An Exploration of Stakeholders Perceived Mitigation Measures for Addressing Sanitation Challenges in George Compound in Lusaka Zambia

The study was guided by an objective which sought to explore the stakeholders perceived mitigation measures for sanitation challenges in Peri-Urban Areas in Lusaka. The researcher adopted the social constructivist ontology, knowledge was co-constructed with participants through an interpretive phenomenological approach, and reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse in-depth and key informant interviews with beneficiaries, local committees, regulatory bodies, and the Lusaka Water Supply and Sanitation Company. The sample was selected purposively and determined using data saturation, ensuring rich, contextual insights from relevant stakeholders. The study revealed that even if you employ hundred inspectors this still cannot address sanitation because, sanitation starts at the household level. sanitation services have been integrated into the Lusaka Water Supply and Sanitation Company’s (LWSC) digital customer service platforms. The sanitation platform allows households to access sanitation services more conveniently, facilitates reporting of issues, and enhances communication between service providers and beneficiaries. Furthermore, the utility company introduction of scheduled desludging has improved predictability and affordability in pit emptying services. Under this system, households register their pit latrines and make small, routine contributions, which enables service providers to plan operations efficiently and reduces the risk of full pits overflowing or being emptied unsafely. The researcher’s application of systems theory highlighted the interdependence of institutions, service providers, and communities, demonstrating that weaknesses in any component can compromise the sanitation system. The systems lens also emphasized that sustainable outcomes require integration of infrastructure, regulation, household participation, and community engagement. The study has theoretical, methodological, policy, practice, and knowledge implications. Theoretically, it corroborates systems theory by illustrating the interrelated roles of stakeholders in sustainable sanitation. Methodologically, it demonstrates the value of interpretive phenomenology in capturing lived experiences and operational nuances. For policy, the study emphasizes integrated, multi-stakeholder interventions informed by practical experiences. Practically, it highlights the need for community sensitization and engagement to ensure sustainability of sanitation innovations. Knowledge-wise, the study provides contextual evidence specific to George Compound, documenting challenges, innovations, and operational insights that can inform similar peri-urban settings. In conclusion, addressing sanitation challenges in peri-urban Lusaka requires a holistic, systems-oriented approach that integrates infrastructure, regulation, education, cultural socialization, and community participation to ensure equitable, sustainable, and effective on-site sanitation services.

On-Site Sanitation, Sanitation Mitigation Measures

1. Agenda 2063: The Africa we want, 2015. African Union Commission, Addis Ababa. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ahmed, S.K., 2024. The pillars of trustworthiness in qualitative research. J. Med. Surg. Public Health 2, 100051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glmedi.2024.100051 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Akhter, S., 2022. Key Informants’ Interviews, in: Islam, M.R., Khan, N.A., Baikady, R. (Eds.), Principles of Social Research Methodology. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, pp. 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5441-2_27 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Arias-Gómez, J., Villasís-Keever, M.Á., Miranda-Novales, M.G., 2016. El protocolo de investigación III: la población de estudio. Rev. Alerg. México 63, 201–206. https://doi.org/10.29262/ram.v63i2.181 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bain, R., Johnston, R., Mitis, F., Chatterley, C., Slaymaker, T., 2018. Establishing Sustainable Development Goal Baselines for Household Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Services. Water 10, 1711. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10121711 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Eryilmaz, Ö., 2022. Are Dissertations Trustworthy Enough? The case of Turkish Ph.D. Dissertations on Social Studies Education. Particip. Educ. Res. 9, 344–361. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.70.9.3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Frenoux, C. and Tsitsikalis, A., 2015. Domestic private fecal sludge emptying services in Cambodia: between market efficiency and regulation needs for sustainable management. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, 5(1), pp.143-155. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Gething, P.W., Ayling, S., Mugabi, J., Muximpua, O.D., Kagulura, S.S., Joseph, G., 2023. Cholera risk in Lusaka: A geospatial analysis to inform improved water and sanitation provision. PLOS Water 2, e0000163. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000163 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Greene, N., Hennessy, S., Rogers, T.W., Tsai, J., De Los Reyes Iii, F.L., 2021. The role of emptying services in provision of safely managed sanitation: A classification and quantification of the needs of LMICs. J. Environ. Manage. 290, 112612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112612 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. GRZ, 2022. (National Development Plan). Ministry of Finance and National Planning, Lusaka,Zambia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. GRZ, 2006. Republic of Zambia Vision 2030. Ministry of Finance and National Planning, Lusaka,Zambia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Haruna, S., 2023. A Phonological Study of Consonants and Vowels Phonemic Merger in Hausa. Br. J. Multidiscip. Adv. Stud. 4, 45–59. https://doi.org/10.37745/bjmas.2022.0196 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Howard, G., 2021. The future of water and sanitation: global challenges and the need for greater ambition. J. Water Supply Res. Technol.-Aqua 70, 438–448. https://doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2021.127 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kakar, Z.U.H., Rasheed, R., Rashid, A., Akhter, S., 2023. CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING AND ENSURING THE TRUSTWORTHINESS IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH. Int. J. Bus. Reflect. 4, 150–173. https://doi.org/10.56249/ijbr.03.01.44 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Keeves, 1997. Educational research, methodology and measurement: Handbook an international handbook (2nd ed.). Pergamon. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Kiger, M.E., Varpio, L., 2020. Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Med. Teach. 42, 846–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Kivunja, C., Kuyini, A.B., 2017. Understanding and Applying Research Paradigms in Educational Contexts. Int. J. High. Educ. 6, 26. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v6n5p26 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Nansubuga, I., Banadda, N., Verstraete, W., Rabaey, K., 2016. A review of sustainable sanitation systems in Africa. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 15, 465–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-016-9400-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. National Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Program, 2006.National Water Supply and Sanitation Council (NWASCO), Lusaka,Zambia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Neubauer, B.E., Witkop, C.T., Varpio, L., 2019. How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others. Perspect. Med. Educ. 8, 90–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40037-019-0509-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. NWASCO, 2018. Urban Onsite sanitatiOn and Faecal slUdge ManageMent Framework for Provision and regulation in Zambia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Osborne, N., Grant-Smith, D., 2021. In-Depth Interviewing, in: Baum, S. (Ed.), Methods in Urban Analysis, Cities Research Series. Springer Singapore, Singapore, pp. 105–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1677-8_7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Rajapakse, J., Otoo, M., Danso, G., 2023. Progress in delivering SDG6: Safe water and sanitation. Camb. Prisms Water 1, e6. https://doi.org/10.1017/wat.2023.5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Robinson, R.S., 2014. Purposive Sampling, in: Michalos, A.C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 5243–5245. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_2337 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Sauce, B., Matzel, L.D., 2017. Inductive Reasoning, in: Vonk, J., Shackelford, T. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_1045-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., 2009. Research methods for business students, 5. ed. ed. Financial Times Prentice Hall, Harlow. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Scotland, J., 2012. Exploring the Philosophical Underpinnings of Research: Relating Ontology and Epistemology to the Methodology and Methods of the Scientific, Interpretive, and Critical Research Paradigms. Engl. Lang. Teach. 5, p9. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n9p9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. SNV, 2024. Advancing sanitation governance in Zambia (A snapshot of the strengthened regulations for onsite sanitation and faecal sludge management). SNV. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Srivastava, S.S., Mishra, K., 2022. Global Sanitation Crisis: Challenges and Responses, in: Baikady, R., Sajid, S.M., Przeperski, J., Nadesan, V., Islam, M.R., Gao, J. (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Global Social Problems. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68127-2_142-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Suri, H., 2011. Purposeful Sampling in Qualitative Research Synthesis. Qual. Res. J. 11, 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ1102063 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Tenny, S., Brannan, J.M., Brannan, G.D., 2025. Qualitative Study, in: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. UNGA, 2010. The human right to water and sanitation. (In: 108th Plenary Meeting). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. UNICEF and WHO, 2019. PROGRESS on Household Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene 2000–2017: Special Focus on Inequalities; United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF): New York, NY, USA; World Health Organization (WHO): Geneva, Switzerland, [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. United Nations, 2018. SDG 6 Synthesis Report 2018 on Water and Sanitation. UN. https://doi.org/10.18356/e8fc060b-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. United Nations, 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. United Nations Development Programme, 2023. 2023 Africa Sustainable Development Report. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. World Health Organization, 2023. Improving-access-to-water--sanitation-and-hygiene-can-save-1.4-million-lives-per-year--says-new-who-report. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. World Health Organization, 2018. Guidelines on sanitation and health. World Health Organization, Geneva. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Zhou, X., Li, Z., Zheng, T., Yan, Y., Li, P., Odey, E.A., Mang, H.P., Uddin, S.M.N., 2018. Review of global sanitation development. Environ. Int. 120, 246–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.07.047 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Public Participation in Sustainable Development Programs: Examining Public Participation Methods and Levels at Pustaka Negeri Sarawak
• Responding to Climate Change through Livelihood Diversification: Implications of Household Economic Well-Being in Coastal Greater Accra