3.9 Article

Inequalities in access to water in rapidly growing urban cities in Latin America: the case of Arequipa, Peru

期刊

REVISTA DE GEOGRAFIA NORTE GRANDE
卷 -, 期 80, 页码 369-389

出版社

PONTIFICA UNIV CATOLICA CHILE, INST GEOGRAFIA

关键词

water resources; urban areas; provision of water services; Arequipa; Peru

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cities in developing countries are undergoing unprecedented urbanization processes that are reconfiguring their water supply systems. While urbanization favors the expansion of formal water networks, issues of availability, service quality, and affordability still persist in peripheral areas. Despite a preference for public management, challenges in accessing reliable, safe, and affordable water resources are observed in both contexts.
Cities in developing countries are going through an unprecedented process of urbanization that is reconfiguring their water supply systems. On the one hand, urbanization favors the expansion of formal water networks but on the other it also must resort to informal practices (pipe trucks, public pylons, etc.) especially in peripheral settlements. Using survey and secondary data for center and the periphery of Arequipa, Peru, we contrast the provision of water services by the two systems through the characterization of accessibility, availability, quality of service, price and preferred management model (public or private). Results indicate that networked supply systems in peripheral areas increase accessibility, but perform worse in terms of availability, quality of service and affordability. Although to a lesser extent, these problems are also present in the networked formal city regarding interruptions of service and prices. In peripheral areas informal systems remain precarious potentially generating unfavorable long-term effects. Hence, difficulties in access to reliable, safe and affordable water are observed in both contexts although the current public management system is preferred to private management.

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

3.9
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