Author : AM.Tris Hardyanto

Introduction

Global wastewater management remains deeply unequal, with over 80% of untreated wastewater originating from developing regions where marginalized communities are often excluded from basic sanitation infrastructure. article explores the structural challenges and transformative potential of decentralized and community-led approaches to sanitation. Drawing on global case studies and current research, the work is structured across six s addressing infrastructure inequity, spatial exclusion, decentralized system effectiveness, market bias in public-private partnerships, funding and policy misalignment, and participatory planning models.

The overarching narrative advocates for community empowerment, spatial equity, and inclusive governance as critical pathways to a more just and sustainable sanitation future. By highlighting both systemic failures and emerging solutions, the article offers an evidence-based roadmap for policymakers, practitioners, and advocates working to close the global sanitation gap.

1 Infrastructure Inequity – Wastewater for the Few

The flush of a toilet is silent in cities like São Paulo, Cape Town, and Berlin—but deafening in places where the very idea of a sewer system is a distant dream. In one part of the world, wastewater disappears in seconds through engineered networks buried beneath skyscrapers. In another, it pools in open drains, seeps into drinking water, and sickens the very people it was meant to leave behind. The contrast is not a question of capacity—it is a question of will, inclusion, and justice.

As the global sanitation crisis persists, it becomes increasingly evident that the problem is not simply technological—it is infrastructural inequity. The explores how some of the world's most successful decentralized and community-led systems—like those in Delhi, Kenya, and Bangladesh—are challenging the legacy of exclusion. It asks: What happens when the people most affected by poor sanitation are given the power to design and manage their solutions? The answers offer not just innovation but hope.

1.1 Decentralized Solutions: The Case of Delhi

The Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems (DEWATS) in Delhi effectively address persistent sanitation challenges for underserved communities. By enabling local wastewater treatment, DEWATS reduces the burden on centralized plants and significantly mitigates pollution, thus improving hygiene conditions in areas lacking conventional services (Miklos et al., 2018). decentralized model not only resolves immediate environmental and health issues but also fosters community engagement as locals manage and maintain these systems. Such participation ensures that sanitation improvements genuinely reflect community-specific needs (Miklos et al., 2018). Collaborative efforts by India's Ministry of Urban Development and NGOs further exemplify the impact of these decentralized initiatives, promoting equitable access to safer water for marginalized populations (Miklos et al., 2018).

Delhi's successful DEWATS implementation underscores the global shift toward community-driven wastewater management, a trend also evident in Kenya.

1.2 Community Empowerment in Kenya

Kenya's community bio-centers similarly emphasize local participation in wastewater treatment. Beyond mere sanitation, these facilities serve as communal hubs, encouraging active resident involvement in management and operations. The approach effectively improves sanitation outcomes and enhances public health (Blatz et al., 2019). The role of the Kenya Water and Sanitation Civil Society Network (KEWASNET) highlights the importance of grassroots initiatives, providing critical education on sustainable water management to local communities (Blatz et al., 2019). Consequently, these bio-centers cultivate accountability and ownership, reinforcing sustainable sanitation practices and addressing urgent public health challenges (Blatz et al., 2019).

Kenya's bio-centres demonstrate that decentralized wastewater treatment combined with community empowerment can significantly improve health and environmental conditions, a practice mirrored in urban areas such as Bangalore.

1.3 Urban Innovations Bangalore's Response

In Bangalore, several wastewater treatment plants operated by the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) effectively confront urban pollution. These plants meet the increasing demand for clean water while mitigating untreated wastewater's environmental impacts through advanced technologies that enhance operational efficiency and sustainability (Galan-Lopez et al., 2019). Bangalore's proactive stance illustrates the growing global emphasis on innovative, efficient wastewater solutions crucial in rapidly urbanizing environments (Galan-Lopez et al., 2019).

The importance of urban wastewater innovation extends beyond Bangalore, with similar initiatives appearing in smaller urban municipalities such as those in Bangladesh.

1.4 Fecal Sludge Management in Bangladesh

Bangladesh's Pourashava Fecal Sludge Management (FSM) programs specifically target sanitation improvements in smaller, often underserved municipalities. These initiatives emphasize localized solutions, prioritizing marginalized communities and fostering collaboration between local governments and international NGOs to ensure sustainable faecal sludge management (Glabbeke et al., 1999). Bangladesh's community-driven FSM approach echoes the decentralized strategies evident in Delhi and Kenya, further validating the necessity of local engagement in effective sanitation management (Glabbeke et al., 1999).

The integration of sanitation with broader water management initiatives, as demonstrated by Brazil's efforts, further expands the potential of decentralized systems.

1.5 Integrated Management in São Paulo

São Paulo's Integrated Water Management System represents an innovative blend of wastewater treatment and stormwater management, significantly enhancing urban sustainability and resilience. Developed by the São Paulo State Basic Sanitation Company (SABESP), the framework maximizes water reuse while controlling pollution effectively, addressing climate change and urban infrastructure needs (Herout et al., 2021). Integrated management strategies like São Paulo's offer comprehensive solutions capable of addressing current and future water challenges, illustrating a viable pathway toward urban resilience (Herout et al., 2021).

Cape Town's strategic approaches similarly highlight the effectiveness of integrated water management.

1.6 Water Resilience Strategies in Cape Town

Cape Town's Water Resilience Strategy emphasizes wastewater reuse in addressing strategic water scarcity challenges. Managed by the City of Cape Town's Water and Sanitation Department, the strategy ensures equitable sanitation access while significantly reducing water wastage through treated wastewater reuse in non-potable applications (Lutz et al., 2020). strategic approach highlights the importance of sustainability and community engagement, equipping urban areas with resilience to potential water crises intensified by climate change (Lutz et al., 2020).

Cape Town's proactive management complements community-led initiatives in cities like Freetown, Sierra Leone.

1.7 Community-Led Initiatives in Freetown

Freetown's Community-Led Sanitation Program actively empowers residents to manage their sanitation needs collaboratively. The participatory model promotes direct citizen engagement in planning and management, supported by international NGOs and local government (Marku et al., 2024). The program demonstrates the effectiveness of community-derived sanitation solutions explicitly tailored to local contexts, significantly enhancing public health outcomes (Marku et al., 2024).

Similarly, community committees in the Philippines underscore the significance of localized participation.

1.8 Local Committees and Accountability in the Philippines

Community WASH Committees in the Philippines strengthen local participation in wastewater management, enhancing accountability and responsiveness to community needs. The model, facilitated through collaboration between local governments and NGOs, significantly improves water quality and hygiene practices, highlighting the essential role of local governance and participatory processes in adequate sanitation (Saltus et al., 2018).

Large urban centres like México City illustrate that extensive wastewater networks also play critical roles in sustainable urban development.

1.9 Comprehensive Urban Management in México City

México City's extensive wastewater treatment network, managed by the Sistema de Aguas de la Ciudad de México (SACMEX), exemplifies comprehensive urban water management. Integrating wastewater treatment into broader environmental strategies, these facilities significantly enhance public health and water quality by effectively managing urban runoff (Child et al., 2017). holistic approach addresses environmental and public health concerns, demonstrating urban centres' potential to secure future water availability sustainably (Child et al., 2017).

Germany's technological leadership further enriches global wastewater management discussions.

1.10 Advanced Technologies in Germany

Germany emphasizes advanced wastewater treatment technologies focused on resource recovery, extracting valuable nutrients and energy. These practices highlight innovation, efficiency, and environmental protection, offering valuable insights to countries pursuing enhanced resilience in water resource management (Chatterjee et al., 2018).

1.11 Toward Global Sanitation Equity

Global trends increasingly favour decentralized, community-driven approaches to wastewater management. Initiatives across Delhi, Kenya, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cape Town, Freetown, the Philippines, México City, and Germany underscore the effectiveness of these localized models. By prioritizing community engagement, integrating advanced technologies, and emphasizing sustainability, policymakers can significantly enhance sanitation access, fostering healthier, more resilient urban environments worldwide.

The examples presented—from India's DEWATS to México City's comprehensive urban systems—demonstrate that adequate sanitation infrastructure does not follow a one-size-fits-all blueprint. What connects them is not scale or capital but an ethic: the belief that every person deserves clean, safe, and dignified sanitation—regardless of their income, geography, or status. Whether through community bio-centers in Kenya or resilience strategies in Cape Town, the message is clear: when local knowledge meets political will, transformation follows.

The path toward global sanitation equity is not paved by mega-projects alone but by placing communities at the centre of planning, regulation, and implementation. Wastewater should not be a mark of poverty or neglect—it should be an opportunity to build systems that restore dignity, protect public health, and sustain our environment. The challenge is vast, but so is the potential for change—if we choose to invest in people, not just pipes.

2 The Geography of Exclusion

In the boardrooms of multinational water giants, sustainability reports highlight innovation, efficiency, and growth. However, thousands of miles away in rural sub-Saharan Africa or in the overcrowded edges of South Asia's megacities, wastewater still runs untreated through open drains. The disconnect is not just geographic—it is systemic. It reflects a world where clean water access and sanitation infrastructure are distributed not by need but by profit potential.

While Veolia, SUEZ, and Xylem engineer water solutions for the world's wealthiest regions, over 80% of untreated wastewater in developing countries pollutes rivers, endangers health, and widens inequality. uncovers how geographic and economic exclusion, driven by skewed infrastructure investments and market-led decisions, creates a two-tiered sanitation system—one for the connected and profitable, another for the forgotten and voiceless.

2.1 Corporate Leaders in Global Water Management

Veolia Environnement S.A., headquartered in France, leads globally in environmental services with €45.35 billion in revenue in 2023. The company excels in water management, wastewater treatment, waste recovery, and energy optimization. Veolia integrates advanced technologies and sustainable practices, prioritizing environmental protection and resource efficiency (Miklos et al., 2018).

Similarly, SUEZ S.A., another French entity, reported €17 billion in 2023, specializing in advanced water recycling and treatment solutions. Tailored services for municipalities and industries reflect their commitment to sustainability and technological innovation (Blatz et al., 2019).

Xylem Inc. from the U.S., with revenues of around $8.6 billion in 2024, specializes in pumps, filtration, and analytics. Xylem's intelligent water solutions enhance efficiency and water quality for municipal, agricultural, and industrial clients (Galan-Lopez et al., 2019).

2.2 Diverse Approaches to Sustainability

Ecolab Inc., achieving $14.7 billion in revenue in 2023, excels in reducing water consumption and enhancing quality through chemical treatments and innovative systems. Its global partnerships underscore commitments to sustainable water access (Glabbeke et al., 1999).

American Water Works Company generated $4.5 billion in 2023, delivering reliable water and wastewater services across 46 U.S. states. Their infrastructure focus ensures that essential water utility operations are efficient and sustainable (Herout et al., 2021).

A.O. Smith Corporation, with $3.5 billion in revenue in 2023, specializes in water heating and treatment, significantly advancing consumer-focused water purification technologies (Lutz et al., 2020).

2.3 Technological Innovations and Global Reach

Pentair plc, reporting $4.0 billion in revenue in 2023, delivers water filtration solutions across residential, industrial, and commercial markets. Their adaptable products highlight the critical role of customized water management in environmental stewardship (Marku et al., 2024).

Dow Inc., earning $56.5 billion in 2023, provides specialized wastewater treatment products such as advanced filtration membranes. Dow integrates sustainability into its offerings, ensuring regulatory compliance and environmental protection (Saltus et al., 2018).

Linde plc, operating internationally, generated $33.2 billion in 2023, offering water treatment solutions that aid industrial and municipal applications in meeting environmental standards and reducing consumption (Child et al., 2017).

Thermax Limited from India, with $1.2 billion in revenue, provides tailored industrial wastewater treatments, effectively managing environmental impacts through customized solutions (Chatterjee et al., 2018).

2.4 Addressing Global Inequities

Despite advancements by these corporations, significant disparities persist, especially in developing nations. Over 80% of untreated wastewater originates from developing countries, highlighting the systemic exclusion of informal and rural communities in infrastructure planning (Giwa et al., 2024). Such inequities amplify health risks and deepen socioeconomic divides, underscoring a crucial need for equitable infrastructure investment (Afferden et al., 2015; Starkl et al., 2022).

Inadequate wastewater systems expose marginalized communities to significant health threats, exacerbating structural inequalities. Research highlights the urgent requirement for targeted interventions to alleviate these disparities and promote environmental justice (Kazora & Mourad, 2018).

2.5 Inclusive Governance and Strategic Interventions

Prioritizing marginalized communities through inclusive governance and strategic infrastructure investments can significantly mitigate these inequities. Data-driven policies, alongside collaboration between corporations, governments, and NGOs, can effectively direct resources to underserved regions (Rüd & Marth, 2011).

Corporations like Veolia, SUEZ, and Dow could substantially reduce global sanitation inequities by leveraging their resources to expand services into neglected communities. Collaborative frameworks and inclusive planning are essential to bridging the gap and ensuring universal sanitation access (Kazora & Mourad, 2018).

2.6 Equitable Water Management

The geography of exclusion reveals that equitable access to wastewater treatment is vital for global public health and environmental sustainability. Industry leaders, policymakers, and communities must collaboratively prioritize inclusive, innovative, and sustainable solutions. By addressing infrastructural disparities through targeted investments and comprehensive policies, universal access to sanitation can be realized, fostering healthier and more equitable communities worldwide.

Rivers and cities do not just shape the global map of wastewater infrastructure—it is carved by power, profit, and neglect. While major corporations pioneer cutting-edge technologies, billions continue to live without even the most basic sanitation, trapped in a geography of exclusion reinforced by policy inertia and market bias. However, reality is not inevitable.

By redirecting innovation toward equity and aligning investment with the needs of marginalized populations, geography can be redrawn. It begins with inclusive governance, data-driven planning, and corporate accountability. When companies, governments, and communities collaborate across these lines of division, wastewater systems become more than pipes and plants—they become instruments of justice. It is time we re-engineered not just our infrastructure but our priorities.

3 Decentralized Systems – Promise or Problem?

When centralized infrastructure stops at the city's edge, who answers the call for sanitation? In many parts of the world—from Nairobi's informal settlements to remote corners of India and Bangladesh—the answer lies in decentralized wastewater systems. These systems represent more than pipes and tanks; they symbolize the potential of locally governed solutions to address deeply rooted gaps in public health and dignity. However, behind every successful community-run facility are dozens more that falter—not for lack of need, but for lack of support.

Decentralized systems have emerged as the pragmatic bridge between ambition and accessibility. They offer the rare promise of adaptability, affordability, and community ownership. However, as the reveals, without regulation, investment, and inclusive planning, that promise is often broken. The question is not whether decentralized systems work—but whether we are willing to make them work for the people who need them most.

3.1 Potential and Pitfalls of Decentralized Systems

Decentralized wastewater systems promise substantial benefits for improving sanitation access, particularly in underserved areas. Examples from India's DEWATS and Kenya's community bio-centers demonstrate effectiveness when adequately supported by governments and NGOs (Warshauer, 2018; Agrahari & Kumar, 2023). However, without sufficient funding, regulation, and maintenance, these systems frequently fail, undermining their intended benefits and potentially creating new health risks for communities (Rao, 2025).

3.2 Community Management and Sustainability

Successful decentralized models emphasize local community management, fostering more substantial community ownership and greater sustainability. Community-led systems often achieve higher operational standards due to increased accountability and engagement (Edunjobi, 2024). However, for these systems to realize their full potential, consistent financial backing and robust governance frameworks are essential. These supportive structures provide the necessary resources and training for communities, ensuring ongoing operational effectiveness and sustainability (Posnaya et al., 2024).

3.3 Governance and Financial Integration

A critical issue is the frequent mismatch between the potential of decentralized systems and their practical execution. Effective governance and financial mechanisms must be integrated from inception to implementation. Governments and development agencies must strategically invest in regulatory frameworks and capacity-building initiatives, aligning financial resources with governance needs to maintain high-quality standards and prevent system failures (Narasimhan et al., 2023).

3.4 Policy Shifts and Strategic Investments

Realizing the promise of decentralized wastewater solutions requires policy shifts that prioritize these systems, not only in infrastructure but also in governance and community capacity-building. Policies must facilitate targeted investments in training, regulatory oversight, and community support mechanisms, transforming decentralized wastewater management from an idealistic concept to a practical, impactful reality (Ghawi, 2018).

3.5 The Future of Decentralized Wastewater Management

Decentralized wastewater systems are poised to become integral to global sanitation strategies, especially in regions where centralized infrastructure is impractical or prohibitively expensive. However, their success is contingent upon targeted financial investments, policy reforms, and robust partnerships between communities, governments, and international organizations (Mujahidah et al., 2024). Strategic investments in governance structures and community capacity building will be crucial for scaling decentralized systems sustainably.

3.6 From Potential to Practical Execution

Decentralized wastewater systems offer significant promise for improving sanitation, particularly in marginalized regions. However, their effectiveness relies heavily on strong governance, targeted investments, and active community engagement. By addressing governance and funding challenges, policymakers and stakeholders can bridge the gap between the theoretical advantages and practical execution of decentralized sanitation solutions, ultimately enhancing public health and promoting environmental sustainability worldwide.

The future of wastewater management will not be built solely in boardrooms or ministerial corridors—it will be shaped in village meetings, neighbourhood committees, and decentralized treatment hubs tucked behind community centres. The global sanitation crisis demands solutions that are nimble, inclusive, and scalable. Decentralized systems tick all those boxes—but only if they are treated not as afterthoughts but as frontline infrastructure.

To move from promise to performance, we must invest as much in the people running these systems as we do in the technologies themselves. Governance must be localized. Finance must be fair. Training must be continuous. In the end, a decentralized system that fails is not just a missed opportunity—it is a betrayal of the very communities it was designed to serve. The next in sanitation equity will be written not in concrete terms but in trust.

4 PPPs and Market Bias

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) were once heralded as the silver bullet for solving infrastructure gaps. However, when it comes to sanitation, these partnerships often tell a different story—one of exclusion, skewed priorities, and market-driven neglect. In city centres and high-income enclaves, PPPs have delivered high-end wastewater treatment systems. In informal settlements and remote villages, however, they have delivered little more than silence.

The promise of PPPs lies in their ability to pool resources and expertise across sectors. However, when profitability eclipses public interest, sanitation becomes a service for the highest bidder—not the communities who need it most. unpacks how PPP frameworks, if left unchecked, entrench geographic and economic inequalities in sanitation access—and what must change for these partnerships to serve the public good truly.

4.1 Market Bias and Inequitable Outcomes

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) frequently demonstrate a bias toward affluent industrial or urban areas, sidelining marginalized communities from essential wastewater treatment services. Investments emphasizing short-term economic returns often result in inequitable sanitation systems, disproportionately exposing impoverished communities to untreated wastewater and associated health risks (Adebayo et al., 2024; Kazora & Mourad, 2018). systematic bias perpetuates social inequalities, leading to significant public health disparities.

4.2 The Impact of Skewed Investments

The prioritization of profitability within PPP frameworks perpetuates exclusion, leaving vulnerable populations without access to clean and safe sanitation services. Oversight traps marginalized communities in cycles of poor health, environmental degradation, and social exclusion. The failure to achieve spatial inclusion further exacerbates disparities, disproportionately impacting regions most vulnerable to waterborne diseases (Gómez-Román et al., 2021; Naik & Stenstrom, 2016).

4.3 Challenges in the Implementation of The Bangladesh Case

Bangladesh's pourashava faecal sludge management (FSM) programs illustrate both the potential and pitfalls of current PPP arrangements. Despite intended equity-focused initiatives, inconsistent funding and weak regulatory oversight frequently undermine these programs. Consequently, marginalized communities continue to suffer from inadequate sanitation solutions, highlighting the critical need for consistent support and robust governance frameworks (Khoroshilov, 2020; Capodaglio, 2017).

4.4 Integrating Pro-Poor Objectives

Addressing systemic biases within PPPs requires embedding affordability, accountability, and spatial inclusivity within their operational frameworks. Policymakers and private sector participants must shift their focus from short-term gains to long-term inclusive sustainability. Strategic alignment with pro-poor objectives is vital for reducing inequalities and improving sanitation access for marginalized communities (Kwiringira et al., 2021; Ali & Khan, 2023).

4.5 Policy Reforms and Strategic Alignment

Essential reforms in regulatory frameworks and policy adjustments are necessary to ensure equitable sanitation service delivery. Integrating pro-poor objectives within PPP models is crucial for achieving sustainable outcomes and enhancing public health across all societal sectors. Strategic policy reforms should prioritize investments that support governance, community engagement, and long-term operational sustainability (Bahman & Yazdian, 2024; Shukla et al., 2021).

4.6 Enhancing Community Capacity

Successful decentralized sanitation models highlight the importance of local community engagement and capacity-building. Investing in training, infrastructure, and robust governance frameworks is essential for empowering communities to manage their sanitation services sustainably. The community-driven approach ensures the adaptability and relevance of sanitation solutions, addressing the unique needs of underserved regions (Igoud et al., 2020; Bailey et al., 2020).

4.7 Technological Innovations and Inclusive Policies

Advances in decentralized wastewater technologies, including microfiltration and ultraviolet disinfection, offer significant potential for improving localized sanitation. However, their success hinges on inclusive policies that accommodate the socioeconomic contexts of marginalized populations. Effective integration of these technologies requires comprehensive planning, policy support, and targeted resource allocation (Xue, 2022; Khattiyavong & Lee, 2019).

4.8 Toward Inclusive PPPs

Addressing inherent biases within PPPs demands transformative change toward equitable sanitation access. By recalibrating PPP frameworks to prioritize marginalized communities, stakeholders can cultivate resilient and inclusive sanitation systems. Strong collaboration between local governments, communities, and the private sector is essential for achieving equitable sanitation outcomes, ultimately fostering healthier and more inclusive societies (Kuttuva et al., 2018).

The failure of PPPs to deliver equitable sanitation is not a failure of collaboration—it is a failure of vision. When market logic dominates public service, the most vulnerable are left with empty promises and untreated waste. However, it can change. Pro-poor policy reforms, inclusive financing, and strong regulatory guardrails can reorient PPPs toward justice rather than just returns.

True partnership means shared responsibility, shared accountability, and shared outcomes. Governments must demand more. Communities must be part of the design. Moreover, the private sector must recognize that the future of sanitation is not in the margins—it is in bridging the margins. Only by recalibrating these partnerships with equity at the core can we transform PPPs from instruments of division into engines of inclusive development.

5 Funding and Policy Misalignment

In a world overflowing with climate pledges, development loans, and sustainability funds, why do the poorest still lack toilets? The answer lies not in scarcity—but in skewed priorities. Sanitation financing today remains fixated mainly on high-visibility urban projects, leaving behind the informal settlements, peri-urban peripheries, and rural heartlands that need it most. The result? A landscape of gleaming treatment plants in capital cities and open defecation in forgotten communities.

Funding shapes futures. Moreover, when those funds ignore the geographies and histories of exclusion, they reinforce them. examines the profound misalignment between where sanitation resources are most needed and where they actually go. It argues for a new financial logic—one grounded not in GDP or project return but in rights, justice, and equity.

5.1 Misalignment of Funding Priorities

Funding for sanitation often neglects underserved communities, favouring large-scale infrastructure projects primarily in urban areas. Climate adaptation financing and SDG-aligned funds frequently bypass informal settlements and rural regions, exacerbating social inequities and hindering progress towards universal sanitation (Aras & Furtuna, 2024; Hyde‐Smith et al., 2024). Critical analysis of these funding distributions reveals structural barriers that perpetuate exclusion, demanding a comprehensive reevaluation of current funding models.

5.2 Rights-Based Approaches to Sanitation

Adopting a rights-based approach could significantly rectify existing funding imbalances by recognizing sanitation as a fundamental human right. Such an approach ensures equitable access across geographic and socioeconomic divides and can be effectively supported through targeted subsidies. Policies at both international and national levels must prioritize marginalized groups, enforcing strict adherence to equitable resource distribution to prevent fund diversion towards higher-return projects (Fatajo & Barrow, 2023; Hyde‐Smith et al., 2024).

5.3 Leveraging Geographic Insights WASH Equity Atlases

The development of WASH Equity Atlases provides valuable geographic insights into infrastructure disparities. Despite advancement, the full potential of these tools remains unrealized in policymaking. Further exploration into how policymakers utilize geographic data can help address practical barriers to equitable resource allocation. Enhanced integration of these insights into decision-making processes is crucial for effective sanitation strategies and improved accountability (Sami et al., 2024).

5.4 Spatial Equity in Funding Models

Incorporating spatial equity into sanitation funding models necessitates a deeper understanding of the social dynamics and historical contexts of communities. Current mechanisms must evolve to include not only infrastructure needs but also socioeconomic factors such as income disparities and historical exclusion. Investigating these dynamics will inform the development of holistic funding strategies aimed at addressing underlying causes of inequality and ensuring equitable resource allocation (Wallock et al., 2024).

5.5 Sustainability and Scalability of Equity-Based Models

Evaluating the long-term sustainability of equity-based funding models is essential to ascertain their viability and scalability. Case studies where spatial equity has been effectively implemented can offer insights into the factors contributing to success. Exploring evidence that demonstrates improved outcomes from equity-aligned funding strategies will help validate their adoption as a sustainable approach to sanitation management (Li et al., 2021).

5.6 Towards Equitable Sanitation Financing

Addressing funding and policy misalignment requires more than structural adjustments; it demands a commitment to social justice and equity. By critically examining funding allocations, rights-based approaches, geographic tools, spatial equity, and sustainability, policymakers and stakeholders can foster more inclusive and equitable sanitation landscapes. A comprehensive approach ensures that vulnerable communities receive the necessary attention and resources, ultimately achieving sustainable sanitation solutions that benefit all populations.

Funding is never neutral. It reflects who we value, what we prioritize, and how we define progress. When sanitation investments bypass the most vulnerable, they do not just miss the mark—they perpetuate harm. However, change is possible. Rights-based approaches, spatial equity tools like WASH Equity Atlases, and inclusive policymaking offer a blueprint for realignment.

The challenge ahead is not just about fixing pipes or building facilities. It is about rewriting the financial DNA of sanitation policy to ensure that no one is left behind—not because it is charitable, but because it is just. Because when funding follows equity, sanitation becomes not a privilege for the few but a public good for all.

6 Community-Led Infrastructure Planning

What happens when the people who need sanitation the most are finally invited to design it? Across Nigeria, Zambia, and the Philippines, a quiet revolution is taking shape—led not by engineers or ministers but by mothers, teachers, farmers, and youth. These are the architects of a new sanitation movement: one rooted in community, guided by lived experience, and built to last. Community-led infrastructure planning is not a footnote in the sanitation debate—it is the frontline.

For too long, sanitation solutions have been imposed on communities rather than built with them. The result? Systems that fail to reflect local realities are poorly maintained and, ultimately, abandoned. explores how participatory planning—when done authentically—does more than deliver infrastructure. It builds resilience, unlocks ownership, and restores dignity to the people long excluded from decisions about their fundamental rights.

6.1 The Importance of Participatory Planning

Participatory infrastructure planning emerges as a critical strategy for enhancing wastewater management and addressing sanitation inequity. Community-driven models, such as WASH committees in Nigeria and the Philippines, significantly improve both the adoption and longevity of sanitation solutions (Zhang, 2024). These models foster local accountability, ensuring communities maintain ownership and responsibility for sanitation outcomes, thereby enhancing resilience and effectiveness.

6.2 Fostering Local Ownership and Accountability

Local ownership generated through participatory planning leads to heightened accountability among residents. Community-led management fosters a greater investment in infrastructure maintenance and sustainability, thus transforming sanitation services from externally imposed obligations into community-driven initiatives. Collective responsibility promotes social cohesion and community pride, which are essential for long-term sustainability (Tomberge et al., 2021).

6.3 Aligning Sanitation Solutions with Cultural Contexts

Cultural alignment is integral to the success of community-led planning initiatives. Unlike top-down approaches, community-led projects incorporate local cultural values and social norms from inception, enhancing acceptance and technical feasibility (Turrén-Cruz et al., 2020). Such contextually sensitive planning ensures that sanitation interventions align closely with community expectations and preferences, improving their sustainability and effectiveness.

6.4 Empowerment Through Capacity Building

Capacity-building and training programs play pivotal roles in empowering communities to actively participate in managing sanitation infrastructure. By equipping residents with essential skills and knowledge, these initiatives foster self-reliance and reduce dependency on external support. Empowerment facilitates continuous learning and adaptability, enabling communities to independently maintain sanitation systems effectively (Venkataramanan et al., 2018).

6.5 Inclusive Governance and Community Resilience

Inclusive governance is crucial to the long-term success of community-led infrastructure planning. Ensuring that marginalized groups—particularly women, youth, and vulnerable populations—actively participate in decision-making processes strengthens community resilience and promotes equitable sanitation outcomes (Ficek & Novotný, 2018). For example, in Zambia, inclusive community engagement in the planning and implementation of sanitation initiatives resulted in significantly increased latrine coverage and improved hygiene practices, especially among women and children (Yeboah‐Antwi et al., 2019). Similarly, in Nepal, involving women's groups in the governance of local WASH projects led to higher project completion rates and more sustained infrastructure maintenance, illustrating the practical impact of inclusive participation on sanitation success. An inclusive approach enhances social justice and ensures comprehensive infrastructure that meets diverse community needs.

6.6 Practical Applications Case Studies from Nigeria and the Philippines

Examples from Nigeria and the Philippines demonstrate the tangible benefits of community-led infrastructure planning. In these contexts, community WASH committees have effectively increased sanitation access and improved system management through active community engagement. These cases underline the practical advantages of participatory models, showcasing enhanced health outcomes and sustainable sanitation practices (Zhang, 2024).

6.7 Strengthening Communities Through Participation

Community-led infrastructure planning is not merely a technical solution; it embodies principles of empowerment, cultural sensitivity, and inclusivity essential for addressing sanitation inequalities. Policymakers and stakeholders should prioritize community engagement and capacity building, ensuring that sanitation solutions are responsive, sustainable, and socially equitable. By placing communities at the centre of sanitation planning, significant improvements in public health, social cohesion, and overall quality of life can be achieved for underserved populations.

Community-led infrastructure planning is not a charitable add-on—it is a strategic necessity. When communities are treated as co-creators, not just beneficiaries, sanitation systems are more resilient, more sustainable, and more just. The evidence from Zambia, Nepal, and the Philippines is clear: participatory governance leads to better outcomes, deeper accountability, and stronger local capacity.

If policymakers and planners are serious about ending the global sanitation crisis, they must start by handing over the blueprint. Let communities lead. Let culture shape design. Let participation drive investment. Because the future of sanitation will not be engineered from above—it will rise from the ground up, where dignity, ownership, and justice begin.

Conclusion

Infrastructure inequity within wastewater systems remains a significant barrier to health, dignity, and environmental justice. Disproportionate burdens imposed on vulnerable populations—from Indigenous communities to urban slums—underscore the urgent need for equitable investments, decentralized innovations, and participatory governance. Strategies to remedy injustice must include robust regulation of decentralized systems, pro-poor reforms in PPP frameworks, targeted funding for underserved regions, and community-led infrastructure planning initiatives.

Utilizing spatial equity tools and pursuing inclusive finance will help redefine sanitation from a privilege reserved for the few to a fundamental right for all. Only through deliberate and just actions can wastewater infrastructure serve the diverse communities it aims to protect, paving the way for a more equitable future.

Infrastructure inequity within wastewater systems remains a persistent obstacle to health, dignity, and environmental justice across the globe. Disproportionate burdens imposed on vulnerable populations, including Indigenous communities and urban slum dwellers, accentuate the urgent necessity for equitable investments, decentralized innovations, and participatory governance mechanisms. The existing systems of sanitation create disparities that directly impact community well-being, calling for a multifaceted approach to remedy these injustices through several key strategies.

Firstly, robust regulation of decentralized systems is essential to ensure that they operate efficiently and sustainably while serving the needs of marginalized communities. Research indicates that community engagement in sanitation projects generates positive outcomes, ultimately leading to improvements in health and environmental conditions McGranahan (2015). However, such systems must be backed by regulatory frameworks that guarantee their effective operation.

Additionally, pro-poor reforms in public-private partnership (PPP) frameworks are crucial. These reforms should aim to redirect funding towards underserved regions, thereby addressing the historical neglect these areas have faced in sanitation investments (Tsinda et al., 2015). Targeting specifically low-income and marginalized communities can help to alleviate sanitation inequities that have persisted over decades. Only by engaging these communities in meaningful ways can we hope to foster the kind of social cohesion necessary for effective sanitation solutions.

Community-led infrastructure planning initiatives present another promising avenue for improving access to sanitation services. Through participatory processes, residents can take ownership of sanitation projects, ensuring interventions are not only culturally appropriate but also sustainable in the long term (Pan et al., 2016). ownership fosters local accountability, increasing the likelihood that these systems will be maintained and utilized effectively.

Utilizing spatial equity tools will help in understanding the disparities within areas that require attention. By mapping infrastructure gaps and identifying the communities that lack adequate sanitation services, stakeholders can prioritize investments where they are most needed (Delaire et al., 2020). targeted funding approach enables better-aligned resource allocation strategies that can address systemic inequalities in access to sanitation.

Furthermore, pursuing inclusive finance approaches is essential in mitigating the inequities prevalent in sanitation systems. By recognizing sanitation as a fundamental right rather than a privilege, financing should be structured to alleviate barriers faced by the most vulnerable populations (Minh & Hung, 2011). may involve innovative financial mechanisms that facilitate access to sanitation services for underserved communities, ensuring that financing flows equitably.

Ultimately, addressing these structural inequities requires deliberate and just actions from all stakeholders involved. Policymakers and development agencies must work collaboratively with communities to develop responsive, equitable, and sustainable sanitation strategies that prioritize human rights and dignity for all individuals. By doing so, wastewater infrastructure can effectively serve the diverse communities it aims to protect, leading to a more equitable and just future.

The ongoing challenges of infrastructure inequity within wastewater systems necessitate a concerted effort to redefine sanitation from a privilege reserved for a select few to a fundamental right accessible to all. Through equitable investments, decentralized innovations, and participatory governance, we can create a more just and sustainable world where the right to safe sanitation is recognized and upheld universally.

References

(2020). Partnership aims to improve access to clean, safe and sustainable water in India. *Membrane Technology, 2020(12)*, 14-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0958-2118(20)30217-2

AimÃ© Tsinda, Pamela Abbott, Jonathan Chenoweth (2015). Sanitation markets in urban informal settlements of East Africa. *Habitat International, 49*, 21-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.05.005

Ali Hadi Ghawi (2018). Study on the Development of Household Wastewater Treatment Unit. *Journal of Ecological Engineering, 19(2)*, 63-71. https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/81780

Amol Shukla, Divyesh Parde, Varun Gupta, Ritesh Vijay, Rakesh Kumar (2021). A review on effective design processes of constructed wetlands. *International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 19(12)*, 12749-12774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-021-03549-y

Anamika Chatterjee, Christina Feldmann, Jasmin S. Hanke, Marcel Ricklefs, Malakh Shrestha, Guenes Dogan, Axel Haverich, Jan D. Schmitto (2018). The momentum of HeartMate 3: a novel active magnetically levitated centrifugal left ventricular assist device (LVAD). *Journal of Thoracic Disease, 10(S15)*, S1790-S1793. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2017.10.124

Andrea G. Capodaglio (2017). Integrated, Decentralized Wastewater Management for Resource Recovery in Rural and Peri-Urban Areas. *Resources, 6(2)*, 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources6020022

Arun Kumar Sharma, Ashok Chopra (2013). Removal of COD and BOD from biologically treated municipal wastewater by electrochemical treatment. *Journal of Applied and Natural Science, 5(2)*, 475-481. https://doi.org/10.31018/jans.v5i2.356

Caroline Delaire, Rachel Peletz, Salim Haji, Joan Kones, Edinah Samuel, Alicea Easthope-Frazer, EloÃ¯se Charreyron, Timothy C. Wang, Andy Feng, Razin Mustafiz, Ismat Jabeen Faria, Prince Antwi-Agyei, Emmanuel Donkor, Kwaku Amaning Adjei, Isaac Monney, Joyce Kisiangani, Clara MacLeod, Brian Mwangi, Ranjiv Khush (2020). How Much Will Safe Sanitation for all Cost? Evidence from Five Cities. *Environmental Science & Technology, 55(1)*, 767-777. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c06348

Catherine W. Saltus, Brian Calingaert, Sean D. Candrilli, MarÃa Gabriela Lorenzo, Yulia Dyachkova, Thorsten Otto, Uwe Wagner, James A. Kaye (2018). Epidemiology of Adult Soft-Tissue Sarcomas in Germany. *Sarcoma, 2018*, 2025-11-01 00:00:00. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5671926

Chanthephar Khattiyavong, Han Soo Lee (2019). Performance Simulation and Assessment of an Appropriate Wastewater Treatment Technology in a Densely Populated Growing City in a Developing Country: A Case Study in Vientiane, Laos. *Water, 11(5)*, 1012. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11051012

Cristina GÃ³mez-RomÃ¡n, JosÃ© Manuel Sabucedo Cameselle, MÃ³nica Ãlzate, Beatriz Medina (2021). Environmental Concern Priming and Social Acceptance of Sustainable Technologies: The Case of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems. *Frontiers in Psychology, 12*, . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.647406

David B. Miklos, Christian Remy, Martin Jekel, Karl G. Linden, JÃ¶rg E. Drewes, Uwe HÃ¼bner (2018). Evaluation of advanced oxidation processes for water and wastewater treatment â€“ A critical review. *Water Research, 139*, 118-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.03.042

Diana Paola Bernal, InÃ©s Restrepo, SimÃ³n Grueso-Casquete (2021). Key criteria for considering decentralization in municipal wastewater management. *Heliyon, 7(3)*, e06375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06375

Dorjan Marku, Ardita Hoxha-Jahja, Ines Maurmann (2024). Impact of digital technologies on farm operational activities: A case study analysis between Germany and Finland. *nan, 1(1)*, 17-24. https://doi.org/10.33422/icrbmf.v1i1.519

Ebrima Fatajo, Mustapha Barrow (2023). Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Policies and the Enhancement of Quality Education in Lower and Upper Basic Schools within Region One Education Directorate, The Gambia. *nan, 3(2)*, 14-25. https://doi.org/10.61090/aksujacog.2023.002

Elis Hastuti, Sri Darwati, Fitrijani Anggraini (2019). SAFE REUSE OF TREATED WASTEWATER AND SLUDGE IN DECENTRALIZED SYSTEM. *Matter International Journal of Science and Technology, 5(2)*, 175-189. https://doi.org/10.20319/mijst.2019.52.175189

Faisal Merghani Ibrahim, Bashir Mohammed El Hassan, Ahmed Elnadif Elmanssury, Ahmed Musa Siyam, Safa Abdaalla Dafaallah, Yasir Hayat Mughal, Mahmoud Jaber (2024). Integrated, Decentralized Wastewater Management Use to Improve the Environmental Health of Khartoum Locality Sudan. *nan, *, . https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/ezp95

FrantiÅ¡ek Ficek, Josef NovotnÃ½ (2018). Comprehending practitionersâ€™ assessments of community-led total sanitation. *Health Promotion International, 34(6)*, e129-e138. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/day070

Ghazaleh Bahman, Hamed Yazdian (2024). Developing a Water, Food, Energy, Economy, and Environment Nexus Index for Evaluating Centralized and Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems. *Environmental Quality Management, 34(2)*, . https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.22344

Gordon McGranahan (2015). Realizing the Right to Sanitation in Deprived Urban Communities: Meeting the Challenges of Collective Action, Coproduction, Affordability, and Housing Tenure. *World Development, 68*, 242-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.12.008

HoÃ ng VÄƒn Minh, Nguyen Viet Hung (2011). Economic Aspects of Sanitation in Developing Countries. *Environmental Health Insights, 5*, EHI.S8199. https://doi.org/10.4137/ehi.s8199

Hurriyah Mujahidah, Utomo Sarjono Putro, Khrisna Ariyanto (2024). Social Perception and Support of a Public Sanitation Service in Bandung: Community Insights and Engagement Strategies. *Journal of Social and Political Sciences, 7(2)*, . https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1991.07.02.496

Jabir Ali, Waseem Khan (2023). Demographic, social and economic factors affecting the adoption of green toilets among rural households in India. *Environment Development and Sustainability, 26(2)*, 5117-5138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-02927-5

Japheth Kwiringira, Robert Kabumbuli, Henry Zakumumpa, James Mugisha, Mathias Akugizibwe, Paulino Ariho, Joseph Rujumba (2021). Re-conceptualizing sustainable urban sanitation in Uganda: why the roots of â€˜Slumificationâ€™ must be dealt with. *BMC Public Health, 21(1)*, . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11029-8

Jonathan Roy Bailey, Sajjad Ahmad, Jacimaria R. Batista (2020). The Impact of Advanced Treatment Technologies on the Energy Use in Satellite Water Reuse Plants. *Water, 12(2)*, 366. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020366

Julie Skrydstrup, Sille Lyster Larsen, Martin Rygaard (2020). Ecoâ€efficiency of water and wastewater management in food production: A case study from a large dairy in Denmark. *Journal of Industrial Ecology, 24(5)*, 1101-1112. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13011

Kartiki S. Naik, Michael K. Stenstrom (2016). A Feasibility Analysis Methodology for Decentralized Wastewater Systems â€“ Energyâ€Efficiency and Cost. *Water Environment Research, 88(3)*, 201-209. https://doi.org/10.2175/106143016x14504669767337

Kojo Yeboahâ€Antwi, William MacLeod, Godfrey Biemba, Patrick Sijenyi, Alexandra HÃ¶hne, Lavuun Verstraete, Caitryn McCallum, Davidson H. Hamer (2019). Improving Sanitation and Hygiene through Community-Led Total Sanitation: The Zambian Experience. *American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 100(4)*, 1005-1012. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.18-0632

Leonie Hydeâ€Smith, Katy Roelich, Anna Mdee, Zhe Zhan, Barbara Evans (2024). Blinded by the â€˜green-haloâ€™? Equity in financing climate adaptation of urban sanitation. *Environment and Planning E Nature and Space, 8(1)*, 278-305. https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486241287446

Lidia Galan-Lopez, Jorge Barciaâ€GonzÃ¡lez, Eliseo Plasencia (2019). A systematic review of the accuracy and efficiency of dental movements with InvisalignÂ®. *The Korean Journal of Orthodontics, 49(3)*, 140. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2019.49.3.140

M. van Glabbeke, A.T. van Oosterom, J. Wolter Oosterhuis, Henning T. Mouridsen, D. Crowther, R. Somers, Jaap Verweij, Armando Santoro, J. Buesa, T TÃ¼rsz (1999). Prognostic Factors for the Outcome of Chemotherapy in Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma: An Analysis of 2,185 Patients Treated With Anthracycline-Containing First-Line Regimensâ€”A European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group Study. *Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17(1)*, 150-150. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1999.17.1.150

Markus B. Blatz, Gerard Jules Chiche, O Bahat, Richard D Roblee, Christian Coachman, H.O. Heymann (2019). Evolution of Aesthetic Dentistry. *Journal of Dental Research, 98(12)*, 1294-1304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034519875450

Matthias Lutz, David Messikaâ€Zeitoun, Tanja K. Rudolph, Eberhard Schulz, Jeetendra Thambyrajah, Guy Lloyd, Alexander Lauten, Norbert Frey, Jana Kurucova, Martin Thoenes, Cornelia Deutsch, Peter Bramlage, Richard P. Steeds (2020). Differences in the presentation and management of patients with severe aortic stenosis in different European centres. *Open Heart, 7(2)*, e001345. https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2020-001345

Michael Child, Teresa Haukkala, Christian Breyer (2017). The Role of Solar Photovoltaics and Energy Storage Solutions in a 100% Renewable Energy System for Finland in 2050. *Sustainability, 9(8)*, 1358. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081358

Pradeep Kuttuva, Sharachchandra LÃ©lÃ©, Gara Villalba (2018). Decentralized Wastewater Systems in Bengaluru, India: Success or Failure?. *Water Economics and Policy, 4(2)*, 1650043. https://doi.org/10.1142/s2382624x16500430

Roman Herout, Martin Baunacke, Christer Groeben, Cem Aksoy, BjÃ¶rn Volkmer, Marcel O. Schmidt, Nicole Eisenmenger, Rainer Koch, S. OehlschlÃ¤ger, Christian Thomas, Johannes Huber (2021). Contemporary treatment trends for upper urinary tract stones in a total population analysis in Germany from 2006 to 2019: will shock wave lithotripsy become extinct?. *World Journal of Urology, 40(1)*, 185-191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03818-y

SM Pan, Neil Armitage, MB Van Ryneveld (2016). Sustainable and equitable sanitation in informal settlements of Cape Town: a common vision?. *Water Sa, 41(2)*, 222. https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v41i2.07

Sadek Igoud, Djamel Zeriri, Lamine Aoudjit, Belgassim Boutra, SaÄ±Ìˆd Sebti, Feriel Khene, A. Mameche (2020). Climate change adaptation by solar wastewater treatment (SOWAT) for reuse in agriculture and industry<sup>*</sup>. *Irrigation and Drainage, 70(2)*, 243-253. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.2540

Sara E. Beck, Poonyanooch Suwan, Thusitha Rathnayeke, Thi Minh Hong Nguyen, Victor A. Huanambal-Sovero, Boonmee Boonyapalanant, Natalie M. Hull, Thammarat Koottatep (2021). Woven-Fiber Microfiltration (WFMF) and Ultraviolet Light Emitting Diodes (UV LEDs) for Treating Wastewater and Septic Tank Effluent. *Water, 13(11)*, 1564. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13111564

Shaokui Zheng, Jingyan Sun, Hui Han (2011). Effect of Dissolved Oxygen Changes on Activated Sludge Fungal Bulking during Lab-Scale Treatment of Acidic Industrial Wastewater. *Environmental Science & Technology, 45(20)*, 8928-8934. https://doi.org/10.1021/es2018169

ThalÃa TurrÃ©n-Cruz, Juan Alejandro GarcÃa-RodrÃguez, Rodrigo E. Peimbert-GarcÃa, Miguel Ãngel LÃ³pez Zavala (2020). An Approach Incorporating User Preferences in the Design of Sanitation Systems and Its Application in the Rural Communities of Chiapas, Mexico. *Sustainability, 12(3)*, 1024. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031024

V. Curtis (2019). Explaining the outcomes of the â€˜Clean Indiaâ€™ campaign: institutional behaviour and sanitation transformation in India. *nan, *, . https://doi.org/10.1101/19004689

Vica Marie Jelena Tomberge, Miriam Harter, Jennifer Inauen (2021). The importance of collective and individual psychological ownership for safe sanitation: A multilevel analysis in rural Ghana. *Global Public Health, 17(7)*, 1314-1329. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2021.1928260

Vidya Venkataramanan, Jonny Crocker, Andrew J. Karon, Jamie Bartram (2018). Community-Led Total Sanitation: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review of Evidence and Its Quality. *Environmental Health Perspectives, 126(2)*, . https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp1965

William Wallock, Abishek Sankara Narayan, Patrick Thomson (2024). Exploring the Barriers to Scaling Up Sanitation Enterprises Using Q-Methodology. *Acs Es&t Water, 4(9)*, 3986-3995. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.4c00274

Witthaya Mekhum (2017). Wastewater Treatment Prototype and Technology Development for Natural Resource and Environment Conservation Using Community Based on Local Knowledge. *International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, 8(2)*, 84-87. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijesd.2017.8.2.926

Xingfu Xue (2022). Practical research on the modular equipment for the treatment of rural decentralized domestic sewage. *Iop Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science, 1011(1)*, 12034. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1011/1/012034

Yong Li, Shikun Cheng, Zhengyi Li, Hongqing Song, Miao Guo, Zifu Li, Heinzâ€Peter Mang, Yuning Xu, Cong Chen, Davaa Basandorj, Lingling Zhang, Tianxin Li (2021). Using system dynamics to assess the complexity of rural toilet retrofitting: Case study in eastern China. *Journal of Environmental Management, 280*, 111655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111655

Thursday, April 24, 2025

CLOSING THE GAP: HOW COMMUNITY-LED SANITATION CAN SOLVE THE GLOBAL WASTEWATER CRISIS