A rural- urban divide
When we think of "rural areas" in the UK, we think "escape to the country", and enjoy the peaceful views shown in Beatrix Potter's 'Peter Rabbit' of the Lake District or strolling in Derbyshire as depicted in Jane Austen's 'Sense and Sensibility'. We don't consider the infrastructural challenge of connecting these rural areas to municipal water networks in the UK let alone those larger in land size which many African countries are.
As early as 1977, Dudley Seers and Michael Lipton presented an urban bias to development. In both their accounts, they suggest that the greatest division we should be concerned with exists within countries themselves. Similarly, Mellor (1976) also illustrates the neglect of the rural sector due to the focus on enhancing economic growth in the urban rather than realising the potential for trade from agricultural success in rural areas (Sahn and Stifel 2003).
Figure 1 shows the a rural-urban divide in access to improved water sources in 2015. Notably, Africa, shown in purple, dominates with the largest variability. Furthermore, the continent shows the smallest rates of improved water access.
What does this mean for rural households?
They have more trips to water sources which are often further away, for example, the average distance round trip is 6km which is equivalent to 15 laps around a football field. According to UNICEF, this disproportionately affects women and children who are brought out of school to carry water and decreases economic productivity.
How does this disparity affect sanitation?
We discussed in the previous blog post that sanitation includes preventing human contact with faeces which can be mitigated by hand washing with soap (Curtis and Cairncross 2003). However, less than 50% of the population had access to basic hand-washing facilities in 2015 in 34 out of 38 countries (with recorded data). What's more, a majority of these figures are located in rural areas.
Are pipes the solution?
Cities are rapidly urbanising due to a population increase which is a major inhibitor to piped access. However, municipal piped systems often fail to maintain good quality water, rather ironic since they are deemed an improved source. Furthermore, the podcast by the Guardian 2013), (which I strongly recommend listening to) discusses how restricted budgets have caused reduced sustainability of piped supply. In fact, Thompson et al., (2000) and Bartram and Cairncross (2010) has correlated piped water to causing worse hygiene and health. For instance, in Lilongwe, Malawi, a report by Nayabare et al., 2020, found faecal contamination in 10% of piped sources, which as we discussed contributes to the spread of water borne diseases. So much so, some urban dwellers access is of worse quality than rural (Showers 2002).
Summary
Now that we have analysed some general trends between water and sanitation access in rural and urban areas, the next few weeks will discuss different management strategies deployed in these areas and look at limitations facing areas. Change can't happen over night but there is certainly room for improvement.
Comments
Post a Comment