Climate change will stress urban sanitation systems. Although urban sanitation uses various infrastructure types and service systems, current research appears skewed toward a small subset of cases. We conducted a systematic literature review to critically appraise the evidence for climate change impacts on all urban sanitation system types. We included road-based transport networks, an essential part of fecal sludge management systems. We combined the evidence on climate change impacts with the existing knowledge about modes of urban sanitation failures. We found a predominance of studies that assess climate impacts on centralized sewerage in high-income contexts. The implications of climate change for urban nonsewered and complex, fragmented, and (partially) decentralized sanitation systems remain underresearched. In addition, the understanding of the impacts of climate change on urban sanitation systems fails to take a comprehensive citywide perspective considering interdependencies with other sectors and combinations of climate effects. We conclude that the evidence for climate change impacts on urban sanitation systems is weak. To date, research neither adequately represents the variety of urban sanitation infrastructure and service systems nor reflects the operational and management challenges of already stressed systems.

Kenya has enshrined the right to sanitation in the 2010 constitution. Achieving this requires scaling up infrastructure and models of delivery beyond sewer networks that have previously been the focus. In Kenya, two enterprises, Sanergy and Sanivation, have been providing new forms of off‐grid services with container‐based sanitation (CBS). This paper uses a political economy analysis to understand the incentives, institutions and power dynamics that are enabling or constraining the potential for such off‐grid sanitation models. The paper outlines six core problems to be addressed in the pursuit of scaling up: fragmented governance; sustainability of CBS enterprise models; service delivery planning in informal settlements; personal power rather than institutions in decision‐making; vested local interests; and land tenure and political connection. It discusses how stakeholders might work collaboratively to progressively address or recognise these issues.