Beyond ‘improved’ towards ‘safe and sustainable’ urban sanitation: assessing the design, management and functionality of sanitation in poor communities of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Open accessAbstract
This study assessed sanitation access in rapidly expanding informal settlements in Dar es Salaam (Dar) against eight proposed indicators of hygienic safety, sustainability and functionality, and in relation to the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) ‘improved’ sanitation definition. Information was collected on toilet facility designs, management and functionality through a structured interview and observations at 662 randomly selected residential properties across 35 unplanned, low-income sub-wards of Dar. Trends in access and associations with sharing, occupancy, latrine replacement, income, education and location factors were considered through statistical analyses. Surveyed sub-wards were open-defecation free. While 56% of households used a facility that met the MDG improved technology definition, only 8% had a functional facility that could be considered as hygienically safe and sustainable sanitation. Safe, sustainable, functioning sanitation access was 2.6 times greater among the richest quintile than the two poorest quintiles. Very poor sanitation services among Dar's urban poor arise from widespread lack of access to hygienically safe pit emptying services, unhygienic designs and functionality problems (affecting 67, 55 and 29%, respectively). As new goals and targets beyond 2015 are discussed, these findings may have important implications for defining what constitutes ‘improved’ sanitation for poor populations living in unplanned informal settlements.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Full and/or overflowing improved pit latrines do not meet the criteria for hygienic, safe and sustainable sanitation systems.
“However, it has been reported that full and/or over flowing improved pit latrines do not meet the criteria for hygienic, safe and sustainable sanitation systems [35].”
From Are pit latrines in urban areas of Sub-Saharan Africa performing? A review of usage, filling, insects and odour nuisances (2015) · cites this paper as [35]
In “Access to safe and sustainable facilities” (page unavailable), the paper says flood-out drain pipes cause facilities to fail its hygienically safe and sustainable design criteria. Its functionality indicators also exclude completely full pits. But “Access to safe and sustainable sanitation systems” defines system access by facility design and access to safe emptying, with functionality assessed separately; the claim therefore overstates what a full pit alone means for system classification. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 40% of latrines were full or nearly full.
“M Jenkins, et al. [35] noted that 40 % of the latrines were full or nearly full in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.”
From Are pit latrines in urban areas of Sub-Saharan Africa performing? A review of usage, filling, insects and odour nuisances (2015) · cites this paper as [35]
The Facility condition section reports that over 40% of facilities were full or nearly full. But the paper describes its study as covering some of Dar es Salaam’s poorest unplanned settlements, not latrines across the city as a whole. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Hygiene, Sanitation, and Water: Forgotten Foundations of Health
Bartram, J., & Cairncross, S. (2010) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000367 · Cited by 817 · see citing works
Self-citationProtecting Groundwater for Health: Managing the Quality of Drinking-water Sources
Schmoll, O. (2013) · Water Intelligence Online · doi:10.2166/9781780405810 · Cited by 362 · see citing works
Hancioglu, A., & Arnold, F. (2013) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001391 · Cited by 272 · see citing works
Informal Urban Settlements and Cholera Risk in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Penrose, K., Castro, M. C., Werema, J., & Ryan, E. T. (2010) · PLoS neglected tropical diseases · doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0000631 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
A Critical Review of Technologies for Pit Latrine Emptying in Developing Countries
Thye, Y. P., Templeton, M. R., & Ali, M. (2011) · Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology · doi:10.1080/10643389.2010.481593 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Kone, D., & Strauss, M. (2004) · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Fry, S. (2002) · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Human excreta and sanitation: control and protection.
Howard, G., Reed, B., McChesney, D. J., Taylor, R. G., Schmoll, O., Chilton, J., & Chorus, I. (2006) · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- McCubbin, C. PhD Thesis, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. NBS Household Budget Survey 2007, Final Report, 6 May 2009. National Bureau of Statistics, United Republic of Tanzania.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Nakagiri, A., Niwagaba, C. B., Nyenje, P. M., Kulabako, R. N., Tumuhairwe, J. B., & Kansiime, F. (2015) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-016-2772-z · Cited by 133 · see citing works
Performance of pit latrines in urban poor areas: A case of Kampala, Uganda
Nakagiri, A., Kulabako, R. N., Nyenje, P. M., Tumuhairwe, J. B., Niwagaba, C. B., & Kansiime, F. (2015) · Habitat International · doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.07.005 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Fuhrmeister, E. R., Schwab, K. J., & Julian, T. R. (2015) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b02919 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
- Authors
- Jenkins, M. W., Cumming, O., Scott, B., & Cairncross, S.
- Affiliations
- London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
- Department for International Development (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Jenkins, M. W.
- Venue
- Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development
- Publisher
- IWA Publishing
- Published
- 2013-12-13
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 131-141
- ISSN
- 2043-9083 (ISSN-L)
- 2408-9362
- OpenAlex
- W2112115457
- Cited by
- 81
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 13.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban and Rural Development Challenges
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Child Nutrition and Water Access
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Studies and Social Issues
- Keywords
- urban sanitation, informal settlements, hygienic safety, sustainable sanitation, sanitation access, household wealth inequality, Dar es Salaam
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
