IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0185875.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contributing to the debate on categorising shared sanitation facilities as ‘unimproved’: An account based on field researchers’ observations and householders’ opinions in three regions, Tanzania

Author

Listed:
  • Khalid Massa
  • Fadhili Kilamile
  • Emmanuela Safari
  • Amour Seleman
  • Anyitike Mwakitalima
  • Jonas G Balengayabo
  • Telemu Kassile
  • Peter E Mangesho
  • Godfrey M Mubyazi

Abstract

Background: Health risks associated with poor sanitation behaviours continue to be reported mostly from low-income countries (LICs). Reports show that various factors limit many people from accessing and using improved latrines, forcing some to opt for sharing latrines with neighbours, others practicing open defecation. Meanwhile, debate prevails on whether shared latrines should be categorised as unimproved according to WHO/UNICEF-JMP criteria. We contribute to this debate based on results from a study undertaken in three regions, Tanzania. Materials and methods: Data were collected through observations in 1,751 households with latrines, coupled with collection of opinions from heads of such households regarding the latrine-sharing practices. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess associations between the outcome and possible predictor variables. Results: Of all 1,751 latrines, 14.6% were shared. Among the shared latrines, 74.2% were found being generally clean as compared to 69.2% of the non-shared ones. Comparing the shared and non-shared latrines, the non-shared latrines were significantly less likely to be found with floors built with permanent materials (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.55, 0.98); washable floors (OR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.51, 0.93); and lockable doors (OR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.56, 0.95). Shared latrines were less likely to have floors with faecal matter, functional handwashing facilities (HWFs), HWFs with running water, and roofs; albeit the differences in all these scenarios were not statistically significant. Respondents expressed desire for improved latrines, but also did not find it wrong to share latrines if cleanliness was maintained. Conclusion: Having an ‘improved’ latrine remains important as JMP recommends, but based on our study findings, we argue that possessing a non-shared latrine neither guarantees safety to its users nor its categorisation as ‘improved’. Instead, the state of the latrine, the construction technology used and the behaviours of the users may be more important.

Suggested Citation

  • Khalid Massa & Fadhili Kilamile & Emmanuela Safari & Amour Seleman & Anyitike Mwakitalima & Jonas G Balengayabo & Telemu Kassile & Peter E Mangesho & Godfrey M Mubyazi, 2017. "Contributing to the debate on categorising shared sanitation facilities as ‘unimproved’: An account based on field researchers’ observations and householders’ opinions in three regions, Tanzania," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-23, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0185875
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185875
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185875
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185875&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0185875?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. World Bank, 2015. "Tanzania Poverty Assessment," World Bank Publications - Reports 21871, The World Bank Group.
    2. Seleman, Amour & Bhat, Mahadev G., 2016. "Multi-criteria assessment of sanitation technologies in rural Tanzania: Implications for program implementation, health and socio-economic improvements," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 70-79.
    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. Wineman, Ayala & Jayne, Thomas S., 2016. "Intra-Rural Migration in Tanzania and Pathways of Welfare Change," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235957, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. World Bank Group, 2017. "Tanzania Economic Update, April 2017," World Bank Publications - Reports 26393, The World Bank Group.
    3. Tseday J. Mekasha & Kenneth Mdadila & Jehovaness Aikaeli & Finn Tarp, 2022. "Export Commodity Dependence and Vulnerability to Poverty," DERG working paper series 22-14, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. Development Economics Research Group (DERG).
    4. Benali, Marwan & Brümmer, Bernhard & Afari-Sefa, Victor, 2017. "Small producer participation in export vegetable supply chains and poverty: evidence from different export schemes in Tanzania," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 262583, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    5. Wineman, Ayala & Jayne, Thomas S., 2017. "Intra-Rural Migration And Pathways To Greater Well-Being: Evidence From Tanzania," Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy Research Papers 261669, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security (FSP).
    6. Mather, David, 2017. "The determinants of adoption of commercially -priced inorganic fertilizer for use on maize in Tanzania," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 266420, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    7. Kafle, Kashi & Jolliffe, Dean & Winter-Nelson, Alex, 2018. "Do different types of assets have differential effects on child education? Evidence from Tanzania," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 14-28.
    8. Petracco,Carly Kathleen & Sanchez-Reaza,Javier, 2018. "Tanzania Jobs Diagnostic," Jobs Group Papers, Notes, and Guides 30898333, The World Bank.
    9. Emmanuel Maliti, 2016. "Horizontal inequality in education and wealth in Tanzania: A 20-year perspective," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2016-114, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    10. Channing Arndt & Vincent Leyaro & Kristi Mahrt & Finn Tarp, 2016. "Multidimensional assessment of child welfare for Tanzania," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2016-75, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    11. Choumert-Nkolo, Johanna & Combes Motel, Pascale & Le Roux, Leonard, 2019. "Stacking up the ladder: A panel data analysis of Tanzanian household energy choices," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 222-235.
    12. Channing Arndt & Sam Jones & Kristi Mahrt & Vincenzo Salvucci & Finn Tarp, 2016. "A review of consumption poverty estimation for Mozambique," WIDER Working Paper Series 035, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    13. Wineman, Ayala, 2017. "Women′S Welfare And Livelihoods Outside Of Marriage: Evidence From Rural Tanzania," Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy Research Papers 261671, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security (FSP).
    14. Mather, David & Minde, Isaac, 2016. "Fertilizer subsidies and how targeting conditions crowding in/out: An assessment of smallholder fertilizer demand in Tanzania," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 260442, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    15. Ayala Wineman, 2019. "Women’s welfare and livelihoods outside of marriage: evidence from rural Tanzania," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 993-1024, September.
    16. Andrew Dabalen & Isis Gaddis & Nga Thi Viet Nguyen, 2020. "CPI Bias and its Implications for Poverty Reduction in Africa," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 18(1), pages 13-44, March.
    17. Maria Adam Nyangasa & Christoph Buck & Soerge Kelm & Mohammed Sheikh & Antje Hebestreit, 2019. "Exploring Food Access and Sociodemographic Correlates of Food Consumption and Food Insecurity in Zanzibari Households," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-15, May.
    18. Raoul Herrmann & Ephraim Nkonya & Anja Faße, 2018. "Food value chain linkages and household food security in Tanzania," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 10(4), pages 827-839, August.
    19. Hussein Luswaga & Ernst-August Nuppenau, 2022. "Non-timber forest products income and inequality status for communities around West Usambara Mountain Forests in Tanzania," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(10), pages 11651-11675, October.
    20. Olukorede Abiona & Martin Foureaux Koppensteiner, 2022. "Financial Inclusion, Shocks, and Poverty: Evidence from the Expansion of Mobile Money in Tanzania," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 57(2), pages 435-464.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0185875. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.