↓ Skip to main content

Are pit latrines in urban areas of Sub-Saharan Africa performing? A review of usage, filling, insects and odour nuisances

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
303 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Are pit latrines in urban areas of Sub-Saharan Africa performing? A review of usage, filling, insects and odour nuisances
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-2772-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Nakagiri, Charles B. Niwagaba, Philip M. Nyenje, Robinah N. Kulabako, John B. Tumuhairwe, Frank Kansiime

Abstract

A pit latrine is the most basic form of improved sanitation which is currently used by a number of people around the globe. In spite of the wide spread use, known successes and advantages associated with pit latrines, they have received little attention in form of research and development. This review focuses on the usage and performance (filling, smell and insect nuisance) of pit latrines in urban areas of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and proposes approaches for their improvements and sustainability. Current pit latrine usage within urban SSA was calculated from Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) water and sanitation country-files. We conducted a literature search and review of documents on pit latrine usage, filling, smell and insect nuisances in urban areas of SSA. Findings of the review are presented and discussed in this paper. Pit latrines are in use by more than half the urban population in SSA and especially among low income earners. An additional 36 million people in urban areas of SSA have adopted the pit latrine since 2007. However, their performance is unsatisfactory. Available literature shows that contributions have been made to address shortfalls related to pit latrine use in terms of science and technological innovations. However, further research is still needed. Any technology and process management innovations to pit latrines should involve scientifically guided approaches. In addition, development, dissemination and enforcement of minimum pit latrine design standards are important while the importance of hygienic latrines should also be emphasized.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 303 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Unknown 301 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 66 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 15%
Researcher 29 10%
Student > Bachelor 26 9%
Student > Postgraduate 12 4%
Other 34 11%
Unknown 92 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 60 20%
Engineering 55 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 5%
Social Sciences 14 5%
Other 41 14%
Unknown 100 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 July 2018.
All research outputs
#19,405,863
of 24,716,872 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#13,672
of 16,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#281,836
of 407,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#220
of 262 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,716,872 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,375 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 407,347 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 262 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.