IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/45830.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

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

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Günther, Isabel & Niwagaba, Charles B. & Lüthi, Christoph & Horst, Alexandra & Mosler, Hans-Joachim & Tumwebaze, Innocent K., 2012. "When is shared sanitation improved sanitation? - The correlation between number of users and toilet hygiene," MPRA Paper 45830, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:45830
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/45830/1/MPRA_paper_45830.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no

    More about this item

    Keywords

    sanitation; low-income areas; Sub-Saharan Africa;

    JEL classification:

    • I30 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General
    • O12 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Microeconomic Analyses of Economic Development

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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: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). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.