A Gendered Mitigation Measures to Exclusion from On-Site Sanitation Services in George Compound in Lusaka Zambia: A Hermeneutic Phenomenological Approach

The study purpose was to explore Gender exclusion in the on-site sanitation among stakeholders in in George compound one of the Peri-Urban Areas in Lusaka. The study was anchored on the Phenomenology paradigm and viewed reality from a relativist ontology that believes in multiple realities. Scotland (2012) asserts that reality is relative to how individuals experience it at any given time and place. According to Scotland (2012), ontology is defined as a branch of philosophy concerned with the assumptions we make to believe that something makes sense or is real, or the very nature or essence of the social phenomenon we are investigating. The researcher analysed data using a 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 men are often away from home, which complicates household decision-making, particularly regarding financial matters related to sanitation. This irregular participation hinders effective sanitation decisions, as men are less aware of the impacts of inadequate toilet facilities. Furthermore, The Lusaka Water Supply and Sanitation Company (LWSC) must consider women's specific needs, particularly regarding access to water for toilet use, especially during menstruation. Finally, the study uncovered that The study highlighted that many of the newly constructed toilets have shallow pits, leading to rapid filling and increased burden on women, who are primarily responsible for household sanitation. The study has both practical and policy implication. Practically, the study informs the service providers for continuous engagement of all stakeholders particularly the women. This is because the sanitation system has male slant thus leaving women more vulnerable. Therefore, policy makers need to rethink sanitation approaches that deliberately targets women during design stage and thus develop robust programmes for raising awareness and education to all the water and sanitation utility companies. 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 onsite sanitation services. The study explored Gendered response to exclusion in the on-site sanitation among stakeholders in George compound, Lusaka, Zambia.

Gendered Mitigation Measures, On-Site Sanitation, Gender Education.

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Social Studies Education. Particip. Educ. Res. 9, 344–361. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.70.9.3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Frenoux, C. and Tsitsikalis, A., 2015. Domestic private fecal sludge emptying services in Cambodia: [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. 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]

10. 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]

11. 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]

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

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

14. 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]

15. 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]

16. 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, [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. 150–173. https://doi.org/10.56249/ijbr.03.01.44 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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

19. 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]

20. 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]

21. 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/s11157-0169400-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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

23. 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]

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

25. 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]

26. 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]

27. 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]

28. 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]

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

30. Scotland, J., 2012. Exploring the Philosophical Underpinnings of Research: Relating Ontology and [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Epistemology to the Methodology and Methods of the Scientific, Interpretive, and Critical Research [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Paradigms. Engl. Lang. Teach. 5, p9. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n9p9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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

34. Srivastava, S.S., Mishra, K., 2022. Global Sanitation Crisis: Challenges and Responses, in: Baikady, [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. 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]

36. Suri, H., 2011. Purposeful Sampling in Qualitative Research Synthesis. Qual. Res. J. 11, 63–75. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ1102063 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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

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

40. 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]

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

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

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

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

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

46. 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]

• Aristotelian Ethics and Moral Development: A Critical Evaluation
• Decolonising Africa’s Higher Education against violence and social injustices.
• The African Child as a Technological Citizen
• Mathematics as Ontological–Cognitive Participation: Reconstructing Ethical and Metaphysical Foundations within a Humanized Mathematical Universe
• Reason–Emotion Integration in the Context of Artificial Intelligence: The Implications of Aristotle’s Conception of Happiness for Youth Moral Education