IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i22p9379-d443378.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

National Versus Local Sustainable Development Plans and Island Priorities in Sanitation: Examples from the Kingdom of Tonga

Author

Listed:
  • Ian White

    (Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia)

  • Tony Falkland

    (Island Hydrology Services, 9 Tivey Place, Hughes, Canberra ACT 2605, Australia)

  • Taaniela Kula

    (Natural Resources Division, Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, Nuku’alofa, Tonga)

Abstract

Sanitation, water supply, and their governance remain major challenges in many Pacific Island countries. National sustainable development strategies (NSDSs) are promoted throughout the Pacific as overarching improved governance instruments to identify priorities, plan solutions, and fulfill commitments to sustainable development. Their relevance to local village-level development priorities is uncertain. In this work we compare national priorities for sanitation in NSDSs with those in village community development plans (CDPs) and with metrics in censuses from the Kingdom of Tonga. Tonga’s Strategic Development Frameworks (TSDFI 2011–2014 and TSDFII 2015–2025) were developed to focus government and its agencies on national outcomes. From 2007 to 2016, 136 villages throughout Tonga’s five Island Divisions (IDs) formulated CDPs involving separately 80% of women, youth, and men in each village. It is shown that censuses in 2006 and 2016 reveal linked improvements in water supply and sanitation systems but identify IDs with continuing challenges. It is found that sanitation and water are a national priority in TSDFI but are absent from the current TSDFII. In contrast, analysis of CDPs, published just after TSDFII, show in one ID, 53% of villages ranked sanitation as a priority and marked differences were found between IDs and between women, youth, and men. CDPs’ sanitation priorities in IDs are shown to mostly correspond to sanitation and water metrics in the censuses, but some reflect impacts of natural disasters. Explanations for differences in sanitation priorities between the national and local development plans, as well as suggestions for improving NSDS processes in island countries, are advanced.

Suggested Citation

  • Ian White & Tony Falkland & Taaniela Kula, 2020. "National Versus Local Sustainable Development Plans and Island Priorities in Sanitation: Examples from the Kingdom of Tonga," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-25, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:22:p:9379-:d:443378
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9379/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9379/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shervin Hashemi, 2020. "Sanitation Sustainability Index: A Pilot Approach to Develop a Community-Based Indicator for Evaluating Sustainability of Sanitation Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-12, August.
    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. Elyfas Allyjackson Morais Rodrigues & Artur Paiva Coutinho & Júlia Daniele Silva de Souza & Ialy Rayane de Aguiar Costa & Severino Martins dos Santos Neto & Antonio Celso Dantas Antonino, 2022. "Rural Sanitation: Scenarios and Public Policies for the Brazilian Semi-Arid Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Mitsunori Odagiri & Ann Thomas & Maraita Listyasari & Freya Mills & Robert E. S. Bain & Zainal Muhammad & Tom Slaymaker & Aldy Mardikanto & Anita Gultom & Asri Indiyani & Hasnani Rangkuti & Juliet Wil, 2021. "Safely Managed On-Site Sanitation: A National Assessment of Sanitation Services and Potential Fecal Exposure in Indonesia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-16, August.
    3. Chiuhsiang Joe Lin & Remba Yanuar Efranto, 2023. "Do Age and Gender Change the Perception of Workplace Social Sustainability?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-15, March.
    4. Anitha Vidhyadharan, 2023. "Disparities in Drinking Water and Sanitation in the Urban Slums of Kerala, India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-19, May.
    5. Ahmed M. N. Masoud & Marika Belotti & Amani Alfarra & Sabrina Sorlini, 2022. "Multi-Criteria Analysis for Evaluating Constructed Wetland as a Sustainable Sanitation Technology, Jordan Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-24, November.
    6. Richard Filčák & Daniel Škobla, 2021. "Sanitation Infrastructure at the Systemic Edge: Segregated Roma Settlements and Multiple Health Risks in Slovakia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-11, June.
    7. Vanesa García-Searcy & Mariana Villada-Canela & María Concepción Arredondo-García & Marisol Anglés-Hernández & María Candelaria Pelayo-Torres & Luis Walter Daesslé, 2022. "Sanitation in Mexico: An Overview of Its Realization as a Human Right," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-38, February.
    8. Michaela F. Prescott & Meredith F. Dobbie & Diego Ramirez-Lovering, 2021. "Green Infrastructure for Sanitation in Settlements in the Global South: A Narrative Review of Socio-Technical Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-21, February.
    9. Kelsey Shaw & Christopher Kennedy & Caetano C. Dorea, 2021. "Non-Sewered Sanitation Systems’ Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Balancing Sustainable Development Goal Tradeoffs to End Open Defecation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-16, October.
    10. Artwell Kanda & Esper Jacobeth Ncube & Kuku Voyi, 2021. "Adapting Sanitation Needs to a Latrine Design (and Its Upgradable Models): A Mixed Method Study under Lower Middle-Income Rural Settings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-19, 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:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:22:p:9379-:d:443378. 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.