schwartz K, Schouten MA, Johnson WP, Van Dijk MP: Socio-economic aspects of improved sanitation in slums: a review. Public Health 2011, 125(6):368-376.
• [4]Harvey D: Reshaping economic geography: the world development report 2009. Development and change 2009, 40(6):1269-1277.
• [5]Montgomery MA, Jamie B, Menachem E: Increasing functional sustainability of water and sanitation supplies in rural sub-Saharan Africa. Environ Engineering Science 2009 , 26(5):1017-1023.
• [6]Chambers R: Going to scale with community-led total sanitation: reflections on experience, issues and ways forward. IDS Practice Papers 2009, 1:1-50.
• [7]Tumwebaze IK, Orach CG, Niwagaba C, Luthi C, Mosler HJ: Sanitation facilities in Kampala slums, Uganda: users’ satisfaction and determinant factors. Int J Environ Health Res 2013, 23(3):191-204.
• [8]Abimanyi JK, Atuhaire M: Inconvenience in the Places of Convenience; Kampala Uganda. Kampala: Uganda News; Daily Monitor-Monday; 2012.
• [9]Günther I, Alexandra H, Christoph L, Hans-Joachim M, Charles BN, Tumwebaze IK: Where do Kampala Poor “go”? Urban Sanitation Conditions in Kampala’s low –Income Areas. Zurich, Switzerland: ETH; 2011.
• [10]Günther I, Alexandra H, Christoph L, Hans-Joachim M, Charles BN, Innocent Tumwebaze IK: When is Shared Sanitation Improved Sanitation? The Correlation Between Number of Users and Toilet Hygiene. Zurich, Switzerland: ETH; 2012.
• [11]UNICEF: Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: Special Focus on Sanitation. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO/JMP; 2008.
• [12]United Nations. Department of Economic affairs: The Millennium Development Goals Report. New York: United Nation Publications; 2008.
• [13]Morella E, Vivien F, Sudeshna GB: Climbing the Ladder: The State of Sanitation in sub-Saharan Africa. In Background Paper 13. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2008.
• [14]McConville J: How to Promote the use of Latrines in Developing Countries. Michigan Technological University; 2003. http://www.cee.mtu.edu/peacecorps/documents_july03/latrine_promotion_FINAL.pdf webcite
• [15]Lüthi C, Jennifer M, Elisabeth K: Community –based approaches for addressing the urban sanitation challenges. Int J Urban Sustainable Dev 2010, 1(1–2):49-63.
• [16]Dawson S, Manderson L, Tallo VL, Mutharayappa R, Farkas JI, Hogan DP, Kurien PA: A manual for the use of focus groups. Man in India 1993, 73(1):17-27.
• [17]Morgan D: Focus groups. Annu Rev Socio 1996, 22:149-152.
• [18]Silverman D: Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. London: SAGE Publications Limited; 2013.
• [19]Bryman A: Social Research Methods. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
• [20]Graneheim UH1, Lundman B: Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today 2004, 24(2):105-112.
• [21]Kondracki NL, Wellman NS, Amundson DR: Content analysis: review of methods and their applications in nutrition education. J Nut Educ Behav 2002, 34(4):224-230.
• [22]Wolff MF: Ethics a social practice: introducing the debate on qualitative research and ethics. Forum Qual Social Res 2005, 6(1 Art.9):25-30.
• [23]Rwabukwali CB: Ethics in social research: the Uganda context. Mawazo, J Faculties Arts Soc Sciences 2007, 8(2):111-118.
• [24]Gorad S: Ethics and equity; pursuing the perspective of non-participants. Soc Science up-date 2002, 39(Winter):16-20.
• [25]Black RE, Morris SS, Bryce J: Where and why are 10 million children dying every year? Lancet 2003, 361(9376):2226-2234.
• [26]Rujumba J, Byamugisha R: Publishing operational research from ‘real life’ programme data: a better form of accountability. Trop Med Int Health 2011, 17(1):133-134.
• [27]Hardoy A, Schusterman R: New models for the privatization of water and sanitation for the urban poor. Environ Urban 2000, 12(2):63-76.
• [28]Burra S, Patel S, Kerr T: Community-designed, built and managed toilet blocks in Indian cities. Environ Urban 2003, 15(2):11-32.
• [29]Sheuya S, Howden-Chapman P, Patel S: The design of housing and shelter programs: the social and environmental determinants of inequalities. J Urban Health 2007, 84(1):98-108.
• [30]Fernandez A, Mondkar J, Mathai S: Urban slum-specific issues in neonatal survival. Indian Pediatr 2003, 40(12):1161-1166.
• [31]Buttenheim AM: The sanitation environment in urban slums: implications for child health. Popul Environ 2008, 30(1–2):26-47.
• [32]Checkley W, Gilman RH, Black RE, Epstein LD, Cabrera L, Sterling CR, Moulton LH: Effect of water and sanitation on childhood health in a poor Peruvian peri-urban community. Lancet 2004, 363(9403):112-118.
• [33]Fosto JC: Urban –rural differentials in child malnutrition: trends and socioeconomic correlates in sub-Saharan Africa. Health Place 2007, 13:205-223.
• [34]Allen A: Environmental planning and management of the peri-urban interface: perspectives on an emerging field. Environ Urban 2003, 15(1):135-148.
• [35]Khosla P, van Wijk C, Verhagen J, Francis J, Arce M: Gender and Water. International Water and Sanitation Centre (IRC); 2004.
• [36]Marmot M, Bell R: Health equity and development: the commission on social determinants of health. European Review 2010, 18(01):1-7.
• [37]Marmot M, Friel S, Bell R, Houweling TAJ, Taylor S: Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Lancet 2008, 372(9650):1661-1669.
• [38]Irwin A, Valentine N, Brown C, Loewenson R, Solar O, Brown H, Koller T, Vega J: The commission on social determinants of health: tackling the social roots of health inequities. PLoS Med 2006, 3(6):e106.
• [39]Kjellstrom T, Friel S, Dixon J, Corvalan C, Rehfuess E, Campbell-Lendrum D, Gore F, Bartram J: Urban environmental health hazards and health equity. J Urban Health 2007, 84(1):86-97.
• [40]Nunan F, Satterthwaite D: The influence of governance on the provision of urban environmental infrastructure and services for low-income groups. Int Plan Stud 2001, 6(4):409-426.
• [41]Joshi A, Moore M: Institutionalized coproduction: unorthodox public service delivery in challenging environments. J Dev Stud 2004, 40(4):31-49.
• [42]Hassan A: Orangi pilot project: the expansion of work beyond Orangi and the mapping of informal settlements and infrastructure. Environ Urban 2006, 18(2):451-480.
• [43]Dreibelbis R, Winch P, Leontsini E, Hulland K, Ram P, Unicomb L, Luby S: The integrated behavioural model for water, sanitation, and hygiene: a systematic review of behavioural models and a framework for designing and evaluating behaviour change interventions in infrastructure-restricted settings. BMC Public Health 2013, 13(1):1015. BioMed Central Full Text
• [44]Schertenleib R, Morel A, Kalbermatten J, Saywell D: Guidelines for the Implementation of the Bellagio-Principles and the Household Centred Environmental Sanitation Approach (HCES). In Proceedings of the 2nd International Ecosan Symposium. Germany: IWA, GTZ, Lübeck; 2003:93-100.
• [45]Amuyunzu-Nyamongo M, Taffa N: The Triad of Poverty, Environment and Child Health in Nairobi Informal Settlements. Population council; 2003.
• [46]Fo B, Mitlin D, Mulholland C, Hardoy A, Stern R: Integrated approaches to address the social determinants of health for reducing health inequity. J Urban Health 2007, 84(1):164-173.
• [47]Mikkelsen B: Methods for Development Work and Research. A new Guide for Practitioners. 2nd edition. London: Sage Publications; 2005.