IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i7p1118-d217989.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainable Sanitation Management Tool for Decision Making in Isolated Areas in Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • Fernando J. C. Magalhães Filho

    (Department of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering., Dom Bosco Catholic University, Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande 79117-900, Brazil
    Faculty of Engineering, Architecture, Urbanism and Geography, Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul 79070-900, Brazil)

  • Adriane A. F. S. L. de Queiroz

    (Faculty of Engineering, Architecture, Urbanism and Geography, Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul 79070-900, Brazil)

  • Beatriz S. Machado

    (Department of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering., Dom Bosco Catholic University, Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande 79117-900, Brazil)

  • Paula L. Paulo

    (Faculty of Engineering, Architecture, Urbanism and Geography, Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul 79070-900, Brazil)

Abstract

There is a worldwide range of technical sanitation guidelines focusing on small or traditional and isolated communities for ecological alternatives at the household level. However, a computational tool (software) that has a database and connects these guidelines in a single reference for resource-oriented sanitation concept decision making is still lacking. In this regard, an easy-to-use tool was developed using a participatory approach for the decision-making process from a choice of technical solutions to a type of system management. The results obtained from a pilot study indicate that the proposed tool in this paper will help with the decision-making process to aid in not only choosing sustainable sanitation solutions, but also sustainable operation and maintenance options for the systems. When presenting and discussing the tool with research groups and technicians, the potential for participatory application was noticed. The proposed tool can be used in the elaboration of municipal sanitation plans, assisting local technicians and environmental licensing agencies, designers and engineering students, among others. The software can be applied with other management tools, such as 5W2H and Canvas business model.

Suggested Citation

  • Fernando J. C. Magalhães Filho & Adriane A. F. S. L. de Queiroz & Beatriz S. Machado & Paula L. Paulo, 2019. "Sustainable Sanitation Management Tool for Decision Making in Isolated Areas in Brazil," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-13, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:7:p:1118-:d:217989
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/7/1118/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/7/1118/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Evans, W.D. & Pattanayak, S.K. & Young, S. & Buszin, J. & Rai, S. & Bihm, Jasmine Wallace, 2014. "Social marketing of water and sanitation products: A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 18-25.
    2. Loetscher, Thomas & Keller, Jurg, 2002. "A decision support system for selecting sanitation systems in developing countries," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 267-290, December.
    3. John M Bryson, 2004. "What to do when Stakeholders matter," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 21-53, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bert George, 2017. "Does strategic planning ‘work’ in public organizations? Insights from Flemish municipalities," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(7), pages 527-530, November.
    2. Martin Luštický & Martin Musil, 2016. "Stakeholder-Based Evaluation of Tourism Policy Priorities: The Case of the South Bohemian Region," Acta Oeconomica Pragensia, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2016(3), pages 3-23.
    3. Jolanta MAJ, 2015. "Diversity Management’S Stakeholders And Stakeholders Management," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 9(1), pages 780-793, November.
    4. Franco-Trigo, L. & Fernandez-Llimos, F. & Martínez-Martínez, F. & Benrimoj, S.I. & Sabater-Hernández, D., 2020. "Stakeholder analysis in health innovation planning processes: A systematic scoping review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(10), pages 1083-1099.
    5. Kik, M.C. & Claassen, G.D.H. & Meuwissen, M.P.M. & Smit, A.B. & Saatkamp, H.W., 2021. "Actor analysis for sustainable soil management – A case study from the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    6. Mark K. McBeth & Donna L. Lybecker & James W. Stoutenborough, 2016. "Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 421-444, December.
    7. Christophe Favoreu & David Carassus & Christophe Maurel, 2015. "Strategic management in the public sector: a rational, political or collaborative approach? [Le management stratégique en milieu public : approche rationnelle, politique ou collaborative ?]," Post-Print hal-02152509, HAL.
    8. Sandra Ricart & Antonio M. Rico-Amorós, 2022. "Can agriculture and conservation be compatible in a coastal wetland? Balancing stakeholders’ narratives and interactions in the management of El Hondo Natural Park, Spain," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 589-604, June.
    9. Ashton W. Merck & Khara D. Grieger & Alison Deviney & Anna-Maria Marshall, 2023. "Using a Phosphorus Flow Diagram as a Boundary Object to Inform Stakeholder Engagement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-10, July.
    10. Farooq Ahmad & Syed Ali Raza Hamid & Muhammad Nawaz Qaisar, 2019. "A Review on Fear Appeals in Social Marketing: Setting Future Research Agenda," Global Economics Review, Humanity Only, vol. 4(4), pages 1-11, December.
    11. Ogunlowo, Olufemi O. & Bristow, Abigail L. & Sohail, M., 2017. "A stakeholder analysis of the automotive industry's use of compressed natural gas in Nigeria," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 58-69.
    12. Austen Agata, 2012. "Stakeholders management in public hospitals in the context of resources," Management, Sciendo, vol. 16(2), pages 217-230, December.
    13. Sandra Ricart & Anna Ribas & David Pavón, 2016. "Qualifying irrigation system sustainability by means of stakeholder perceptions and concerns: lessons from the Segarra‐Garrigues Canal, Spain," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 40(1-2), pages 77-90, February.
    14. Assoc. Prof. Dina Çakmur Yildirtan & Esengül Salihoğlu, 2017. "Panel Data Analysis of Exchange Rate for Fragile Five," European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies Articles, Revistia Research and Publishing, vol. 2, May Augus.
    15. Cathy Macharis & Peter Nijkamp, 2013. "Multi-actor and multi-criteria analysis in evaluating mega-projects," Chapters, in: Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 11, pages 242-266, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Maciej Dobrzyñski & Krzysztof Dziekoñski & Arkadiusz Jurczuk, 2015. "Stakeholders Mapping - A Case Of International Logistics Project," Polish Journal of Management Studies, Czestochowa Technical University, Department of Management, vol. 11(2), pages 17-26, June.
    17. Szymaniec-Mlicka Karolina, 2016. "Impact of strategic orientation adopted by an organisation on its performance, as shown on the example of public healthcare entities," Management, Sciendo, vol. 20(2), pages 278-290, December.
    18. Emmy De Buck & Hans Van Remoortel & Karin Hannes & Thashlin Govender & Selvan Naidoo & Bert Avau & Axel Vande Veegaete & Alfred Musekiwa & Vittoria Lutje & Margaret Cargo & Hans‐Joachim Mosler & Phili, 2017. "Approaches to promote handwashing and sanitation behaviour change in low‐ and middle‐income countries: a mixed method systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 1-447.
    19. Carolus, Johannes Friedrich & Hanley, Nick & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Pedersen, Søren Marcus, 2018. "A Bottom-up Approach to Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 282-295.
    20. Mingers, John, 2011. "Soft OR comes of age--but not everywhere!," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 729-741, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:7:p:1118-:d:217989. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.