Gender variations in access, choice to use and cleaning of shared latrines; experiences from Kampala Slums, Uganda

BMC Public Health

Isabel Günther¹  Charles Niwagaba²  Peter Atekyereza⁴  Japheth Kwiringira³ 

[1] Swiss Federal Institute of Technology –Zürich (ETH-Z) and Centre for Development and Cooperation (NADEL), Zürich, Switzerland;Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Makerere University, P. O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda;Department of Sociology, Kyambogo University, Kyambogo, P. O. Box 1, Kampala, Uganda;Department of Sociology and Anthropology, School of Social Sciences, College of Humanities and Social Sciences; Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda

关键词: Kampala;    Slums;    Cleaning;    Access;    Latrines;    WASH;    Gender;   

Others  :  1122947
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-1180

 received in 2014-03-04, accepted in 2014-10-30,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Sanitation is one of the most intimate issues that affect women, especially in slums of developing countries. There are few studies that have paid attention to the gender variations in access, choice to use and cleaning of shared latrines in slums.

Methods

This paper draws on qualitative data from a cross sectional study conducted between 2012 and 2013 in six slums of Kampala City, Uganda. The study involved both women and men. Data were collected from 12 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), 15 Key informant interviews; community transects and photographs of shared latrines.

Results

Location of a shared latrine facility, distance, filthy, narrow and irregular paths; the time when a facility is visited (day or night), privacy and steep inclines were gender ‘filters’ to accessing shared latrines. A full latrine pit was more likely to inhibit access to and choice of a facility for women than men. Results indicate that the available coping mechanisms turned out to be gendered, with fewer options available for women than men. On the whole, women sought for privacy, easy reach, self-respect and esteem, cleanliness and privacy than men. While men like women also wanted clean facilities for use; they (men) were not keen on cleaning these facilities. The cleaning of shared latrines was seen by both women and men as a role for women.

Conclusion

The presence of sanitation facilities as the first step in the access, choice, use, and cleaning by both women and men has distinct motivations and limitations along gender lines. The study confirms that the use and cleaning of latrines is regulated by gender in daily living. Using a latrine for women was much more than relieving oneself: it involved security, intimacy and health concerns.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Kwiringira et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]WaterAID Uganda: Mainstreaming gender in sanitation and hygiene in Uganda. In Proceedings of the Sanitation and Hygiene Conference held in South Africa. South Africa: UWASNET and WATERAID Uganda; 2002:1-19.
• [2]Fawcett B: The right to a decent toilet–a right denied to 2.6 billion. In Activating Human Rights and Peace: Universal Responsibility Conference 2008 Conference Proceedings. Edited by Garbutt RG. Lismore, NSW: Byron Bay, NSW, 1-4 July, Centre for Peace and Social Justice, Southern Cross University; 2008:312.
• [3]COHRE W: SDC and UN-HABITAT: Sanitation: A Human Rights Imperative. Geneva: Water Aid and UN-Habitat; 2008.
• [4]UN-HABITAT: Situational Analysis of Informal Settlements in Kampala: Cities Without Slums sub-Regional Programme for Eastern and Southern: Kivulu (Kagugube) and Kinawataka (Mbuya I) Parishes. Nairobi: UN-HABITAT; 2007.
• [5]Coates S: A Gender and Development Approach to Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Programmes. Loughborough: WEDC; 1999.
• [6]Bharadwaj S, Patkar A: Menstrual hygiene and management in developing countries: taking stock. Junction Soc 2004, 2004:1-20.
• [7]Mahon T, Maria F: Menstrual hygiene in South Asia: a neglected issue for WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene) programmes. Gend & Dev 2010, 18(1):99-113.
• [8]McMahon SA, Winch PJ, Caruso BA, Obure AF, Ogutu EA, Ochari IA, Rheingans RD: ‘The girl with her period is the one to hang her head’Reflections on menstrual management among schoolgirls in rural Kenya. BMC Int health and human rights 2011, 11(1):7. (1-10) BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Hawkes S, Morison L, Foster S, Gausia K, Chakraborty J, Weeling R, Mabey D: Reproductive-tract infections in women in low-income, low-prevalence situations: assessment of syndromic management in Matlab, Bangladesh. Lancet 1999, 354(9192):1776-1781.
• [10]Laryea NOA, Dotse FM, Fiasorgbor D, Ampadu-Boakye J: Women, water and sanitation-challenges and prospects. In Proceedings from the 33rd Water, Engineering and Development Centre (WEDC) International Conference under the theme: Access to Sanitation and Safe Water: Global Partnerships and Local Solutions. Edited by Hazel J. Accra, Ghana: WEDC, UK; 2008.
• [11]UNICEF: Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: 2011 Sanitation Statistics. UNICEF; 2011. http://www.unicef.org/wash/index_statistics.html webcite accessed 20feb2014
• [12]Tilley E, Bieri S, Kohler P: Sanitation in developing countries a review through a gender lens. J Water, Sanitation and Hyg Dev 2013, 3(3):298-314.
• [13]Jackson C, Jackson C, Pearson R: Feminism spoken here: epistemologies for interdisciplinary development research. Dev Chang 2004, 37:525-547.
• [14]Joshi D, Morgan J: Pavement dwellers’ sanitation activities—visible but ignored. Waterlines 2007, 25(3):19-22.
• [15]Black M, Fawcett B: The Last Taboo: Opening The Door On The Global Sanitation Crisis. London: Earthscan Publications, London; 2008.
• [16]Cantarero L: Gender inequities in environment and health. In Environment and Health Risks: A Review of the Influence and Effects of Social Inequalities vol. Geneva: WHO; 2010:2172.
• [17]Feachem RG, Bradley DJ, Garelick H, Mara DD: Sanitation and Disease: Health Aspects of Excreta and Wastewater Management. Washington: World Bank; 1983.
• [18]Sumpter C, Belen T: A systematic review of the health and social effects of menstrual hygiene management. PLoS One 2013, 8(4 e62004):1-15.
• [19]Frankenstein-Markon LS: Teaching menstrual hygiene to young women in eastern Uganda with reusable menstrual pads. In Applied Science Education. USA: Michigan Technological University; 2013.
• [20]Amnesty-International: Insecurity and Indignity: Women’s Experiences in the Slums of Nairobi, Kenya. London. London: Amnesty International; 2010.
• [21]Gosling L: Equity and Inclusion. London: Water Aid; 2010:32.
• [22]Khosla P, Van Wijk C, Verhagen J, Francis J, Arce M: Gender and Water. Delft, the Netherlands: International Water and Sanitation Centre (IRC); 2004.
• [23]Habitat UN: State of the World’s Cities 2010/2011: Bridging the Urban Divide. Nairobi, Kenya: UN Human Settlements Programme; 2010.
• [24]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.
• [25]Abimanyi JK, Atuhaire M: Inconvenience in the Places of Convenience; Kampala Uganda. Kampala: Uganda News; Daily Monitor-Monday; 2012.
• [26]Tumwebaze IK: Prevalence and Determinants of the Cleanliness of Shared Toilets in Kampala in Kampala Slums. Uganda: Journal of Public Health; 2013.
• [27]Tumwebaze IK, Orach C, 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.
• [28]Guenther I, Horst A, Luethi C, Mosler H, Niwagaba C, Tumwebaze I: Where do Kampala’ poor ‘go’? Urban Sanitation Conditions in Kampala’ low –income areas. Zurich, Switzerland: ETH; 2011.
• [29]Guenther I, Horst A, Luethi C, Mosler H, Niwagaba C, Tumwebaze I: When is shared sanitation Improved Sanitation?. Zurich Switzerland: The correlation between number of users and toilet Hygiene. In; 2012.
• [30]Dawson S, Lenore M, Veronica T, Veronica T: A manual for the use of Focus Groups: WHO Social and Economic Research (SER). Boston, MA, USA: International Nutrition Foundation for Developing Countries (INFDC); 1993.
• [31]Morgan D: Focus groups. Annu Rev Sociol 1996, 22:149-152.
• [32]Bryman A: Social Research Methods. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
• [33]Morse Janice M: Sampling in grounded theory. In The SAGE handbook of grounded theory Paperback edition. Edited by Antony B, Kathy C. 2010, 229-244. ISBN: 9781446275726 Sage Publications Ltd, London UK
• [34]Silverman D: Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. London: SAGE Publications Limited; 2005.
• [35]Zeger SL, Liang KY: Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics 1986, 42(1):121-130.
• [36]McCall L: The complexity of intersectionality. Signs 2005, 30(3):1771-1800.
• [37]UN-HABITAT: Navigating gender in African cities: a synthesis report of rapid gender and pro-poor assessments in the 17 cities of the Water for Africa cities (WAC) II Programme. In UN-Habitat. Nairobi: UN-HABITAT; 2006.
• [38]AusAID: Guide to Gender and Development: Gender guidelines water supply and Sanitation. Canberra: Australian Overseas Aid Program, Water Supply and Sanitation; 2000.
• [39]Graneheim H, Lundman B: Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today 2004, 24(2):105-112.
• [40]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.
• [41]Miles MB, Michael HA: An expanded sourcebook qualitative data analysis. 1994.
• [42]Wolff MF: Ethics a social practice: introducing the debate on qualitative research and ethics. Forum Qual Soc Res 2005, 6(1 Art.9):25-30.
• [43]Rwabukwali CB: Ethics in social research: the Uganda context. Mawazo, The J The Faculties of Arts and Soc Sci 2007, 8(2):111-118.
• [44]Gorad S: Ethics and Equity: Pursuing the Perspective of Non-Participants. Soc Sci update 2002, 39:6-20. Winter. University of Surrey Guildford, United Kingdom
• [45]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.
• [46]Montgomery MR, Hewett PC: Urban poverty and health in developing countries: household and neighborhood effects. Demography 2005, 42(3):397-425.
• [47]Montgomery MA, Elimelech M: Water and sanitation in developing countries: including health in the equation. Environ Sci Technol 2007, 41(1):17-24.
• [48]Jenkins MW, Sugden S: Rethinking sanitation: lessons and innovation for sustainability and success in the new millennium (No. HDOCPA-2006-27). In Human Development Report Office (HDRO). New York, USA: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); 2006.
• [49]Rutstein SO: Factors associated with trends in infant and child mortality in developing countries during the 1990s. Bull World Health Organ 2000, 78(10):1256-1270.
• [50]Katukiza AY, Ronteltap M, Oleja A, Niwagaba CB, Kansiime F, Lens PNL: Selection of sustainable sanitation technologies for urban slums — A case of Bwaise III in Kampala, Uganda. Sci Total Environ 2010, 409(1):52-62.
• [51]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.
• [52]Nightingale A: The nature of gender: work, gender, and environment. Environment and planning. Society and Space 2006, 24:165-185.
• [53]Dyalchand A, Khale M, Vasudevan S: Institutional Arrangements and Social Norms Influencing Sanitation Behaviour in Rural India. The Potential of Community-Led Total Sanitation. Rugby: Practical Action; 2011.
• [54]Nawaz J, Lal S, Raza S, House S: Oxfam experience of providing screened toilet, bathing and menstruation units in its earthquake response in Pakistan. Gend Dev 2010, 18(1):81-86.
• [55]Bank W: The Economic Impacts of Inadequate Sanitation in India. New Delhi: World Bank; 2010.
• [56]Mehrotra S: A Handbook on Women’s Safety Audits in Low-income Urban. JAGORI New Delhi 110017, India: Neighborhoods: A Focus on Essential Services; 2010.
• [57]IFRC: Project/Programme Monitoring and Evaluation (M & E) Guide. Geneva: Planning and Evaluation Department (PED) of the IFRC Secretariat; 2011.
• [58]Chari S: Fraternal Capital: Peasant-Workers, Self- Made Men, and Globalization in Provincial India. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, USA; 2004.
• [59]Fisher J: For her it’s the big Issue: Putting Women at the Centre of Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene. Geneva 27, Switzerland: Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: Evidence Report.WSSCC c/o WHO (CCW); 2006.
• [60]Cornwall A: Revisiting the ‘gender agenda. IDS Bull 2007, 38(2):69-78.
• [61]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.
• [62]Garg S, Sharma N, Sahay : Socio-cultural aspects of menstruation in an urban slum in Delhi, India. Reprod Health Matters 2001, 9(17):16-25.
• [63]Malterud K: Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet 2001, 358(9280):483-488.
• [64]Songsore J, McGranahan G: Environment, wealth and health: towards an analysis of intra-urban differentials within the Greater Accra Metropolitan Area, Ghana. Environ Urban 1993, 5(2):10-34.
• [65]Kwiringira J, Atekyereza P, Niwagaba C, Günther I: Descending the sanitation ladder in urban Uganda: evidence from Kampala Slums. BMC Public Health 2014, 14(1):624. BioMed Central Full Text
• [66]Crenshaw K, Legal: Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. U Chi Legal F 1989, 139-188.
• [67]Wijk-Sijbesma CV: Gender in Water Resources Management, Water Supply and Sanitation: Roles and Realities Revisited. the Netherlands: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre Delft; 1998.