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

Weiyu Yu, Robert E.S. Bain, Shawky Mansour, Jim A. Wright

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article number113
JournalInternational Journal for Equity in Health
Volume13
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Sanitation
Cross-Sectional Studies
Censuses
Uganda
Kenya
South Africa
Drinking Water
Population
Water
Colombia
Egypt

Keywords

  • Census
  • Drinking water
  • Geographic information systems
  • Sanitation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

A cross-sectional ecological study of spatial scale and geographic inequality in access to drinkingwater and sanitation. / Yu, Weiyu; Bain, Robert E.S.; Mansour, Shawky; Wright, Jim A.

In: International Journal for Equity in Health, Vol. 13, No. 1, 113, 2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b12977603f424282b3995c3e6ed2b854,
title = "A cross-sectional ecological study of spatial scale and geographic inequality in access to drinkingwater and sanitation",
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.",
keywords = "Census, Drinking water, Geographic information systems, Sanitation",
author = "Weiyu Yu and Bain, {Robert E.S.} and Shawky Mansour and Wright, {Jim A.}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1186/s12939-014-0113-3",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
journal = "International Journal for Equity in Health",
issn = "1475-9276",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A cross-sectional ecological study of spatial scale and geographic inequality in access to drinkingwater and sanitation

AU - Yu, Weiyu

AU - Bain, Robert E.S.

AU - Mansour, Shawky

AU - Wright, Jim A.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Census

KW - Drinking water

KW - Geographic information systems

KW - Sanitation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84964313163&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84964313163&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s12939-014-0113-3

DO - 10.1186/s12939-014-0113-3

M3 - Article

VL - 13

JO - International Journal for Equity in Health

JF - International Journal for Equity in Health

SN - 1475-9276

IS - 1

M1 - 113

ER -