4.8 Article

Community-Level Sanitation Coverage More Strongly Associated with Child Growth and Household Drinking Water Quality than Access to a Private Toilet in Rural Mali

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 51, 期 12, 页码 7219-7227

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b00178

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  2. Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Fellowship from the US EPA
  3. Landreth I Fellowship in the Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sanitation access can provide positive externalities; for example, safe disposal of feces by one household prevents disease transmission to households nearby. However, little empirical evidence exists to characterize the potential health benefits from sanitation externalities. This study investigated the effect of community sanitation coverage versus individual household sanitation access on child health and drinking water quality. Using a Census of 121 villages in rural Mali, we analyzed the association of community latrine coverage (defined' by a 200 m radius surrounding a household) and individual household latrine ownership with child growth and household stored water quality. Child height-for-age had a significant and positive linear relationship with community latrine coverage, while child weight-for-age and household water quality had nonlinear relationships that leveled off above 60% coverage (p < 0.01; generalized additive models). Child growth and water quality were not associated with individual household latrine ownership. The relationship between community latrine coverage and child height was strongest among households without a latrine; for these households, each 10% increase in latrine coverage was associated with a 0.031 (p-value = 0.040) increase in height-for-age z-score. In this study, the level of sanitation access of surrounding households was more important than private latrine access for protecting water quality and child health.

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

4.8
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