Cited by 99Wastewater Treatment and ReuseUrban and Rural Development ChallengesMunicipal Solid Waste Management

Fecal sludge management: a comparative analysis of 12 cities

Open access
Peal, Andy, Evans, Barbara, Blackett, Isabel, Hawkins, Peter, Heymans, Chris·2014·Journal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2166/washdev.2014.026

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
Venue
Journal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development
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
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