4.1 Article

Multiple water source use in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

期刊

JOURNAL OF WATER AND HEALTH
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 370-392

出版社

IWA PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.2166/wh.2021.205

关键词

drinking water; low- and middle-income countries; multiple water source use; systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The systematic review found that many households in low- and middle-income countries tend to rely on multiple water sources to meet their drinking water needs, also accessing unimproved sources throughout the year. This exposes gaps in current global water monitoring efforts, potentially inflating reports of 'safe drinking water access' and unaccounted exposure to drinking water from unimproved sources.
The Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) 2017 Update and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Baselines report classified 71% of the global population as having access to 'safely managed' drinking water. Current global monitoring efforts to track access to safely managed drinking water rely on collecting information on the 'primary' source of drinking water. However, there is evidence that households often rely on multiple sources to meet their water needs in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This systematic review was designed to compile the literature related to the practice of multiple water source use (MWSU) for drinking water in LMICs. A total of 5,318 studies were collected, and after abstract and full-text review, 74 articles were identified for inclusion. Studies reviewed reported from 4 to 100% of the study populations practicing MWSU. Additionally, the practice of supplemental unimproved source use was reported globally, representing households with improved primary source water also accessing unimproved water sources throughout the year. These findings expose gaps in current global water monitoring efforts, revealing potential inflation of reports of 'safe drinking water access' and unaccounted exposure to drinking water from unimproved sources.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据