↓ Skip to main content

Translating the Human Right to Water and Sanitation into Public Policy Reform

Overview of attention for article published in Science & Engineering Ethics, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
Title
Translating the Human Right to Water and Sanitation into Public Policy Reform
Published in
Science & Engineering Ethics, January 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11948-013-9504-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin Mason Meier, Georgia Lyn Kayser, Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum, Urooj Quezon Amjad, Fernanda Dalcanale, Jamie Bartram

Abstract

The development of a human right to water and sanitation under international law has created an imperative to implement human rights in water and sanitation policy. Through forty-three interviews with informants in international institutions, national governments, and non-governmental organizations, this research examines interpretations of this new human right in global governance, national policy, and local practice. Exploring obstacles to the implementation of rights-based water and sanitation policy, the authors analyze the limitations of translating international human rights into local water and sanitation practice, concluding that system operators, utilities, and management boards remain largely unaffected by the changing public policy landscape for human rights realization. To understand the relevance of human rights standards to water and sanitation practitioners, this article frames a research agenda to ensure that human rights aspirations lead to public policy reforms and public health outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Vietnam 1 1%
Unknown 78 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 24%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 8%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 23 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 32 39%
Environmental Science 13 16%
Engineering 7 8%
Unspecified 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 22 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 March 2015.
All research outputs
#3,061,534
of 13,047,855 outputs
Outputs from Science & Engineering Ethics
#245
of 669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,267
of 240,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science & Engineering Ethics
#7
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,047,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 240,740 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.