Frameworks for selecting appropriate rural sanitation technology options in low- and middle-income countries: a critical review

References

• Apanga PA, Garn JV, Sakas Z, Freeman MC. 2020. Assessing the impact and equity of an integrated rural sanitation approach: a longitudinal evaluation in 11 sub-Saharan Africa and Asian Countries. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 17(5):1808. doi:10.3390/ijerph17051808.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes R, Roser D, Brown P. 2011. Critical evaluation of planning frameworks for rural water and sanitation development projects. Dev Pract. 21(2):168–189. doi:10.1080/09614524.2011.543269.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer AM, Brown A. 2014. Quantitative assessment of appropriate technology. Proc Eng. 78:345–358. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2014.07.076.
   Google Scholar
• Bouabid A, Louis GE. 2015. Capacity factor analysis for evaluating water and sanitation infrastructure choices for developing communities. J Environ Manage. 161:335–343. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.07.012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrard N, Kohlitz J, Soeters S, Halcrow G, Murta J, Willetts J. 2020. Reaching all in rural sanitation: experiences from inclusive programming in five countries. Dev Pract. 30(5):609–623. doi:10.1080/09614524.2020.1786008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castellano D, de Bruijne G, Maessen S, Mels A. 2011. Modelling chaos? Sanitation options; support and communication tool. Water Pract Technol. 6(3). doi:10.2166/wpt.2011.060.
   Google Scholar
• Dakuré MS, Traoré MB, Sossou SK, Maiga AH. 2017. Development of sanitation technologies in African context: how could we make it more sustainable? IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 60:012032. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/60/1/012032.
   Google Scholar
• Feachem RG. 1980. Community participation in appropriate water supply and sanitation technologies. The mythology for the decade. Proc R Soc Lond B. 209:15–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filho FJCM, de Queiroz AAFSL, Machado BS, Paulo PL. 2019. Sustainable sanitation management tool for decision making in isolated areas in Brazil. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 16(7):1118. doi:10.3390/ijerph16071118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garniati L, Owen A, Kruijesen J, Ishadamy Y, Wibisono I. 2014. Interface between appropriate technology and sustainable energy policy in vulnerable societies. Sustain Cities Soc. 12:9–15. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2013.10.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halim HSA, Abdel-Halim W, Nazih M. 2005. Selection and evaluation of appropriate sanitation systems in rural Egypt. Case study in Sohag Governorate, Upper Egypt. ESCWA Conference: Sustainability of Arab cities and security of housing and land tenure and urban governance; Dec 15-18; Cairo, Egypt.
   Google Scholar
• Henriques JJ, Louis GEA. 2011. Decision model for selecting sustainable drinking water supply and grey water reuse systems for developing communities with a case study in Cimahi, Indonesia. J Environ Manage. 92(1):214–222. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.09.016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard JR, Quinn N, Eales K, Douglas S, Quinn N, Voller R. 2001. The development of an on-site sanitation planning and reporting aid (Sspra) for the selection of appropriate sanitation technologies for developing communities south African water research commission (WRC) Report Number: 586/1/00.
   Google Scholar
• Kamara JK, Galukande M, Maeda F, Luboga S, Renzaho AMN. 2017. Understanding the challenges of improving sanitation and hygiene outcomes in a community based intervention: a cross-sectional study in rural Tanzania. Int J Environ Res Pub Health. 14(6):602. doi:10.3390/ijerph14060602.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplinsky R. 2011. Schumacher meets Schumpeter: appropriate technology below the radar. Res Policy. 40(2):193–203. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.10.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karl-Wolfgang M. 1973. The concept of appropriate technology. Intereconomic. 8(1):8–10. doi:10.1007/BF02927517.
   Google Scholar
• Kimera P, Smet J, Olschewski A, Parker A. 2013. Context specific validation and introduction of technologies for sustainable WASH services. 36th WEDC International Conference; 1-5 July, Nakuru, Kenya. [Accessed 2020 Jan 31]. https://wedc-knowledge.lboro.ac.uk/details.html?id=20770.
   Google Scholar
• Kvarnström E, Petersens E. 2004. Open planning of sanitation systems. Stockholm: EcoSanRes programme and the Stockholm Environment Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Loetscher T, Keller J. 2002. A decision support system for selecting sanitation systems in developing countries. Socio-Econ Plan Sci. 36(4):267–290. doi:10.1016/S0038-0121(02)00007-1.
   Google Scholar
• Louis GE, Ahmad T. 2004. Technology assessment for sustainable sanitation services in low-income communities. [Accessed 2020 Jan 31]. http://www.sys.virginia.edu/techreps/2004/SIE-040008.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Lüthi C, Panesar A, Schütze T, Norström A, McConville J, Parkinson J, Saywell D, Ingle R. 2011. Sustainable sanitation in cities: a framework for action - a framework for action. Netherlands: Sustainable Sanitation Alliance (SuSanA) & International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU). Papiroz Publishing House.
   Google Scholar
• Mara D, Drangert J-O, Anh NV, Tonderski A, Gulyas H, Tonderski K. 2007. Selection of sustainable sanitation arrangements. Water Policy. 7(9):305–318. doi:10.2166/wp.2007.009.
   Google Scholar
• Mara D, Lane J, Scott B, Trouba D. 2010. Sanitation and health. PLoS Med. 7(11):e1000363. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000363.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mkhize N, Taylor M, Udert KM, Gounden TG, Buckley CA. 2017. Urine diversion dry toilets in eThekwini Municipality, South Africa: acceptance, use and maintenance through users’ eyes. J Water San Hyg Dev. 7(1):111-120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morton S, Wilson S, Inglis S, Ritchie K, Wales A. 2018. Developing a framework to evaluate knowledge into action interventions. BMC Serv Res. 18(1):133. doi:10.1186/s12913-018-2930-3.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Murphy H, McBean EA, Farahbakhsh K. 2009. Appropriate technology - A comprehensive approach for water and sanitation in the developing world. Technol Soc. 31(2):158–167. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2009.03.010.
   Google Scholar
• Ngwira C, Mayhew S. 2020. Donor-driven harmonised payment of allowances policy and NGOs’ community engagement in Malawi. Dev Pract. 30(1):3–14. doi:10.1080/09614524.2019.1631755.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palaniappan M, Lang M, Gleick PH. 2008. A Review of decision making tools in the water, sanitation and hygiene sector. Environmental change and security programme of the Woodrow Wilson Center and the Pacific Institute, Oakland CA.
   Google Scholar
• Patel VL, Kaufman DR. 1998. Science and practice: a case for medical informatics as a local science of design. J Am Inform Assoc. 5(6):489–492. doi:10.1136/jamia.1998.0050489.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramóa A, Matos J, Lüthi C 2015. System-based decision trees for the selection of sanitation technologies. In: Shaw RJ (ed). Water, sanitation and hygiene services beyond 2015 - Improving access and sustainability: Proceedings of the 38th WEDC International Conference; 27-31 July; UK. Loughborough University. p. 7.
   Google Scholar
• Salisbury F, Brouckaert C, Still D, Buckley C. 2018. Multiple criteria decision analysis for sanitation selection in South African municipalities. Water SA. 44(3):448–457. doi:10.4314/wsa.v44i3.12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seymour Z, Hughes J. 2014. Sanitation in developing countries: a systematic review of user preferences and motivations. J Water San Hyg Dev. 04(4):681–691. doi:10.2166/washdev.2014.127.
   Google Scholar
• Simiyu S. 2017. Preference for and characteristics of an appropriate sanitation technology for the slums of Kisumu, Kenya. Int J Urban Sustain Dev. 9(3):300–312. doi:10.1080/19463138.2017.1325366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skat. 2011. Review of framework for technology assessment. (WASHTech Deliverable 3.1). WASHTech c/o IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre and Sankt Gallen. The Hague: Skat; [accessed 2020 Feb 8]. http://washtechafrica.wordpress.com.
   Google Scholar
• Slade SC, Philip K, Morris ME. 2018. Frameworks for embedding a research culture in allied health practice: a rapid review. Health Res Policy Syst. 16(1). doi:10.1186/s12961-018-0304-2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Spuhler D, Scheidegger A, Maurer M. 2018. Generation of sanitation system options for urban planning considering novel technologies. Water Res. 145:259–278. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2018.08.021.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tayler K, Colin J, Parkinson J. 2000. Tools for sanitation choice” in strategic planning for municipal sanitation. GHK Research and Training, WEDC, and Water and Sanitation Programme for South Asia. [ Accessed 2020 Jan 20]. http://www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsacg/i/fulltext/guide/guide.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Tilley E, Strande L, Lüthi C, Mosler H-L, Udert KM, Gebauer H, Hering JG. 2014. Looking beyond technology: an integrated approach to water, sanitation and hygiene in low-income countries. Environ Sci Technol. 48(17):9965–9970. doi:10.1021/es501645d.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vidal B, Hedström A, Barraud S, Kärrman E, Herrmann I. 2019. Assessing the sustainability of on-site sanitation systems using multi-criteria analysis. Environ Sci Water Res Technol. 5:1599.
   Google Scholar
• [WHO] World Health Organisation. 2018. Guidelines on sanitation and health. Geneva:WHO.
   Google Scholar
• Zhou X, Li Z, Zheng T, Yan Y, Li P, Odey EA, Mang HP, Uddin SMN. 2018. Review of global sanitation development. Environ Int. 120:246–261. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.07.047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar