↓ 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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
201 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.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 201 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 199 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 57 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 18%
Researcher 23 11%
Student > Bachelor 21 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 3%
Other 25 12%
Unknown 33 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 51 25%
Engineering 43 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 6%
Social Sciences 12 6%
Other 27 13%
Unknown 40 20%

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
#10,106,539
of 13,232,126 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,518
of 9,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,225
of 337,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,232,126 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,114 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 337,353 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them