3,600 research outputs found
Periurban sanitation: what's the problem?
To meet the WHO/UNICEF target of ‘Water & Sanitation for All by 2025’ some 4.4 billion people will
have to be provided with improved sanitation during 2001−2025, and around half of these are/will be in
‘urban’ areas – but in reality we are talking about periurban areas. Given that most population growth
over the next few decades will occur in ‘urban’ (again, really periurban) areas of developing countries,
periurban sanitation will have to become much more important than it already is. Our current focus is on
achieving the sanitation target of the Millennium Development Goals, but these efforts will have to be
doubled if we are to meet the WHO/UNICEF 2025 sanitation target in periurban areas, and then
maintained for the next quarter century as we seek to meet the sanitation needs of the additional two
billion or so people expected in periurban areas by 2050.
So the Big Question is: How can we provide affordable sanitation to these very large numbers of poor
people in periurban areas in developing countries? The answer to this question depends in part on the
population density: at low population densities on-site sanitation systems are normally feasible, but (and
as we have known since the early 1980s), even if there is sufficient space for them, they may not
necessarily be the cheapest option (and, because we are attempting to serve poor and very poor people,
we have to consider cost); and, of course, at high population densities on-site systems become infeasible
as there is no space for them. In addition to being affordable, the chosen sanitation system has to be both
socially acceptable and institutionally feasible.
Consider the typical periurban situation: a high population density, one too high to permit on-site
sanitation systems. What are the ‘best’ solutions for sanitation? If affordable, the system of choice would
normally be simplified sewerage (also known as ‘condominial’ sewerage). With this sanitation system
we should remember that in Natal in northeast Brazil, where it was developed in the early 1980s, it
became cheaper than on-site sanitation at the relatively low population density of ~160 persons per ha,
there were no connection charges and the monthly charge for the service was only USD 1.50; and that in
Chisty Nagar in Orangi, Karachi, Pakistan, where Brazilian-style simplified sewerage was first installed
in Asia in the mid-1980s, the residents obtained their water (only ~27 litres per person per day) from
public standpipes, thus demonstrating that a plentiful on-plot water supply is not a sine qua non for the
system. Simplified/condominial sewerage is one of the components of the very successful ‘Slum
networking’ programme in India, and it has also been used in small villages in northeast Brazil. It is
socioculturally very acceptable as it appears to its users to be similar to conventional sewerage, so their
sanitation system is the ‘same’ as that enjoyed by the rich. It is also institutionally acceptable simply
because it is a sewerage system and, as such, it can be readily understood and appreciated even by very
conservative sewerage design engineers, especially when they realise that its hydraulic design is actually
more rigorous than that used for conventional sewerage
Periurban sanitation: what's the problem?
To meet the WHO/UNICEF target of ‘Water & Sanitation for All by 2025’ some 4.4 billion people will
have to be provided with improved sanitation during 2001−2025, and around half of these are/will be in
‘urban’ areas – but in reality we are talking about periurban areas. Given that most population growth
over the next few decades will occur in ‘urban’ (again, really periurban) areas of developing countries,
periurban sanitation will have to become much more important than it already is. Our current focus is on
achieving the sanitation target of the Millennium Development Goals, but these efforts will have to be
doubled if we are to meet the WHO/UNICEF 2025 sanitation target in periurban areas, and then
maintained for the next quarter century as we seek to meet the sanitation needs of the additional two
billion or so people expected in periurban areas by 2050.
So the Big Question is: How can we provide affordable sanitation to these very large numbers of poor
people in periurban areas in developing countries? The answer to this question depends in part on the
population density: at low population densities on-site sanitation systems are normally feasible, but (and
as we have known since the early 1980s), even if there is sufficient space for them, they may not
necessarily be the cheapest option (and, because we are attempting to serve poor and very poor people,
we have to consider cost); and, of course, at high population densities on-site systems become infeasible
as there is no space for them. In addition to being affordable, the chosen sanitation system has to be both
socially acceptable and institutionally feasible.
Consider the typical periurban situation: a high population density, one too high to permit on-site
sanitation systems. What are the ‘best’ solutions for sanitation? If affordable, the system of choice would
normally be simplified sewerage (also known as ‘condominial’ sewerage). With this sanitation system
we should remember that in Natal in northeast Brazil, where it was developed in the early 1980s, it
became cheaper than on-site sanitation at the relatively low population density of ~160 persons per ha,
there were no connection charges and the monthly charge for the service was only USD 1.50; and that in
Chisty Nagar in Orangi, Karachi, Pakistan, where Brazilian-style simplified sewerage was first installed
in Asia in the mid-1980s, the residents obtained their water (only ~27 litres per person per day) from
public standpipes, thus demonstrating that a plentiful on-plot water supply is not a sine qua non for the
system. Simplified/condominial sewerage is one of the components of the very successful ‘Slum
networking’ programme in India, and it has also been used in small villages in northeast Brazil. It is
socioculturally very acceptable as it appears to its users to be similar to conventional sewerage, so their
sanitation system is the ‘same’ as that enjoyed by the rich. It is also institutionally acceptable simply
because it is a sewerage system and, as such, it can be readily understood and appreciated even by very
conservative sewerage design engineers, especially when they realise that its hydraulic design is actually
more rigorous than that used for conventional sewerage
Recommended from our members
What's the problem with teenage parents? And what's the problem with policy?
NoPublic discourse in Britain sees teenage motherhood as a pernicious social problem where mothers, their children and society generally will all suffer. Fathers are seen as feckless. This is reflected in New Labour's teenage pregnancy strategy, which understands teenage parents as victims of ignorance, mis-information, and low expectations. But a review of the research evidence finds that the age at which pregnancy occurs has little effect on social outcomes. Many teenage mothers describe how motherhood makes them feel stronger, and marks a change for the better. Many fathers seek to remain connected with their children. For both, parenting seems to provide an impetus to take up education, training and employment. Teenage parenting may be more of an opportunity than a catastrophe, and often makes sense in the life worlds inhabited by young mothers. The paper ends by asking how we can explain this yawning gulf between the experience of teenage parenting and policy, and concludes that this largely rests on assumptions of rational choice, in turn creating a `rationality mistake'
What's The Problem With ^3He?
We consider the galactic evolutionary history of \he3 in models which deplete
deuterium by as much as a factor of 2 to 15 from its primordial value to
its present day observed value in the ISM. We show that when \he3 production in
low mass stars (1 -- 3 ) is included over the history of the galaxy,
\he3 is greatly over-produced and exceeds the inferred solar values and the
abundances determined in galactic \hii regions. Furthermore, the ISM abundances
show a disturbing dispersion which is difficult to understand from the point of
view of standard chemical evolution models. In principle, resolution of the
problem may lie in either 1) the calculated \he3 production in low mass stars;
2) the observations of the \he3 abundance; or 3) an observational bias towards
regions of depleted \he3. Since \he3 observations in planetary nebula support
the calculated \he3 production in low mass stars, option (1) is unlikely. We
will argue for option (3) since the \he3 interstellar observations are indeed
made in regions dominated by massive stars in which \he3 is destroyed. In
conclusion, we note that the problem with \he3 seems to be galactic and not
cosmological.Comment: 17 pages, LaTeX, 5 postscript figures available upon reques
What's the Problem? Cultural Capability and Learning from Historical Performance
Contains the cis-eQTLs with P value < 5 % for T-cells obtained from early undifferentiated arthritis patients. (TXT 1162 kb
What's the problem? A response to "secular humanism and scientific psychiatry"
Notwithstanding the interest and importance of Szasz's position, it neglects the phenomena, the real problems which take people to the clinic seeking treatment, and the conditionality of the notion of individual responsibility
'No Negative Evidence': What's the Problem?
Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on The Role of Learnability in Grammatical Theory (1996
Dewey and Foucault: What's the Problem?
This article explicates a valuable but undernoticed point of contact between John Dewey and Michel Foucault. Both agreed that thinking arose in the context of problems such that the work of thought for both proceeds by way of working through and working over problems. Both affirmed that thinking arose in problematic situations; that it was about clarifying those situations, and that ultimately it was directed towards achieving a degree of resolution of what was problematic in the situation. Both agreed that thinking—or inquiry—was not fundamentally about the representations of a situation; either those produced by a contemporary thinker or as an exercise directed at historical materials. Both agreed that a history of ideas as autonomous entities, distorted not only the process of thinking as a practice, but also the reasons for which it had been engaged in, often with a certain seriousness and urgency, the first place: that is to say, such approaches covered over the stakes. Both agreed that the stakes involved something experiential and entailed a form of logic (or in Foucault’s later vocabulary a mode of ‘veridiction’), in which the thinker could not help but be involved
Attachment and Wellbeing What's the problem?
An overview of the issues of attachment and emotional and behavioural difficulties in early years. A presentation bid for funding for small scale pilot project
- …