Ella Foggitt

@article{cfe4754b5b314294928baea7d97fd21e,

title = {Systematic mapping of gender equality and social inclusion in WASH interventions: knowledge clusters and gaps},

author = {Biljana Macura and Ella Foggitt and Carla Liera and Adriana Soto and Arianna Orlando and Laura Del Duca and Naomi Carrard and Karin Hannes and Marni Sommer and Sarah Dickin},

doi = {10.1136/bmjgh-2022-010850},

issn = {2059-7908},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-01-24},

journal = {BMJ Global Health},

volume = {8},

number = {1},

publisher = {BMJ},

abstract = {INTRODUCTION: Poor access to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services threatens population health and contributes to gender and social inequalities, especially in low-resource settings. Despite awareness in the WASH sector of the importance of promoting gender equality and social inclusion (GESI) to address these inequalities, evaluations of interventions focus largely on health outcomes, while gender equality and other social outcomes are rarely included. This review aimed to collate and describe available research evidence of GESI outcomes evaluated in WASH intervention studies.METHODS: We applied a systematic mapping methodology and searched for both academic and grey literature published between 2010 and 2020 in 16 bibliographic databases and 53 specialist websites. Eligibility screening (with consistency checking) was conducted according to predetermined criteria, followed by metadata coding and narrative synthesis.RESULTS: Our evidence base comprises 463 intervention studies. Only 42% of studies measured transformative GESI outcomes of WASH interventions, referring to those that seek to transform gender relations and power imbalances to promote equality. A majority of studies disaggregated outcome data by sex, but other forms of data disaggregation were limited. Most included studies (78%) lacked a specific GESI mainstreaming component in their intervention design. Of the interventions with GESI mainstreaming, the majority targeted women and girls, with very few focused on other social groups or intersectional considerations.CONCLUSION: The review points to various areas for future primary and secondary research. Given the potential contribution of WASH to GESI, GESI considerations should be incorporated into the evaluation of WASH interventions. Regular collection of data and monitoring of GESI outcomes is needed as well as developing new and testing existing methods for monitoring and evaluation of such data.},

note = {Funding Information: This work was funded by the Centre of Excellence for Development Impact and Learning (CEDIL) which is supported by UK aid from the UK Government. We are thankful to George Njoroge, Audinisa Fadhila and Molly Hanson for their support during various stages of the review process. Thanks to our advisory board members for their invaluable insights and advice: James Thomas, Lewnida Sara, Louisa Gosling, Hugh Waddington, Naomi Carrard, Karin Hannes and Marni Sommer. We are also extremely grateful to all stakeholders for their input and feedback provided at various stages of the review process. Publisher Copyright: © 2023 BMJ Publishing Group. All rights reserved.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{cfe4754b5b314294928baea7d97fd21eb,

title = {Systematic mapping of gender equality and social inclusion in WASH interventions: knowledge clusters and gaps},

author = {Biljana Macura and Ella Foggitt and Carla Liera and Adriana Soto and Arianna Orlando and Laura Del Duca and Naomi Carrard and Karin Hannes and Marni Sommer and Sarah Dickin},

doi = {10.1136/bmjgh-2022-010850},

issn = {2059-7908},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-01-24},

journal = {BMJ Global Health},

volume = {8},

number = {1},

publisher = {BMJ},

abstract = {INTRODUCTION: Poor access to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services threatens population health and contributes to gender and social inequalities, especially in low-resource settings. Despite awareness in the WASH sector of the importance of promoting gender equality and social inclusion (GESI) to address these inequalities, evaluations of interventions focus largely on health outcomes, while gender equality and other social outcomes are rarely included. This review aimed to collate and describe available research evidence of GESI outcomes evaluated in WASH intervention studies.METHODS: We applied a systematic mapping methodology and searched for both academic and grey literature published between 2010 and 2020 in 16 bibliographic databases and 53 specialist websites. Eligibility screening (with consistency checking) was conducted according to predetermined criteria, followed by metadata coding and narrative synthesis.RESULTS: Our evidence base comprises 463 intervention studies. Only 42% of studies measured transformative GESI outcomes of WASH interventions, referring to those that seek to transform gender relations and power imbalances to promote equality. A majority of studies disaggregated outcome data by sex, but other forms of data disaggregation were limited. Most included studies (78%) lacked a specific GESI mainstreaming component in their intervention design. Of the interventions with GESI mainstreaming, the majority targeted women and girls, with very few focused on other social groups or intersectional considerations.CONCLUSION: The review points to various areas for future primary and secondary research. Given the potential contribution of WASH to GESI, GESI considerations should be incorporated into the evaluation of WASH interventions. Regular collection of data and monitoring of GESI outcomes is needed as well as developing new and testing existing methods for monitoring and evaluation of such data.},

note = {Funding Information: This work was funded by the Centre of Excellence for Development Impact and Learning (CEDIL) which is supported by UK aid from the UK Government. We are thankful to George Njoroge, Audinisa Fadhila and Molly Hanson for their support during various stages of the review process. Thanks to our advisory board members for their invaluable insights and advice: James Thomas, Lewnida Sara, Louisa Gosling, Hugh Waddington, Naomi Carrard, Karin Hannes and Marni Sommer. We are also extremely grateful to all stakeholders for their input and feedback provided at various stages of the review process. Publisher Copyright: © 2023 BMJ Publishing Group. All rights reserved.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{e762ca97cb71477b8ecd1bc47e48c8b6,

title = {Experiences of shared sanitation: towards a better understanding of access, exclusion and ‘toilet mobility’ in low-income urban areas},

author = {Ella Foggitt and Sally Cawood and Barbara Evans and Patricia Acheampong},

doi = {10.2166/washdev.2019.025},

issn = {2043-9083},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-09-01},

journal = {Journal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development},

volume = {9},

number = {3},

pages = {581–590},

publisher = {IWA Publishing},

abstract = {Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 6.2 calls for ‘adequate and equitable sanitation for all’. In dense, rapidly urbanising cities, the challenge of providing household sanitation means that many countries include shared, community and public toilets in their national strategies to meet global goals. However, shared sanitation is associated with several problems including poor management and exclusion. This study examines shared sanitation access and use by using innovative mapping methods in compound house units in Fante New Town, Kumasi, Ghana. This study reveals that 56% of house units have at least one toilet. Of the 47% of people living in these house units, almost a third were excluded from using the toilet. Tenure status was the main driver for exclusion, with nearly half of people reporting non-usage ‘not allowed’ to use the toilet by the landlord. This study outlines key policy interventions to address broader institutional and regulatory barriers to shared sanitation. At the settlement level, this includes the provision of safe, well-managed public toilets and engagement with landlords to improve house unit toilet access. At the national and global level, this study calls for nuanced indicators to assess the quality of access and to ensure shared sanitation works for everyone.},

note = {Publisher Copyright: © IWA Publishing 2019.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{e762ca97cb71477b8ecd1bc47e48c8b6b,

title = {Experiences of shared sanitation: towards a better understanding of access, exclusion and ‘toilet mobility’ in low-income urban areas},

author = {Ella Foggitt and Sally Cawood and Barbara Evans and Patricia Acheampong},

doi = {10.2166/washdev.2019.025},

issn = {2043-9083},

journal = {Journal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development},

volume = {9},

number = {3},

pages = {581–590},

publisher = {IWA Publishing},

abstract = {Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 6.2 calls for ‘adequate and equitable sanitation for all’. In dense, rapidly urbanising cities, the challenge of providing household sanitation means that many countries include shared, community and public toilets in their national strategies to meet global goals. However, shared sanitation is associated with several problems including poor management and exclusion. This study examines shared sanitation access and use by using innovative mapping methods in compound house units in Fante New Town, Kumasi, Ghana. This study reveals that 56% of house units have at least one toilet. Of the 47% of people living in these house units, almost a third were excluded from using the toilet. Tenure status was the main driver for exclusion, with nearly half of people reporting non-usage ‘not allowed’ to use the toilet by the landlord. This study outlines key policy interventions to address broader institutional and regulatory barriers to shared sanitation. At the settlement level, this includes the provision of safe, well-managed public toilets and engagement with landlords to improve house unit toilet access. At the national and global level, this study calls for nuanced indicators to assess the quality of access and to ensure shared sanitation works for everyone.},

note = {Publisher Copyright: © IWA Publishing 2019.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}