Sustainable sanitation: experiences in Pune with a municipal - NGO - community partnership

Hobson, Jane

doi:10.1630/095624700101285460

Cited by 7 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2006). Many of these facilities have proved capable of sustaining themselves financially, and anecdotal evidence suggests that community management, where implemented, has also been beneficial in promoting dignity and self‐confidence among marginalised groups (Hobson 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns and determinants of communal latrine usage in urban poverty pockets in Bhopal, India

Biran

Jenkins

Dabrase

et al. 2011

Tropical Med Int Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summaryobjectives To explore and explain patterns of use of communal latrine facilities in urban poverty pockets.methods Six poverty pockets with communal latrine facilities representing two management models (Sulabh and municipal) were selected. Sampling was random and stratified by poverty pocket population size. A seventh, community-managed facility was also included. Data were collected by exit interviews with facility users and by interviews with residents from a randomly selected representative sample of poverty pocket households, on social, economic and demographic characteristics of households, latrine ownership, defecation practices, costs of using the facility and distance from the house to the facility. A tally of facility users was kept for 1 day at each facility. Data were analysed using logistic regression modelling to identify determinants of communal latrine usage.results Communal latrines differed in their facilities, conditions, management and operating characteristics, and rates of usage. Reported usage rates among non-latrine-owning households ranged from 15% to 100%. There was significant variation in wealth, occupation and household structure across the poverty pockets as well as in household latrine ownership. Households in pockets with municipal communal latrine facilities appeared poorer. Households in pockets with Sulabh-managed communal facilities were significantly more likely to own a household latrine. Determinants of communal facility usage among households without a latrine were access and convenience (distance and opening hours), facility age, cleanliness ⁄ upkeep and cost. The ratio of male to female users was 2:1 across all facilities for both adults and children.conclusions Provision of communal facilities reduces but does not end the problem of open defecation in poverty pockets. Women appear to be relatively poorly served by communal facilities and, cost is a barrier to use by poorer households. Results suggest improving facility convenience and access and modifying fee structures could lead to increased rates of usage. Attention to possible barriers to usage at household level associated particularly with having school-age children and with pre-school childcare needs may also be warranted.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns and determinants of communal latrine usage in urban poverty pockets in Bhopal, India

Biran

Jenkins

Dabrase

et al. 2011

Tropical Med Int Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Just as there are different levels of users and implementers, from individuals to larger community-based entities, a similar pattern can be seen with the organisations charged with daily management (Hobson 2000;Allély et al 2002;Hanchett et al 2003). An organisation at one level can provide a service ( Fig.…”

Section: Managementmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…12). Initial capital costs may be covered by private funds, municipal agencies or donors, but the running costs will be in the hands of users, either directly to households or through community-based organisations (Hobson 2000;Burra et al 2003). This relationship between the provider and the operator may be formal, although a leasing arrangement, or handed over, and the initial provider no longer being involved.…”

Section: Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emerging categories of urban shared sanitation

Mazeau

Reed

Sansom

et al. 2013

Water & Environment J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With 2.6 billion people without access to improved sanitation facilities and with a growing urban population globally, shared sanitation in the form of public or community latrines is a pragmatic way of increasing coverage, but it is currently not deemed ‘improved’. This paper explores the variety of facilities that currently exist in order to identify what would enable some of these latrines to be classed as acceptable and to ensure that future shared sanitation facilities meet minimum standards. The categories mostly relate to issues of ownership, management, location and finance rather than technological considerations. An extensive literature review reveals that the users' perspective of acceptability is largely absent from current discussions.

show abstract

“…The first is the challenge of raising awareness about an often-taboo subject (Black and Fawcett 2008;George 2008 (Mara 2012), communities (Mehta and Movik 2012;O'Reilly 2010;Satterthwaite et al 2005;Hobson 2000), nongovernmental organisations (Sharma andBhide, 2005 McFarlane 2008a), the private sector (Castro 2007;Singh 2006;Solo 1999) and donors (Nicol, Mehta and Allouche 2012) represents the second theme. The third inolves the different experiences and perceptions of sanitation across space (Bolaane and Ikgopoleng 2011;Cousens et a, 1996;Jewitt 2011;Joshi et al 2011;Rheinländer et al 2010;Truelove 2011), while the fourth includes the causal relations between human waste, illness and disease (Curtis et al 2000;George 2008).…”

Section: The Everyday and Sanitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Informal Urban Sanitation: Everyday Life, Poverty, and Comparison

McFarlane

Desai

Graham

2014

Annals of the Association of American Geographers

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

show abstract

Sustainable sanitation: experiences in Pune with a municipal - NGO - community partnership

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Patterns and determinants of communal latrine usage in urban poverty pockets in Bhopal, India

Patterns and determinants of communal latrine usage in urban poverty pockets in Bhopal, India

Emerging categories of urban shared sanitation

Informal Urban Sanitation: Everyday Life, Poverty, and Comparison

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About