IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

When is shared sanitation improved sanitation? - The correlation between number of users and toilet hygiene

Listed author(s):
  • Günther, Isabel
  • Niwagaba, Charles B.
  • Lüthi, Christoph
  • Horst, Alexandra
  • Mosler, Hans-Joachim
  • Tumwebaze, Innocent K.

The international debate on the question of whether shared and/or public sanitation facilities should be considered improved is still open. The concern is that a shared sanitation facility cannot be maintained in hygienic conditions when used by too many people. The analysis of 1’500 randomly selected toilets in the urban slums of Kampala showed that only 22 percent of households have access to private sanitation facilities; the remaining 78 percent share their toilet with an average of 6 households. There is a clear and strong correlation between number of users and the condition and cleanliness of a toilet stance. Less than 20 percent of private toilets are dirty, whereas 60 percent of sanitation facilities are dirty if they are shared by more than 10 households. This policy brief asserts that toilet facilities shared by not more than four households can be considered “acceptable” or improved, with “only” about 25 percent classified as dirty by an objective evaluation.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 45830.

in new window

Date of creation: Dec 2012
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:45830
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany

Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2459
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-992459
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:45830. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Joachim Winter)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.