Going Small When the City Grows Big
Abstract Actual development of water and wastewater systems in towns is an outcome of several interrelated factors such as physical, economic, and social environments. Demography is also an important factor to consider in the formulation of development strategies. Too often in policy papers, population increase only serves as an argument for urgent action, but rarely as a factor in its own right that affects chances of improving a grave situation. A model is developed to generate water management options in urban areas related to population growth. A hypothesis is that management should go small in periods when the city expands rapidly. A study is presented of the development of water and sanitation in the town of Kisumu in Kenya on the shore of Lake Victoria during last century. The aim is to describe and analyze actual development in the water sector and to foresee what prospective developments could be identified in light of continued rapid population growth. The slow growth of the town in the colonial period allowed towns to adequately meet the needs of all residents for water. The extremely rapid population growth after Independence in 1963 interacted with other factors to cause a successive deterioration of residents access to water and sewage disposal.
Reuse--the ultimate sink? Urine-diverting toilets to protect groundwater quality and fertilise urban agriculture.
People are concerned about water and food scarcity and the threats that faecal pollution and malnutrition pose to their health. Ecological sanitation systems open up for new, constructive options in sanitation, not least in poor periurban areas. The purpose of developing a no-mix excreta disposal system is to save water, to reduce wastewater treatment problems, and to protect groundwater quality as well as to recirculate nutrients from urine. In this paper all these aspects will be dealt with comprehensively.
To Devolve or Not To Devolve? Welfare Reform in the States
This article analyzes variation in the degree to which states have responded to the devolution of welfare at the federal level by devolving authority over welfare policy to local government. I find that to the extent that states have devolved authority to lower levels of government, they tend to be states that already had a high degree of involvement of local government in welfare provision. In states without this record of local government involvement, the devolution that has occurred has not generated greater involvement of local government, but rather responsibility has been devolved to regional entities with ties to workforce development and with a substantial degree of business involvement. As states gain increasing authority over a redistributive policy, they may begin to treat it as a subset of a larger developmental policy—workforce development.