Improved According to Whom?

The UN and WHO (2015:52) define sanitation on a four-step ladder, which I have outlined below (from lowest to highest sanitation ‘quality’):

1.     Open defecation: when human waste is disposed of in nature, open spaces or with solid waste (unimproved sanitation)

2.     Unimproved sanitation facilities: where human excreta is not separated from human contact (unimproved sanitation)

3.     Shared sanitation facilities: enables disposal of human excreta without human contact, but is shared between two or more households (unimproved sanitation)

4.     Improved sanitation facilities: enables disposal of human excreta without human contact and is not shared between households (improved sanitation)  

In this post I want to focus on the third step on the ladder, the shared sanitation facilities, and use a study by Schouten and Mathenge (2010) to highlight how the official definition of improved/unimproved sanitation, might not always match the experiences on the ground.

Schouten and Mathenge (2010) carry out an assessment of shared sanitation facilities in the large slum, Kibera, located south west of the Kenyan capital of Nairobi. Their main research focus is how local users perceive shared sanitation facilities, which are the most common type of facility in the area. They assess the criteria by which local dwellers perceive facilities and find seven main determinants for satisfaction - these are displayed in the pie chart below (figure 1).

Figure 1: Most important criteria for satisfaction with communal sanitation facilities (Schouten and Mathenge 2010, 820)  

      Schouten and Mathenge (2010) find that the success criteria put forward by local dwellers do not always match other stakeholder’s views of success. For instance, some NGOs in the area advocate biogas toilets due to a number of practical considerations – they do not acquire emptying as often as other facilities such as pit latrines, they are not dependent on water or sewage connections and they potentially produce a source of electricity. However, the biogas facilities achieve the lowest satisfaction score (when compared to VIP latrines, pour flush toilets and WCs) from local dwellers. Users are particularly unhappy with the smell in biogas toilets, which means the facilities do not perform well in the most important criteria for local dwellers – cleanliness.

Just as local stakeholders do not always agree on the criteria for success, Schouten and Mathenge (2010) argue that the official definition of improved sanitation may be challenged. They find that slum dwellers perceive individual sanitation facilities as a practical impossibility, while well constructed and properly maintained shared facilities are considered the most appropriate. This leads the authors to argue that if shared facilities meet the most valued criteria of the local dwellers (such as cleanliness), then a shared facility may actually be an improved sanitation option, counter to the UN/WHO definition.

I guess this definition issue is most important in terms of statistics and measuring improvement, while on a daily basis it matters less to local dwellers whether their sanitation facilities are defined as improved or not. What really matters is that facility’s ability to meet preferences and demand. In my opinion, what the article by Schouten and Mathenge (2010) most importantly does is to call for local participation when working to improve sanitation. User preferences and their understanding of improved are of utmost importance.  

k