ArticlePloS one2021
A mixed methods study to evaluate participatory mapping for rural water safety planning in western Kenya.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Modelling seasonal household variation in harvested rainwater availability: a case study in Siaya County, Kenya.NPJ clean water · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Water safety planning is an approach to ensure safe drinking-water access through comprehensive risk assessment and water supply management from catchment to consumer. However, its uptake remains low in rural areas. Participatory mapping, the process of map creation for resource management by local communities, has yet to be used for rural water safety planning. In this mixed methods study, to evaluate the validity of participatory mapping outputs for rural water safety planning and assess community understanding of water safety, 140 community members in Siaya County, Kenya, attended ten village-level participatory mapping sessions. They mapped drinking-water sources, ranked their safety and mapped potential contamination hazards. Findings were triangulated against a questionnaire survey of 234 households, conducted in parallel. In contrast to source type ranking for international monitoring, workshop participants ranked rainwater's safety above piped water and identified source types such as broken pipes not explicitly recorded in water source typologies often used for formal monitoring. Participatory mapping also highlighted the overlap between livestock grazing areas and household water sources. These findings were corroborated by the household survey and subsequent participatory meetings. However, comparison with household survey data suggested participatory mapping outputs omitted some water sources and landscape-scale contamination hazards, such as open defecation areas or flood-prone areas. In follow-up visits, participant groups ranked remediation of rainwater harvesting systems as the most acceptable intervention to address hazards. We conclude that participatory mapping can complement other established approaches to rural water safety planning by capturing informally managed source use and facilitating community engagement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.