The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

A cross-sectional ecological study of spatial scale and geographic inequality in access to drinking-water and sanitation

A cross-sectional ecological study of spatial scale and geographic inequality in access to drinking-water and sanitation
A cross-sectional ecological study of spatial scale and geographic inequality in access to drinking-water and sanitation
Introduction

Measuring inequality in access to safe drinking-water and sanitation is proposed as a component of international monitoring following the expiry of the Millennium Development Goals. This study aims to evaluate the utility of census data in measuring geographic inequality in access to drinking-water and sanitation.

Methods

Spatially referenced census data were acquired for Colombia, South Africa, Egypt, and Uganda, whilst non-spatially referenced census data were acquired for Kenya. Four variants of the dissimilarity index were used to estimate geographic inequality in access to both services using large and small area units in each country through a cross-sectional, ecological study.

Results

Inequality was greatest for piped water in South Africa in 2001 (based on 53 areas (N) with a median population (MP) of 657,015; D?=?0.5599) and lowest for access to an improved water source in Uganda in2008 (N?=?56; MP?=?419,399; D?=?0.2801). For sanitation, inequality was greatest for those lacking any facility in Kenya in 2009 (N?=?158; MP?=?216,992; D?=?0.6981), and lowest for access to an improved facility in Uganda in 2002 (N?=?56; MP?=?341,954; D?=?0.3403). Although dissimilarity index values were greater for smaller areal units, when study countries were ranked in terms of inequality, these ranks remained unaffected by the choice of large or small areal units. International comparability was limited due to definitional and temporal differences between censuses.

Conclusions

This five-country study suggests that patterns of inequality for broad regional units do often reflect inequality in service access at a more local scale. This implies household surveys designed to estimate province-level service coverage can provide valuable insights into geographic inequality at lower levels. In comparison with household surveys, censuses facilitate inequality assessment at different spatial scales, but pose challenges in harmonising water and sanitation typologies across countries.
1475-9276
1-15
Yu, Weiyu
4cca6f0a-badb-4f1c-8b38-da29ba0b9e09
Bain, Robert
c74dff86-c531-4941-9453-77a733634750
Mansour, Shawky
ac8a0201-1b20-43bc-b7fc-3b3c712eb3fd
Wright, Jim A.
94990ecf-f8dd-4649-84f2-b28bf272e464
Yu, Weiyu
4cca6f0a-badb-4f1c-8b38-da29ba0b9e09
Bain, Robert
c74dff86-c531-4941-9453-77a733634750
Mansour, Shawky
ac8a0201-1b20-43bc-b7fc-3b3c712eb3fd
Wright, Jim A.
94990ecf-f8dd-4649-84f2-b28bf272e464

Yu, Weiyu, Bain, Robert, Mansour, Shawky and Wright, Jim A. (2014) A cross-sectional ecological study of spatial scale and geographic inequality in access to drinking-water and sanitation. International Journal for Equity in Health, 13 (113), 1-15. (doi:10.1186/s12939-014-0113-3). (PMID:25424327)

Record type: Article

Abstract

Introduction

Measuring inequality in access to safe drinking-water and sanitation is proposed as a component of international monitoring following the expiry of the Millennium Development Goals. This study aims to evaluate the utility of census data in measuring geographic inequality in access to drinking-water and sanitation.

Methods

Spatially referenced census data were acquired for Colombia, South Africa, Egypt, and Uganda, whilst non-spatially referenced census data were acquired for Kenya. Four variants of the dissimilarity index were used to estimate geographic inequality in access to both services using large and small area units in each country through a cross-sectional, ecological study.

Results

Inequality was greatest for piped water in South Africa in 2001 (based on 53 areas (N) with a median population (MP) of 657,015; D?=?0.5599) and lowest for access to an improved water source in Uganda in2008 (N?=?56; MP?=?419,399; D?=?0.2801). For sanitation, inequality was greatest for those lacking any facility in Kenya in 2009 (N?=?158; MP?=?216,992; D?=?0.6981), and lowest for access to an improved facility in Uganda in 2002 (N?=?56; MP?=?341,954; D?=?0.3403). Although dissimilarity index values were greater for smaller areal units, when study countries were ranked in terms of inequality, these ranks remained unaffected by the choice of large or small areal units. International comparability was limited due to definitional and temporal differences between censuses.

Conclusions

This five-country study suggests that patterns of inequality for broad regional units do often reflect inequality in service access at a more local scale. This implies household surveys designed to estimate province-level service coverage can provide valuable insights into geographic inequality at lower levels. In comparison with household surveys, censuses facilitate inequality assessment at different spatial scales, but pose challenges in harmonising water and sanitation typologies across countries.

Text
s12939-014-0113-3.pdf - Version of Record
Available under License Other.
Download (3MB)

More information

Published date: 26 November 2014
Organisations: Population, Health & Wellbeing (PHeW)

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 372602
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/372602
ISSN: 1475-9276
PURE UUID: 08dc99e7-5550-4eaf-af54-dd50a5070b74
ORCID for Jim A. Wright: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-8842-2181

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 09 Dec 2014 15:19
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 03:21

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Weiyu Yu
Author: Robert Bain
Author: Shawky Mansour
Author: Jim A. Wright ORCID iD

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×