Fecal sludge management: a comparative analysis of 12 cities
Open accessAbstract
This paper outlines the findings of a fecal sludge management (FSM) initial scoping study in 12 cities. This short, desk-based study assesses the institutional context and the outcome in terms of the amount of fecal sludge safely managed in each city. A range of cities was included in the review, all in low- and middle-income countries. None of the cities studied managed fecal sludge effectively, although performance varied. Where cities are seeking to address fecal sludge challenges the solutions are, at best, only partial, with a focus on sewerage which serves a small minority in most cases. FSM requires strong city-level oversight and an enabling environment that drives coordinated actions along the sanitation service chain; this was largely absent in the cities studied. Based on the findings of the review a typology of cities was developed to aid the identification of key interventions to improve FSM service delivery. Additional work is recommended to further improve the tools used in this study in order to enable better understanding of the FSM challenges and identify appropriate operational solutions.
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?
A study of 12 cities suggests that in many settings faecal sludge is not being managed effectively.
“A study of 12 cities suggests that in many settings faecal sludge is not being managed effectively [34].”
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
(2008) · reroDoc Digital Library · Cited by 491 · see citing works
Unbundling tenure issues for urban sanitation development
Scott, P. (2011) · Loughborough University Institutional Repository (Loughborough University) · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Climate change impacts on urban sanitation: a systematic review and failure mode analysis
Hyde-Smith, L., Zhan, Z., Roelich, K., Mdee, A., & Evans, B. (2022) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.1c07424 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Khan, S. M., Bain, R. E. S., Lunze, K., Unalan, T., Beshanski-Pedersen, B., Slaymaker, T., Johnston, R., & Hancioglu, A. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0189089 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
- Authors
- Peal, A., Evans, B., Blackett, I., Hawkins, P., & Heymans, C.
- Affiliations
- Independent consultant, Macclesfield, Cheshire, UK
- University of Leeds (GB)
- World Bank (US)
- Corresponding author
- Peal, Andy
- ORCID
- Evans, Barbara
- Venue
- Journal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development
- Publisher
- IWA Publishing
- Published
- 2014-09-22
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 563-575
- ISSN
- 2043-9083 (ISSN-L)
- 2408-9362
- OpenAlex
- W2315423687
- Cited by
- 99
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 11.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
- Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban and Rural Development Challenges
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Municipal Solid Waste Management
- Keywords
- fecal sludge management, urban sanitation, sanitation service delivery, institutional environment, sewerage, urban typology, enabling environment
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