IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i3p1024-d314939.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Approach Incorporating User Preferences in the Design of Sanitation Systems and Its Application in the Rural Communities of Chiapas, Mexico

Author

Listed:
  • Thalía Turrén-Cruz

    (Water Center for Latin America and the Caribbean, School of Engineering and Sciences, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey 64849, Mexico)

  • Juan Alejandro García-Rodríguez

    (Department of political science and international relations, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey 64849, Mexico)

  • Rodrigo E. Peimbert-García

    (Water Center for Latin America and the Caribbean, School of Engineering and Sciences, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey 64849, Mexico
    School of Engineering, Macquarie University, New South Wales 2113, Australia)

  • Miguel Ángel López Zavala

    (Water Center for Latin America and the Caribbean, School of Engineering and Sciences, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey 64849, Mexico)

Abstract

Globally, the numerous efforts exerted toward providing basic sanitation services to people have not been sufficient to achieve universal coverage. In developing countries worldwide, many policies, strategies, initiatives, and projects on basic sanitation have failed, despite important investments. Of the several reasons explaining the failure, it is remarkable to note that such approaches have focused mainly on improving the technology of the sanitation system without considering the human aspects, such as user preferences. Moreover, there is currently no comprehensive approach that ensures the provision of a sanitation service that users want or need to satisfy their needs. In this regard, this study proposed an approach to identify the variables and indicators that represent user preferences in the selection and creation of more holistic sanitation strategies, technologies, systems, and services. The proposed approach was applied in rural communities of Chiapas, the poorest state of Mexico, and was effective in identifying user preferences, which suggests that it could be an intrinsic part of the design, planning, and implementation process toward leading rural communities to achieve sustainable development goals on universal basic sanitation. The evaluation results also demonstrated that among the preferences linked to the technical features, esthetics, costs of the system, and socioeconomic-related aspects were the most important to be considered in the provision of basic sanitation. The study points out the necessity of understanding how culture, preferences, practices, and socioeconomic conditions directly affect the possibilities for users to gain access to basic sustainable sanitation services.

Suggested Citation

  • Thalía Turrén-Cruz & Juan Alejandro García-Rodríguez & Rodrigo E. Peimbert-García & Miguel Ángel López Zavala, 2020. "An Approach Incorporating User Preferences in the Design of Sanitation Systems and Its Application in the Rural Communities of Chiapas, Mexico," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:3:p:1024-:d:314939
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/3/1024/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/3/1024/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ferro, Gustavo, 1999. "Indicadores de eficiencia en agua y saneamiento a partir de costos medios e indicadores de productividad parcial," UADE Textos de Discusión 7_1999, Instituto de Economía, Universidad Argentina de la Empresa.
    2. Alejandro Jiménez & Moa Cortobius & Marianne Kjellén, 2014. "Water, sanitation and hygiene and indigenous peoples: a review of the literature," Water International, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(3), pages 277-293, May.
    3. Jenkins, Marion W. & Curtis, Val, 2005. "Achieving the 'good life': Why some people want latrines in rural Benin," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(11), pages 2446-2459, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thalía Turrén-Cruz & Miguel Ángel López Zavala, 2021. "Framework Proposal for Achieving Smart and Sustainable Societies (S 3 )," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-14, November.
    2. 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.

    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. Barrington, D.J. & Sridharan, S. & Shields, K.F. & Saunders, S.G. & Souter, R.T. & Bartram, J., 2017. "Sanitation marketing: A systematic review and theoretical critique using the capability approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 128-134.
    2. Jesem Douglas Yamall Orellana & Giovanna Gatica-Domínguez & Juliana dos Santos Vaz & Paulo Augusto Ribeiro Neves & Ana Claudia Santiago de Vasconcellos & Sandra de Souza Hacon & Paulo Cesar Basta, 2021. "Intergenerational Association of Short Maternal Stature with Stunting in Yanomami Indigenous Children from the Brazilian Amazon," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-14, August.
    3. Eric Nazindigouba KERE & Johanna CHOUMERT & Amandine Loyal LARÉ-DONDARINI, 2014. "The impact of water and sanitation access on housing values: The case of Dapaong, Togo," Working Papers 201403, CERDI.
    4. María Laura Alzúa & Habiba Djebbari & Amy J. Pickering, 2020. "A Community-Based Program Promotes Sanitation," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 68(2), pages 357-390.
    5. Rochelle Holm & Mavuto Tembo & Dalo Njera & Victor Kasulo & Mphatso Malota & Willy Chipeta & Wales Singini & Joshua Mchenga, 2016. "Adopters and Non-Adopters of Low-Cost Household Latrines: A Study of Corbelled Pit Latrines in 15 Districts of Malawi," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-8, September.
    6. 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.
    7. YuJung Julia Lee & Tiffany Radcliff, 2021. "Community interactions and sanitation use by the urban poor: Survey evidence from India’s slums," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 58(4), pages 715-732, March.
    8. McEachern, Menzie & Hanson, Susan, 2008. "Socio-geographic perception in the diffusion of innovation: Solar energy technology in Sri Lanka," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 2578-2590, July.
    9. Ian Ross & Giulia Greco & Charles Opondo & Zaida Adriano & Rassul Nala & Joe Brown & Robert Dreibelbis & Oliver Cumming, 2022. "Measuring and valuing broader impacts in public health: Development of a sanitation‐related quality of life instrument in Maputo, Mozambique," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 466-480, March.
    10. Naho Mirumachi & Margot Hurlbert, 2022. "Reflecting on twenty years of international agreements concerning water governance: insights and key learning," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 317-332, June.
    11. Sheillah Simiyu & Mark Swilling & Richard Rheingans & Sandy Cairncross, 2017. "Estimating the Cost and Payment for Sanitation in the Informal Settlements of Kisumu, Kenya: A Cross Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-16, January.
    12. Anna Lunn, 2020. "Urban family ties and household latrines in rural India: A cross-sectional analysis of national data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-19, July.
    13. Borooah, Vani, 2018. "Sanitation and Hygiene," MPRA Paper 90420, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. O. Flores Baquero & J. Gallego-Ayala & R. Giné-Garriga & A. Jiménez-Fernández. Palencia & A. Pérez-Foguet, 2017. "The Influence of the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation Normative Content in Measuring the Level of Service," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 133(2), pages 763-786, September.
    15. Seshaiah, Manasi & Nagesh, Latha & Ramesh, Hemalatha, 2017. "Sanitation challenges of the poor in urban and rural settings: Case studies of Bengaluru City and rural North Karnataka," MERIT Working Papers 2017-026, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    16. Shakya, Holly B. & Christakis, Nicholas A. & Fowler, James H., 2015. "Social network predictors of latrine ownership," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 129-138.
    17. Anurag N. Banerjee & Nilanjan Banik & Ashvika Dalmia, 2017. "Demand for household sanitation in India using NFHS-3 data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 53(1), pages 307-327, August.
    18. Vani Kant Borooah, 2022. "Development, Sanitation and Personal Hygiene in India," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 34(1), pages 103-123, February.
    19. Tumwebaze, Innocent K. & Mosler, Hans-Joachim, 2015. "Effectiveness of group discussions and commitment in improving cleaning behaviour of shared sanitation users in Kampala, Uganda slums," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 72-79.
    20. Chris McDonald & Ana I. Moreno-Monroy & Laura-Sofia Springare, 2019. "Indigenous economic development and well-being in a place-based context," OECD Regional Development Working Papers 2019/01, OECD Publishing.

    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:3:p:1024-:d:314939. 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.