Sustainable Sanitation for All 2016
DOI: 10.3362/9781780449272.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

CHAPTER 8: The long-term safe management of rural shit

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
1
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This includes on-site treatment or less frequent emptying options to reduce the vulnerability of the poorest, since provision of regular desludging services might be challenging and economically unviable in these settings [49]. It is reported that, in such areas, due to a lack of affordable emptying services, rural households tend to choose unhygienic manual emptying and dumping without adequate treatment such as flooding out (i.e., intentional release of sludge into the neighborhood during rainy seasons) or even reversion to open defecation [13,40,50,51]. This suggests that, despite lower potential fecal exposure as measured by the density metrics, public health risks are unlikely to be negligible, and further research is needed to better understand current fecal sludge management (FSM) practices and to assess the suitability of options for low-cost FSM in low population density areas.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This includes on-site treatment or less frequent emptying options to reduce the vulnerability of the poorest, since provision of regular desludging services might be challenging and economically unviable in these settings [49]. It is reported that, in such areas, due to a lack of affordable emptying services, rural households tend to choose unhygienic manual emptying and dumping without adequate treatment such as flooding out (i.e., intentional release of sludge into the neighborhood during rainy seasons) or even reversion to open defecation [13,40,50,51]. This suggests that, despite lower potential fecal exposure as measured by the density metrics, public health risks are unlikely to be negligible, and further research is needed to better understand current fecal sludge management (FSM) practices and to assess the suitability of options for low-cost FSM in low population density areas.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, additional analysis indicates that it cannot be assumed that reduction of open defecation practices would always lead to increased emptying practices (Figure S3). Leveraging on-going efforts to eliminate open defecation, inclusion of FSM into national community-led total sanitation (CLTS) monitoring (i.e., post-triggering or post-open defecation free monitoring) could be useful to address this issue from the onset of sanitation program implementation [51] while supporting the poorest with FSM through targeted subsidies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, potential negative public health impacts associated with fecal sludge management of latrines (Myers ) and water and sludge recycling practices include risk of human exposure to waterborne contaminants during transport (Jin et al. ).…”
Section: Synergies and Trade‐offs In The Relationship Of Circular Ecomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, potential negative public health impacts associated with fecal sludge management of latrines (Myers 2016) and water and sludge recycling practices include risk of human exposure to waterborne contaminants during transport (Jin et al 2014). Workers who handle and recycle human feces into fertilizer are at increased risk of becoming ill from waterborne diarrheal and parasitic diseases, which need to be prevented through safety measures so as not to create trade-offs with SDG 3 (Good Health and Wellbeing), in particular Targets 3.3 and 3.9.…”
Section: Sustainable Development Goals Synergies and Trade-offs Relatmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…18 Despite the prevailing view of latrine improvement as an intervention that promotes health, it should be kept in mind that latrines could, in fact, play a role in transmitting disease if they are badly constructed. 19 For example, some low-quality latrines taken up after CLTS interventions have sometimes been criticized as involving "fixed point open defecation" by collecting excreta in one place nearer the household but still accessible to animals/ flies. 20 In this regard, achieving the open defecationfree status, as it is generally defined, might end up disseminating fixed-point open defecation practices if CLTS implementers are not cautious about latrine design.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%