↓ Skip to main content

The human right to water and sanitation: a new perspective for public policies

Overview of attention for article published in Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
The human right to water and sanitation: a new perspective for public policies
Published in
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, March 2016
DOI 10.1590/1413-81232015213.20142015
Pubmed ID
Authors

Colin Brown, Priscila Neves-Silva, Léo Heller

Abstract

The recognition of the human right to water and sanitation (HRtWS) by the United Nations General Assembly and Human Rights Council in 2010 constituted a significant political measure whose direct consequences are still being assessed. Previous to this date, the HRtWS and its link to a healthy life and adequate standard of living had been recognised in diverse legal and judicial spheres worldwide, in some cases under the pressure of the initiatives of strong social movements. However, while the HRtWS is recognised by the UN State Members, it constitutes a concept in construction that has not been approached and interpreted in consensual ways by all concerned stakeholders. The present article presents a formal definition of this right with a base in human rights regulation. It attempts to dialogue with the different existing perspectives regarding the impact of its international recognition as a human right. It then elucidates the progressive development of the HRtWS in law and jurisprudence. Finally, it considers the urgency and challenge of monitoring the HRtWS and discusses important implications for public policies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Researcher 2 4%
Unspecified 2 4%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 30 58%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 10 19%
Environmental Science 4 8%
Unspecified 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 29 56%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 March 2016.
All research outputs
#13,768,217
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#833
of 1,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,481
of 298,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#10
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,860 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
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 298,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.