Improved sanitation for all is a daunting task for low-income countries, and shared toilets often provide an alternative to private household sanitation for most urban residents. This study sought to provide better understanding of the existing barriers and opportunities for improved management of shared sanitation. The study used focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with 70 users (landlords and tenants) of shared sanitation in Kumasi, Ghana to assess barriers and opportunities of “high-quality” shared sanitation. The commonly used toilet facilities were dry toilets—Kumasi Ventilated Improved Pit latrine and Ventilated Improved Pit latrines; and flush systems—water closet and pour flush connected to septic tanks. Between 2 and 21 households, or 4 and 84 people, shared one facility. Participants’ description of “high-quality” (Ideal) shared sanitation was centred on cleanliness, user behaviour, smell, and user crowding. They also identified challenges of shared sanitation as overcrowded users, poor user behaviours, conflicts among users, and high cost associated with frequent desludging. However, opportunities for improvement included users’ preference for shared toilets due to enjoyed benefits, existing facility management practices, and mutual understanding among users (tenants and landlords). Interventions and policy guidelines to influence behaviour change of shared sanitation users are proposed and are intended to be delivered by local government and users.

This study assessed the change in the quality of drinking water from the intake to point-of-use and the health risk to consumers of the water sources in a farming community in Ghana. Water samples were collected from five intake sources and point-of-use sources from 31 households. A quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) was used to estimate the health risk. All the physicochemical parameters were found to be within the WHO guidelines except pH and water hardness. Again, none of the physicochemical parameters showed a significant difference between intake and point-of-use water sources. There were, however, significant differences in the mean total and fecal coliforms between the intake source and point-of-use source (3.63 vs 4.57 log CFU/100 mL and 1.38 vs 2.83 log CFU/100 mL, respectively). The results of the QMRA showed that the disease burden arising from exposure to river and spring water sources were above the WHO reference tolerable risk level of 1 × 10−6 Disability-Adjusted Life Years per person per year. The results of this study are expected to influence relevant stakeholders toward initiating plans that could mitigate the spread of waterborne diseases and avert the related economic implications in the study community.

In recent years, shared facilities have contributed substantially to increased access to sanitation in urban areas. While shared sanitation is often the only viable option in densely-populated, low-income urban areas, it is currently considered a “limited" solution by the international community. In this paper, we analyze the conditions under which shared sanitation could be considered of adequate quality and propose a set of indicators associated with sanitation quality to be included in national household surveys. We conducted a survey with 3600 households and 2026 observational spot-checks of shared and individual household toilets in Kisumu (Kenya), Kumasi (Ghana), and Dhaka (Bangladesh). We develop a composite sanitation quality outcome measure based on observational data. Using regression analysis, we identify self-reported indicators that correlate with the spot-checked composite measure and are, therefore, robust with regard to reporting bias. Results show that (pour-) flush toilets are a highly informative indicator for sanitation quality compared to other toilet technologies. In contrast to previous arguments and depending on the context, sharing a toilet has a comparatively lower correlation with sanitation quality. Toilets still show good quality if shared among only 2–3 households. Toilet location and lighting, as well as the presence of a lockable door, are equally strong indicators for sanitation quality and could serve as alternative indicators. The findings suggest that the sanitation service levels defined by the WHO and UNICEF might be reconsidered to better capture the quality of sanitation facilities in low-income urban settlements.

Shared sanitation is not currently accepted within the international normative definitions of “basic” or “safely managed” sanitation. We argue that pro-poor government strategies and investment plans must include high-quality shared sanitation as an intermediate step in some densely populated urban areas. User experience must be considered in establishing the definition of high quality. We call for additional research on effective interventions to reach these quality standards and for the development of rigorous measures applicable to global monitoring.

: Sharing of sanitation is common in low-income settlements in Sub-Saharan Africa. However, shared (limited) sanitation facilities have been thought to pose health risks due to poor hygiene levels. Interventions to improve user behavior and cleanliness of shared sanitation are few, both in literature and in practice. This study details the codesign and testing of strategies to improve the cleanliness of shared sanitation facilities in low-income areas of Kisumu City in Kenya. The strategies included a cleaning plan, monitoring system, and discussions among users, and were codesigned through workshops with stakeholders and group discussions with landlords and tenants. These strategies were tested in 38 compound houses through the Trials of Improved Practices approach over a 5-month period. Field staff visited the compounds, observed the cleanliness of the shared toilets, and through discussions, encouraged users to develop a formal cleaning system and a monitoring plan. The discussions built social capital and collective action and facilitated uptake of the cleaning plan with notable improvements in cleanliness of shared toilets. The results support the acceptability of shared sanitation in low-income settlements, the importance of codesigning and coproducing solutions with users, and the need to evaluate the effects of these strategies on cleanliness of shared sanitation.

Shared sanitation facilities are not considered as basic sanitation owing to cleanliness and accessibility concerns. However, there is mounting evidence that some shared household toilets have a comparable level of service as private toilets. This study examined the factors that contribute to the quality of shared household toilets in low-income urban communities in Ghana and Kenya. The study design comprised household surveys and field inspections. Overall, 843 respondents were interviewed, and 838 household shared sanitation facilities were inspected. Cleanliness scores were computed from the facility inspections, while a total quality score was calculated based on 13 indicators comprising hygiene, privacy, and accessibility. Regression analyses were conducted to determine predictors of cleanliness and the overall quality of the shared sanitation facilities. More than four out of five (84%) shared toilets in Ghana (N = 404) were clean, while in Kenya (N = 434), nearly a third (32%) were clean. Flush/pour-flush toilets were six times (p < 0.01 aOR = 5.64) more likely to be clean. A functional outside door lock on a toilet facility and the presence of live-in landlords led to a threefold increase (p < 0.01 aOR = 2.71) and a twofold increase (p < 0.01 aOR = 1.92), respectively in the odds of shared sanitation cleanliness. Sanitation facilities shared by at most five households (95% CI: 6–7) were generally clean. High-quality shared toilets had live-in landlords, functional door locks, and were water-dependent. Further studies on innovative approaches to maintaining the quality of these high-quality shared toilets are needed to make them eligible for classification as basic sanitation considering the increasing reliance on the facilities.