Cited by 24Wastewater Treatment and ReuseChild Nutrition and Water AccessMunicipal Solid Waste Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Faecal sludge management in low income areas: a case study of three districts in the Ashanti region of Ghana

Appiah-Effah, Eugene, Nyarko, Kwabena Biritwum, Gyasi, Samuel Fosu, Awuah, Esi·2014·Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development

Abstract

The challenge of faecal sludge management (FSM) in most developing countries is acute, particularly in low income areas. This study examined the management of faecal sludge (FS) from household latrines and public toilets in three districts in the Ashanti region of Ghana based on household surveys, key informant interviews and field observations. Communities did not have designated locations for the disposal and treatment of FS. For household toilets, about 31 and 42% of peri-urban and rural respondents, respectively, with their toilets full reported that they did not consider manual or mechanical desludging as an immediate remedy, although pits were accessible. Households rather preferred to close and abandon their toilets and use public toilets at a fee or practise open defecation. For the public toilets, desludging was manually carried out at a fee of GHC 800–1,800 and the process usually lasted 8–14 days per toilet facility. The study showed that FSM has not been adequately catered for in both peri-urban and rural areas. However, respondents from the peri-urban areas relatively manage their FS better than their rural counterparts. To address the poor FSM in the study communities, a decentralized FS composting is a potential technology that could be used.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2166/washdev.2014.126

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Appiah-Effah, E., Nyarko, K. B., Gyasi, S. F., & Awuah, E.
Affiliations
  • Civil Engineering Department, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
  • Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (GH)
  • University of Energy and Natural Resources (GH)
Venue
Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development
Published
2014-03-27
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
189-199
ISSN
  • 2043-9083 (ISSN-L)
  • 2408-9362
OpenAlex
W2333782337
Cited by
24
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2
FWCI
1.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development (publishedVersion)
Funders
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Child Nutrition and Water Access
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Municipal Solid Waste Management
Keywords
fecal sludge management, household latrines, public toilets, open defecation, low-income communities, peri-urban areas, rural sanitation, decentralized composting, Ashanti Region, Ghana

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