Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Essay Example

  • Category:
  • Document type:
  • Level:
    High School
  • Page:
  • Words:

Water, Sanitation, Hygiene

Garriga, Ricard Giné and Agustí Pérez Foguet. «Unravelling the Linkages Between Water, Sanitation, Hygiene and Rural Poverty: The WASH Poverty Index.» Water Resources Management 27 (2012): 1501–1515.

Garriga and Foguet (2012) paper presents a theoretical framework as well as multidimensional development, Water, Sanitation, and Health focussed thematic indicator: the WASH Poverty Index. The authors explain the method used in the construction of index and the results achieved are disseminated in diverse forms to support the tool utility for the integrated analysis of Water, Sanitation, and Health as well as poverty connections. The authors noted that diseases associated with unsafe water, deplorable sanitation, and poor hygiene is the main causes of sickness and death.

The survey carried out by Garriga and Foguet exhibits that merely 43.5 percent of households get water from a better source whereas 45.4 percent spend over thirty minutes per round trip to fetch water. Given that distance exhibits a negative relation with consumption of water, the authors noted that almost 62 percent of the respondents fail to meet their minimum drinking-water needs. In the midst of those who do not make use of an improved water and sanitation facility, 33.7 % share latrine, although 41 % prefer to defecate in the open.

The significance of the study was to highlight the benefits of safe drinking water; improved household sanitation as well as hygiene activities. Thus, the study proves that WASH services provision for individuals across the globe has turn out to be an international priority. According to the study, governments must introduce improved programs that will enable people access clean water and sanitation easily, which as result, will result in an improved hygiene.

DFID. Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Portfolio Review. Health Report. UKaid. London: Department of International Development, 2012.

The DFID (2012) report presents the existing facts on the benefits as well as interventions cost effectiveness on water, sanitation and hygiene. The report further
analyse the results, effects and money value of Department of International Development’s (DFID’s) work on water and Sanitation. Furthermore, the report assessed
DFID’s ability to perform its work on WASH, and also examine the review outcomes; significance for DFID. Notably, this review scope was limited to drinking water supply, sanitation as well as hygiene for home consumption and excludes wider setbacks associating with water security like handling water resources for productive activities and agriculture.

According to DFID, the percentatge of the world’s population who can access improved water supply rose to 87 percent in 2008 from 77 percent in 1990; however, access to better sanitation increased slightly to just 61 percent in 2008 from 54% in 1990. Besides that, OECD estimated that 90 percent of the piped water as well as sewerage networks across the globe are presently run by government bodies. China and India as per DFID are home to 47 percent of the 1.8 billion person who had access to better water as well as 38 percent of the 1.3 billion persons who had access to better sanitation between 1990 and 2008.

The study implication was to demonstrate that the historical investment in comprehensive research on the benefits of WASH or on delivery paradigms for transforming sanitation as well as hygiene behaviours at scale have been little. This according to DFID could to a certain extent be because of the certain setbacks associated with the development and assessment of facts on WASH.