scholarly journals Household air pollution in South African low-income settlements: a case study

Author(s):  
B. Language ◽  
S. J. Piketh ◽  
B. Wernecke ◽  
R. Burger
2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 400-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica L. Elf ◽  
Aarti Kinikar ◽  
Sandhya Khadse ◽  
Vidya Mave ◽  
Nishi Suryavanshi ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susmita Dasgupta ◽  
Paul Martin ◽  
Hussain A. Samad

Water Policy ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 443-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie A. Smith ◽  
J. Maryann Green

South Africa's past apartheid inequities create unique challenges in achieving water delivery goals. The South African government implemented the free basic water (FBW) policy in July 2001 to ensure all South Africans had access to a basic amount of safe water by 2004. The FBW policy entitles all people to a free lifeline supply of 6000 ls/6 kilolitres (kl) (1 kl = 1000 l) of water per household per month. Despite being heralded as a way of ensuring access of lifeline water services to low-income households, fundamental policy flaws exist. The FBW allocation does not meet the basic water requirements and special water requirements of the majority of low-income households. Low-income households require more than the 6 kl allocation and are thereby expected to pay the full cost for their water service. The affordability crisis has not been addressed as tariff structures and cross-subsidisation mechanisms remain inadequate. The financial sustainability of the FBW policy is reliant on the equitable share, an unconditional grant from national government and user-fees, which the extensive low-income sector cannot afford to pay. The FBW policy is analysed, via a case study, conducted in Pietermaritzburg, KwaZulu-Natal, within the Msunduzi municipal jurisdiction, which draws on low-income household experience of the policy.


Indoor Air ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Johnson ◽  
Ricardo Piedrahita ◽  
Ajay Pillarisetti ◽  
Matthew Shupler ◽  
Diana Menya ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Busisiwe Shezi ◽  
Caradee Y Wright

One of the greatest threats to public health is personal exposure to air pollution from indoor sources. The impact of air pollution on mortality and morbidity globally and in South Africa is large and places a burden on healthcare systems for treatment and care of air pollution-related diseases. Household air pollution (HAP) exposure attributed to the burning of solid fuels for cooking and heating is associated with several adverse health impacts including impacts on the respiratory system. The researchers sought to update the South African evidence on HAP exposure and respiratory health outcomes from 2005. Our quasi-systematic review produced 27 eligible studies, however, only four of these studies considered measures of both HAP exposure and respiratory health outcomes. While all of the studies that were reviewed show evidence of the serious problem of HAP and possible association with negative health outcomes in South Africa, no studies provided critically important information for South Africa, namely, local estimates of relative risks that may be applied in burden of disease studies and concentration response functions for criteria pollutants. Almost all of the studies that were reviewed were cross-sectional, observational studies. To strengthen the evidence of HAP exposure-health outcome impacts on respiratory health, researchers need to pursue studies such as cohort, time-series and randomised intervention trials, among other study designs. South African and other researchers working in this field need to work together and take a leap towards a new era of epidemiological research that uses more sophisticated methods and analyses to provide the best possible evidence. This evidence may then be used with greater confidence to motivate for policy-making, contribute to international processes such as for guideline development, and ultimately strengthen the evidence for design of interventions that will reduce HAP and the burden of disease associated with exposure to HAP in South Africa.


2003 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 219-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sumeet Saksena ◽  
PB Singh ◽  
Raj Kumar Prasad ◽  
Rakesh Prasad ◽  
Preeti Malhotra ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 122 (8) ◽  
pp. 806-810 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek K. Rogalsky ◽  
Pauline Mendola ◽  
Tricia A. Metts ◽  
William J. Martin

2006 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 58-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
W Van Niekerk

Since the 1960’s several unsuccessful attempts were made to reduce air pollution in South African townships. These efforts targeted coal fires and included devolatalised coal, low-smoke stoves and electrification. All these efforts were more or less prescriptive in nature, technology driven and shared a common view of the role of technology. In this paper a different approach is described that had very good results. This approach starts at the coal user and their preferences and does not try to change their behaviour or attitude by means of education or coercive measures. This was done because after several years of involvement with coal and wood using communities, a good understanding was developed of the role of fire in the household and the context in which possible solutions must function. Also, the user of the technology is made a full partner in the problem solving process. This approach resulted in the adaptation of an alternative method to light a coal fire. The adapted method enjoys widespread acceptance and can reduce the contribution of coal fires to air pollution by 50%. Plans are under way by the South African Government to introduce communities nationwide to this method.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document