Water Sanitation Paper

8/3/2019 Water Sanitation Paper

1/69

2009

WaterSanitation:Contemporary Issues andSolutions

Evan DeFilippis


2/69

[University of Oklahoma]5/8/2009


3/69

University of Oklahoma 2

Evan DeFilippis Contemporary Issues and Solutions

Table of Contents

FIGURE INDEX ........................................................................................................................... 4

TABLE INDEX ............................................................................................................................. 4

1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 5

2. DEFINITION OF SANITATION ........................................................................................... 7

3. TYPES OF TECHNOLOGIES ............................................................................................. 10

3.1 OFF-SITE SANITATION TECHNOLOGIES................................................................................. 10

3.1.1. Conventional Sewerage System.................................................................................... 103.1.2. Simplified Sewerage System ......................................................................................... 11

3.2 ON-SITE SANITATION TECHNOLOGIES (LATRINES)............................................................... 123.2.1. Dry Latrines ................................................................................................................. 12

3.2.1.1. Simple Pit Latrine .................................................................................................. 123.2.1.1.1. Advantages ...................................................................................................... 133.2.1.1.2. Disadvantages .................................................................................................. 143.2.1.1.3. Additional Barriers to Implementation ............................................................ 16

3.2.1.2. Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine ............................................................................ 173.2.1.2.1. Advantages ...................................................................................................... 183.2.1.2.2. Disadvantages .................................................................................................. 18

3.2.1.3. Double Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine................................................................ 203.2.1.3.1. Advantages ...................................................................................................... 203.2.1.3.2. Disadvantages .................................................................................................. 21

3.2.1.4. The Dry Urine Diversion Toilet............................................................................. 223.2.1.4.1. Advantages ...................................................................................................... 233.2.1.4.2. Disadvantages .................................................................................................. 23

3.2.2. Wet Latrines ................................................................................................................. 25

3.2.2.1 Pour-Flush Latrines................................................................................................. 253.2.2.1.1. Advantages ...................................................................................................... 253.2.2.1.2. Disadvantages .................................................................................................. 26

3.2.2.2 Aqua Privy .............................................................................................................. 27

3.2.2.2.1. Advantages ...................................................................................................... 273.2.2.2.2. Disadvantages .................................................................................................. 27

3.2.3. Ecological Latrines ...................................................................................................... 29

3.2.3.1. Advantages ......................................................................................................... 313.2.3.2. Disadvantages ..................................................................................................... 32

3.3. OTHER SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 383.3.1. Septic Tanks.................................................................................................................. 38

3.3.2. Greywater management ............................................................................................... 39


4/69


Evan DeFilippis Water Sanitation Research Paper

4. CHOOSING APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY: BARRIERS AND

CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................................. 40

4.1. Unplanned, High-Density Urban Settlements ................................................................. 42

4.1.1. Technical challenges ................................................................................................. 434.1.1.1 Case Study: TTC Bustee, Dhaka, Bangladesh ................................................... 45

4.1.2. Financial Challenges ................................................................................................. 474.1.3. Institutional Challenges ............................................................................................ 48

4.2. Planned, High-Density Urban Settlements ..................................................................... 50

4.2.1. Technical Challenges ................................................................................................ 504.2.1. Financial Challenges ................................................................................................. 514.1.3. Institutional Challenges ............................................................................................ 51

4.3. Peri-urban Settlements .................................................................................................... 52


4.4. Rural Settlements............................................................................................................. 57


4.5. General Factors to Consider .......................................................................................... 59

4.5.1. Typical Community Factors ..................................................................................... 594.5.2. Typical Environmental Factors ................................................................................. 61

5. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 62

6. REFERENCES........................................................................................................................ 64


5/69


Evan DeFilippis Water Sanitation ResearchPaper

Figure Index

Figure 1. Simple Pit Latrine . ........................................................................................................ 13Figure 2. Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine . .................................................................................. 18

Figure 3. Double Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine . ..................................................................... 20Figure 4. Dry Urine Diversion Toilet . ......................................................................................... 22Figure 5. Pour-Flush Latrine . ....................................................................................................... 25Figure 6. Organic/Nutrient Loop Mechanism of Ecosan . ............................................................ 31Figure 7. Treatment and Utilization Options with Ecosan .......................................................... 34Figure 8. Two NGO Loan Success Stories .................................................................................. 55Figure 9. Willingness-to-Pay Survey ........................................................................................... 55

Table Index

Table 1. Dry Latrine Comparisons................................................................................................ 24Table 2. Wet Latrine Comparisons ............................................................................................... 28Table 3. Septic Tank Synopsis...................................................................................................... 38Table 4. Unplanned Urban Settlement Overview ......................................................................... 43Table 5. Planned Urban Settlement Overview.............................................................................. 50Table 6. Peri-urban Settlements Overview ................................................................................... 52


6/69



1. Introduction

O ver a third of the w orlds p opu lation,2 .6 b illion in div id ua ls ,lack access tobasic

sanitation (1). The vast majority of these individuals live in peri-urban areas across South Asia,

East Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa (2). Even those served in areas of Asia and Africa are not

utilizing the sanitation systems in place, instead dumping wastewater directly into rivers and

freshwater bodies. In Asia, only half of the individuals with sanitation technology have a sewage

system, the others are forced to rely on unsustainable latrines and septic tanks (3). The

consequences for those who do not have access to sanitation are startling: over 2 million

individuals, most of whom are children under the age 5, die every year due to preventable

diarrheal diseases. In fact, over 60% of all infant deaths are linked to infectious diseases that

arise from inadequate sanitation (4). For these individuals and many others, access to improved

sanitation is a pivotal concern.

The consequences of inadequate sanitation extend far beyond disease-related outcomes:

poor sanitation is the lynchpin behind poverty, causing an estimated $750 million (US?) in

productivity losses each year. Additionally, poor sanitation hampers education efforts

worldwide as potential students are forced to tend to the sick or are sick themselves, rivers and

backyards are turned into open sewers as feces have no mechanism of disposal, and nearly a

quarter of infectious disease plaguing developing populations are attributable to poor sanitation

(3).

Despite global efforts by the United Nations, through its Millennium Development Goals,

and other international agencies with similar agendas, successful sanitation is fraught with

challenges of misinformation, bureaucracy, and poor host-country receptivity which impede

fruitful implementation (3). C onventional solutions ,typ if ied by f lushand forget techno logies,


7/69



rely on the notion that fecal material exists only as waste, and are forced to rely on an incredible

amount of money and water in disposing excreta. Toilets and water-based sewage systems that

rely on this concept are neither economically nor environmentally viable in many parts of the

developing world (4). Therefore, the need for alternative and environmentally sound sanitation

strategies is abundant.

To keep pace with UN Millennium Development Goals, an additional 1.6 billion

individuals must be provided with basic sanitation by 2015 in order to halve the number of

people without access to water sanitation (5). With current sanitation improvement rates, the

United Nations is projected to fall short of this goal by 550 million people (6). With the

extraordinary task of universal water sanitation in mind, the goals of this paper are to (a)

investigate the advantages and disadvantages of technologies that are valuable in addressing the

sanitation problem, (b) examine the challenges to successful implementation, and (c) articulate

technological and political strategies to overcome common obstacles.


8/69



2. Definition of Sanitation

Sanitation refers to a host of strategies utilized to manage human excreta and greywater

as well as solid and industrial waste (7). A distinction must be made between sanitation and

disinfection: sanitation refers to a quality of cleanliness brought on by an improvement of

conditions related to waste disposal, while disinfection refers to the reduction in pathogenic load

of a particular substance (8). In this respect, sanitation focuses on theprevention of

contamination while disinfection refers to the treatmentof contaminated substances, such as

water. Although this semantic distinction is acknowledged in literature, it is not acknowledged

in policy an d th usmany of the

sanitationtechnologies d iscu ssed in th is paper will a ls obe

disinfecting technologies. This paper will focus on sanitation technologies and their economic,

environmental, and public health implications for the developing world. With this in mind,

sanitation projects can be divided into two distinct categories: on-site and off-site sanitation (14).

Off-site sanitation refers to an economically intensive sanitation system that consists of

sewer networks, runoff drains, and a centralized wastewater treatment plant (9). Off-site

sanitation is appropriate for industrialized countries because it is convenient to use and the users

are not responsible for the maintenance and operation of the system (10). Off-site sanitation also

excels in the removal of pathogenic bacteria, organic material, and nutrients from waste.

Unfortunately, the creation of extensive sewer systems necessary for off-site sanitation requires

significant time and economic investment which are not readily available in developing countries

that are in desperate need of prompt, short-term relief (11). Furthermore, off-site sanitation fails

to serve remote rural areas in developing countries where population is dispersed and thus

inaccessible by the limited reach of sewer systems (12). Government investment in such

technologies is also required, which can become an onerous burden to those countries already


9/69



plagued with economic troubles (11). Clearly, nuanced approaches are necessary to address

sanitation issues in the developing world, and thus off-site sanitation will not be addressed

extensively in this paper.

On-site sanitation refers to the actions related to the treatment and disposal of waste water

that cannot be carried out by a sewage system or any other off-site systems because the

population of interest has particular concerns that cannot be addressed with such systems (11).

Specifically, on-site sanitation can refer either to a micro form of sanitation whereby each

individual house within a community utilizes the soil as an instrument of sanitation, or it can

refer to community-based sanitation where multiple houses form an interlinking network that is

connected to a central treatment system (13). Examples of on-site sanitation include, among

other technologies, latrines, toilets, and natural treatment systems, which will all be discussed in

depth in subsequent sections.

The ultimate objective of sanitation projects should be the protection of public health

through the prevention of illnesses such as diarrhea while preserving the environment through

the reuse and recovery of resources such as soil, water, and energy (14). An effective sanitation

system should contain the following components:

1. A sanitary environment for urination and defecation

2. A mechanism by which waste and greywater can be collected and disposed of;

although it is ideal for a sanitation program to reuse treated waste for agricultural

projects

The protection of the environment is a goal of sanitation that cannot be understated: the

frequent disposal of waste in developing countries is collapsing ecosystems, poisoning water and


10/69



food supplies, spreading bacteria, facilitating the growth of insect vectors such as mosquitoes

which catalyze disease spread, and adulterating the intrinsic beauty of the natural world (4).

Designing a sanitation system that can effectively address these concerns can ameliorate not only

public health and environmental issues but can also enable the recovery of domestic economies

by revitalizing labor sources previously diminished by water-borne diseases and other related

conditions.


11/69



3. Types of Technologies

3.1 Off-Site Sanitation Technologies

3.1.1. Conventional Sewerage System

Conventional sewerage is a resource- and fiscally-intensive system that utilizes a network

of pipes to transport waste from latrines to a designated disposal point. Each pipe which

connects to a house typically contains an inspection chamber to clear any blockages resulting

from frequent use. Manholes are installed at regular intervals throughout the transport process so

that maintenance can be done to specific locations in need of repair (15). Once the waste is

transported to the main sewer, the sludge byproduct is transferred to a treatment facility in order

to prevent pathogenic build-up. In parts of the developing world, waste is currently being

emptied into rivers, and a sewerage system provides an alternative to this process (16).

Sewerage systems are most practical in heavily urbanized areas which have the funds to support

the construction of such financially-demanding systems, although there are modified variations

that cater to less lucrative locations. These systems also have the unfortunate disadvantage of

using high amounts of water to facilitate the flushing process and fail to harness the agricultural

potential of waste (17).


12/69



3.1.2. Simplified Sewerage System

Simplified sewerage is an attempt to address many of the financial concerns prompted by

the conventional system. The simplified sewerage system has shallower pipes, reducing

excavation and pumping costs, and the smaller pipes help to save on material costs. It also

replaces manholes with inspection chambers which are easier to design and construct, decreasing

material costs and increasing construction expediency. A simplified sewerage system is

advantageous for communities that can afford to allocate a sum of money to sanitation, but at the

same time have high-density populations and small streets not conducive to conventional

sewerage systems (18).


13/69



3.2 On-Site Sanitation Technologies (Latrines)

A latrine is a structure used to store (and sometimes process) solid waste and urine, often

decomposing waste into safer, environmentally-friendly byproducts. Latrines are the most

commonly used sanitation system in the world, used prevalently in developing countries in rural

and low-income urban areas. Latrines allow hygienic and environmentally-safe disposal of

waste that would otherwise be discharged into waterways, devastating local aquatic flora and

fauna (10). Latrines are also vital in the developing world where conventional off-site systems

are unable to accommodate particular geographical and economic needs of a host country.

Although many variations of latrines exist, some variations being more suitable in particular

regions than others, they all provide cheap, easily-maintained alternatives to open defecation (3).

3.2.1. Dry Latrines

3.2.1.1. Simple Pit Latrine

A simple pit latrine (see Figure 1) can be simply defined as a hole in the ground, over two

meters in depth, used to collect and store waste (13). Optimally, these rudimentary forms of

latrines should be created away from water tables so that the waste does not contaminate soil or

underground water supplies (12). A more sophisticated version of the simple pit latrine involves

the installation of a concrete or wooden floor plate over the hole which is used to ease squatting

and to insulate the hole from surface water that may enter from external sources (3). Depending

on user preference, the latrine can be customized to include a seat and footrest as well as a lid to

cover the hole after use. The hole of the latrine should be lined with a sufficiently strong

material to prevent surrounding soil from collapsing around the pit (14). The lining should be


14/69



porous enough to allow urine access to the surrounding soil but strong enough to prevent feces

from contaminating soil walls (4). For privacy and security, an overarching structure is

necessary to enclose the latrine from external observation. This superstructure should be situated

far from food and water sources and nearby houses (19).

Figure 1. Simple Pit Latrine (23).

3.2.1.1.1. Advantages

The pit latrine has the advantage of inexpensively and efficiently storing excreta, thereby

satisfying the first component of effective sanitation. Besides storing excreta, the simple pit

latrine has the advantage of being easy to construct, incredibly inexpensive, and versatile with

regard to the reusability of its components (the slab and the privacy superstructure can be

refashioned for use on other latrines) (19). Furthermore, unlike most off-site sanitation

mechanisms, the simple pit latrine does not require the use of water to function which is

important in water-scarce regions in the developing world (13). Also unlike off-site sanitation,

the simple pit latrine requires little-to-no maintenance, and the occasional repairs necessitated by

frequent use can be handled by local users (19). Research findings based on user consultation


15/69



suggests that the pit latrine also has a high satisfaction rating with over 68% of users indicating

satisfaction with the installation (21).

3.2.1.1.2. Disadvantages

Unfortunately, simple pit latrines can produce disagreeable odors, as there are no

mechanisms to suppress the stench of excreta. Moreover, these latrines attract flies, which are

considerable nuisances to subsequent users (9). Flies can pose a substantial public health threat

as well because they spread disease after feeding on feces. If the pit is wet, it can also attract

mosquitoes which carry diseases such as filariasis, confirming the importance of a lid cover to

seal the hole from insect penetration (22). Fortunately, the odor and insect problem is not an

overwhelming nuisance, as users do not perceive them to be a substantial problem when

questioned after use (21). The simple pit latrine also suffers from geographic complications: it

cannot be used on rocky ground, areas susceptible to flooding, or in areas with high water levels

(22). Simple pit latrines are not amenable to densely populated regions because the regular and

constant demand by users would far outstrip the supply of latrines.

Although comparatively the simple pit latrine is easy to maintain, the regular emptying of

excreta from pits may be difficult and requires community effort (22). The mere process of

em ptying thep it scontents m ay collapse thes urroun d in gsoilwalls , in capacitating thelatrine.

Because of this, every few years new latrines must be created, forcing local people to dedicate

large quantities of open land to latrine installation rather than to more economically fruitful

endeavors (23). The contents of the latrine are usually emptied out by hand with a spade. This

poses another public health risk because by digging, one can become infected with worms, and if

the excrement is new, bacteria can be spread easily (22). The solution to this problem is to


16/69



utilize a large tanker with a vacuum pump to lift the sludge from the latrine. Unfortunately,

these tankers are not a viable technology in most parts of the developing world because they are

expensive and fail to navigate through the narrow paths which are typical in densely populated

urban areas (12).

Another problem with the simple pit latrine concerns its potential for groundwater

pollution. Groundwater may become polluted when it comes into contact with nearby latrine

pipes. In urban areas, this is a significant problem due to the proliferation of shallow wells

which can easily be contaminated by pit latrines. This problem is usually remedied by ensuring

that all pit latrines are at least fifteen meters away from sources of water, although it can be

difficult to ascertain the location of underground water sources, posing yet another problem for

implementation (20).

In the most rudimentary version of the simple pit latrine, the shallow hole, hookworms

can breed in human excreta and migrate upwards to penetrate the feet of subsequent users.

Partially as a result of these ineffective sanitation systems, over 740 individuals around the world

are infested with the parasitic hookworm, which causes life-threatening anemia and intentional

inflammation (24). There are also a large number of studies that suggest an association between

hookworm infections and impaired learning, absence from school, and decreased economic

productivity (25). This information should speak to the necessity of improved sanitation systems

in the developing world: a simple improvement on a hole can save millions of lives. Fortunately,

the hookworm problem is avoided with the more nuanced simple pit latrine that improves upon

the single-hole system (concrete slabs, lining, a superstructure, etc.) (3).


17/69



3.2.1.1.3. Additional Barriers to Implementation

In some developing peri-urban locations, areas such as Jamaica and Indonesia, there are

regulations prohibiting the construction and use of latrines in areas that exceed a certain

population density. For example, in Jamaica, wherever density is higher than ten houses per

acre, latrine construction is disallowed. Despite the fact that these regulations are not based on

reasoned analysis or pragmatic cost-benefit examination, they pose a significant barrier to

universal sanitation and must be considered when prescribing global solutions (21). It is

important that countries in the developing world understand the utility of simple pit latrines, but

it is equally important that policymakers accommodate the aesthetic and perceptual preferences

of the host country in order to ensure maximal operation and use. There is also some host

country resistance to the use of pit latrines because people can be both uncomfortable and

promote the fear of falling inside the hole. This fear is particularly potent for some mothers in

developing countries who prevent their children from using the latrine for fear that the child will

fall. This fear, whether or not it is substantiated, contributes to open defecation which sets back

public health initiatives (26).


18/69



3.2.1.2. Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine

The ventilated pit latrine is an improvement over the simple pit latrine and seeks to

eliminate odors and flies by adding a ventilation pipe which funnels odors outside of the

superstructure. The structure draws in air currents from the outside and funnels them through the

squat hole. Odors are then dispersed through the ventilation pipe due to the chimney effect (23).

In order to maintain constant circulation, the doors of the superstructure are usually built with

openings on the top and bottom to facilitate air flow. The end of the ventilation pipe is fitted with

a tightly-meshed net which prevents flies from accessing the excreta and from leaving the pit,

suppressing the transmission of some vector-based diseases (27). Although flies approaching the

ventilated pipe from the outside are prevented from entering due to the fly-net, flies can still

access feces and lay their eggs in the pit by entering through the squat hole. It is for this reason

that the ventilated pit latrine must stay dark at all times. Adult flies that are born inside of the pit

are programmed to fly towards the strongest source of light. By keeping the inside of the

superstructure dark, adult flies are forced to gravitate to the only source of light available: the top

of the ventilated pipe. Because the pipe is covered with a fly screen at the top, flies are

prevented from exiting and eventually die and fall back into the depths of the pit (21).


19/69



Figure 2. Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine (23).


The ventilated pit latrine retains all of the same advantages that the simple pit latrine has

while also avoiding odors and curbing the spread of diseases by eliminating the nuisance of flies.

These factors together are, by far, the largest variables contributing to the unpopularity of the

simple pit latrine. Again, like the simple pit latrine, construction is easy and economical, use is

self-evident, there is little maintenance required, and it does not require water to function (23).


The ventilated pit latrine suffers from many of the same limitations and problems that

plague the simple pit latrines. Geographically, it is limited to smooth plots of land that are

distanced from water sources; the pit needs to be emptied occasionally, which poses substantial

health risks; and there is not a substantial reduction in the pathogenic load carried by the feces

(28). It is important to note that although the ventilation aspect of the latrine is a substantial

improvement over the simple pit latrine with regards to sanitation and hygiene, bacteria still

reside within feces, and natural processes such as organic degradation fail to effectively remove


20/69



this th reat. Itis th usimportant that us ers are weary and cautiouso f contact w ithth e p its

contents (23).


21/69



3.2.1.3. Double Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine

The Double Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine (Double VIP) is not an entirely separate

system, but rather an upgrade from the Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine (21). The Double VIP

utilizes two pits so that while one pit is in use, the contents of the other pit can undergo natural

degradation and draining (23). Initially individuals use only one latrine which funnels feces and

urine into a single pit until it is filled up. Once the first pit is filled with feces, a layer of soil is

placed on top such that the excrement can decompose into a sanitized, humus-like material.

Users then switch over to the second pit and use it for at least one year so that the feces from the

previous pit have adequate time to organically sanitize. A superstructure may be built over both

holes or over each hole individually. Either way, the unused hole must be properly sealed to

prevent external forces from accessing the feces (29).

Figure 3. Double Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine (23).3.2.1.3.1. Advantages

The Double VIP retains all of the same advantages as the Single VIP with a couple of

notable improvements. First, the lifespan of the Double VIP is longer because it requires less

regular emptying. With the Single VIP the regularity of emptying sessions increases the


22/69



sensitivity of the surrounding soil walls, increasing the probability of collapse (23). Second, the

Double VIP is more hygienic because it allows time for soil to sanitize feces, while constantly

keeping the user at a distance from thebacteria-laden o ut-of-servicepit. Lastly,thebyproduct

of fecal matter and soil, when given a year to coalesce, is a humus-like material that is suitable

for agriculture. This compost can be utilized to facilitate plant growth when fertile soil is

unavailable (19).


As should be expected, the creation of two holes and a larger superstructure to encompass

those holes requires higher capital cost than the Single VIP. Furthermore, although the Double

VIP is better at reducing the pathogenic load of feces, it fails to completely eradicate all negative

forms of bacteria (29).


23/69



3.2.1.4. The Dry Urine Diversion Toilet

The Dry Urine Diversion Toilet is a simple toilet with two compartments which keep feces and

urine separate. It operates on the principal that urine should be collected separately from feces to

decrease the risk of spreading pathogens and to increase the decomposition of feces through

dehydration (22). Feces are stored in a partition beneath the toilet, and users are encouraged to

submit dry materials such as ash or soil into the feces compartment after use to decrease odors

and the risk of flies (30). Urine is diverted into a container that can be used for agricultural

activities. Both males and females have to sit down when using the toilet to insure that waste is

correctly diverted into the appropriate chamber (4). Toilets can be made of ceramic, cement,

plastic, or painted wood (23). There is a variation of this toilet that uses one vault instead of two.

In the double-vaulted system, one vault is used while the other is left to dry. This drying process

serves a sanitizing function and decreases the amount of pathogens in solid waste (23).

Figure 4. Dry Urine Diversion Toilet (23).


24/69




Because this technology encourages submitting dry materials into the base of the toilet

after use, it is less prone to odors and flies than pit latrines. For this reason, it is possible that the

toilet be installed within homes, which has a positive effect on individual use and acceptance.

The toilet also does not require digging large pits underground to contain waste and therefore has

no adverse effects on the environment via soil and water contamination (30). Perhaps most

important, however, is that the toilet allows for the use of urine in agricultural endeavors and for

the reintroduction of nutrients into the environment. Also unlike its predecessors, the toilet is

suitable for use in high-density areas, areas with rocky terrain or poor soil, and in locations prone

to flooding (23, 30).


Because the technology is somewhat sophisticated, it requires education in order to

instruct users on the importance of correctly diverting forms of waste into the correct channels.

In order to solve this problem, clear instructions are usually posted within the superstructure to

insure that confusion does not arise. Also, because correct diversion of waste is such an

important feature, seats for children are often necessary in order to accommodate different

physical compositions (22). The toilet also requires more maintenance than latrines. For

example, both the urine bucket, which tends to fill up quickly, and the solid-waste compartment

must be frequently emptied (23).


25/69



Table 1. Dry Latrine Comparisons

DRY LATRINE COMPARISONS

LATRINERural

application

Urban

application

Cost

to

build

Ease of

construction

Water

requirement

Best anal

cleaning

materialHygiene

Fertilizer

production

Pit latrine

Suitable

in all

areas

Not in high

density suburbsLow

Simple-

except in

wet and

rocky

ground

None Any Moderate Not easily

VIP Latrine

Suitable

in all

areas

Not in high

density suburbsLow

Simple-

except in

wet and

rocky

ground

None Any Good Not easily

Double VIPLatrine

Suitable

in all

areas

Not in highdensity suburbs

Low Moderatelycomplicated.

None Any VeryGood

Yes

Dry Urine

Diversion

Toilet

Suitable

in all

areas

Suitable in all

urban areasLow Simple None Any Good Some


26/69



3.2.2. Wet Latrines

3.2.2.1 Pour-Flush Latrines

A pour-flush latrine combines a simple pit latrine and a conventional toilet (13). The

latrine is fitted with a chamber which takes in urine and feces and funnels them through a water

seal, which serves the purpose of preventing odors and flies from coming back up the pipe and

into the superstructure (26). Users push feces through the water seal by pouring large quantities

of water, about 2-3 liters, into the chamber until the feces have been moved up and over the

water seal. Much like the VIP latrine, excreta is collected in the pit while urine leaches into the

soil (23).

Figure 5. Pour-Flush Latrine (23).


Thepour-flush la trines useof a wate r seal is an e ffe ctive mechanis mto prevent

odorsand flies (23). Additionally, the flush method is aesthetically viable because it means that

excreta are removed from sight before the next user arrives. In other variations of latrines, there


27/69



may still be fecal residue on the base of the squatting-hole which may promote resistance to use.

The pour-flush latrine is also relatively cheap to build, although significant costs may be accrued

through water use (26). Maintenance is also relatively nonexistent; there are no mechanical

parts, so pour-flush latrines rarely require repair (31). The pour-flush latrine also accommodates

for cultures that demand anal cleansing, a prominent sociocultural request (13).


One of the greatest problems with the pour-flush latrine is that it requires the constant use

of water, which may be a problem in parts of the developing world that are water-scarce (26).

The water trap may also become intermittently clogged, which may require excess amounts of

water to be used or external force. In these instances, users are encouraged to have dry toilet

paper in order to force waste through the trap. The latrine is also not suitable in cold areas as the

water seal may freeze (32). Moreover, because the use of the latrine is not intuitive, it may

require education before proper use (26). From a public health standpoint, the use of water to

flu shfeces dow n th ep ip epo ses a ris k fo r d isease spre ad : water increases th ev o lu m eof the

p its

contents, escalating the spread and dissipation of bacteria (14). Furthermore, because urine

leaches into the soil when it goes through the water seal, the potential for groundwater

contamination exists. In order to remedy this problem, pour-flush latrines should be distanced

from local water sources (26).


28/69



3.2.2.2 Aqua Privy

The Aqua Privy is essentially a septic tank attached below any toilet-like apparatus. A

down-pipe funnels waste below a water seal such that both liquid and sludge are contained in the

area. An overflow pipe is installed just above the water seal such that if the volume of the tank

exceeds capacity, effluent overflow is directed into a soakpit or drainage trench (19). In order to

ensure that odors, mosquitoes and other nuisances are minimized, the water seal must be

maintained by adding water to the toilet after each visit to replace any losses. This system is

contained within an overarching superstructure to provide privacy to users (23).


Odors, mosquitoes and other pests are effectively reduced due to the use of a water seal

(33). The construction also does not require the use of a piped water supply, so the user can

expunge waste directly into the tank. It also retains the advantages of mirroring a septic tank in

many ways, but it is far cheaper to construct (23).


Unfortunately, many of the advantages accrued by the aqua privy can be utilized only if

the water seal is maintained. Therefore, water must be abundant on-site in order to replace any

losses after use. This can be problematic in water-stressed countries. There also needs to be

absorbent, permeable land to function as a soakpit to drain effluent overflow (23). The tank also

requires de-sludging every 2-3 years which can become an onerous burden (19). Although the

aqua privy contains and stores sludge, it does not decrease its pathogenic load. This is because

the contents of the tank are disturbed after each use, preventing waste decomposition (33).


29/69



Table 2. Wet Latrine Comparisons

WET LATRINE COMPARISONS

LATRINERural

application

Urban

application

Cost to

build

Ease of

construction

Water

requirement

Best anal

cleaning

material

HygieneFertilizer

production

Pour-Flush

LatrineSuitable Not Suitable Low

Requiressophisticated

building

Significant

amountWater Good No

Aqua Privy

Suitable

in all

areas

Not in high

density

suburbs

Low

Depends

Smaller

tanks are

easier to

build

Small

amountWater Good No


30/69



3.2.3. Ecological Latrines

Ecosan latrines(ecological sani tation )operate under th em antra th atwasteis too

valu ableto waste and are not so much a specific manifestation of technology as much as a

conceptual paradigm that governs the development of future sanitation systems (see Figure 7).

Ecosan latrines ensure that waste is utilized to its maximum potential by harnessing the

agricultural promise of nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium which are abundant in urine and

human excreta (4). Some versions of ecosan even provide a solution for greywater (14). The

costs of ecosan systems are relative to the complexity and preferences of the users: systems that

are incredibly functional, self-maintaining, and provide the greatest environmental benefit cost

more, whereas systems that cost less require more human input and have a shorter life-span (4).

Ecosan recognizes the importance of containment which is a critical step to moderate the spread

of pathogens. Without containment, pathogenic material can seep back into the environment

through soil and water infiltration to wreak havoc on nearby populations that consume infected

substances (35). The process of pathogenic communication is self-perpetuating because

individuals who are sick reintroduce infected feces into the environment which can contaminate

subsequent latrine users. Ecosan ends this vicious cycle by containing and sanitizing excreta

through dehydration and decomposition processes (4).

In dehydration, the pathogenic load of fecal material is decreased by removing the

moisture which allows bacteria to thrive. Typically, this is accomplished by adding dry materials

such as ash and lime which serve the additional benefit of increasing the toxicity and pH of

nearby substances to stave the continuation of bacteria, viruses, and parasites (40). In order to

maintain a dry environment, most ecosan systems divert urine to a separate vault where it can be

used to facilitate agriculture (37). One prominent example of this type of system is the double-


31/69



vault urine diversion toilet which has been effectively used in China, India, Vietnam, and

Mexico (40, 41). In this system, urine is diverted into a separate vault which takes, on average, 6

months for the average family to fill-up (38). Urine has even proven to be successful in

ranching, as it contains proteins that are suitable for cattle consumption (39). This system

produces no smell, harnesses the agricultural potential of waste, and has empirical efficacy (4).

The second process that ecosan systems utilize is decomposition which makes use of

inherent competition between bacteria, worms, and other organisms for carbon. Competition for

carbon and other nutrients prevents pathogens from flourishing and results in a breakdown of

organic material (42). Soil-composting refers to an entire category of sanitation systems that

harness this approach by utilizing reinforced pits that are covered with soil and ash after each use

(30). Examples of effective soil-composting toilets are the Fossa Alterna and Arbour Loo which

have been used successfully in Mozambique and Zimbabwe (41). Both systems eventually make

use of the sanitized excrement and newly fertilized soil to grow trees or to enhance agricultural

endeavors. Specifically, the Arbour Loo system has been used in Zimbabwe to grow a range of

fruit trees from which the fruit can be consumed without any negative consequences (4, 41).

Countries in China and Southeast Asia have been re-using waste for agricultural purposes

for centuries but fail to sanitize the waste, thereby increasing the spread of disease (42). Thus,

by implementing ecosan latrines in these parts, the propagation of disease can be stemmed and

environmental pollution can be suppressed (14, 42).


32/69



Figure 6. Organic/Nutrient Loop Mechanism of Ecosan (34).

3.2.3.1. Advantages

Conventional sanitation is incredibly limited with regard to public health improvement

and environmental management: flush latrines necessitate an overuse of water and often require

complex sewage systems; pit latrines can contaminate nearby water supplies and decrease

fertility of nearby soil; and even improvements on the simple pit latrine fail to avoid periodic

flooding which spreads the infectious contents of the pit (4, 14, 15, 20). It is thus important to

emphasize a conceptual shift in sanitation whereby waste is treated not as a perverse byproduct

but as a potent environmental tool. Ecosan recognizes this importance and provides an effective

mechanism to support environmental and public health management (see Figure 7).

Despite the fact that professional naysayers insisted that Ecosan would be resisted in the

developing world, innumerable case studies prove otherwise. There are several reasons that

Ecosan is readily accepted: it offers a permanent solution unlike other sanitation systems which

have short life-spans and need to be replaced annually; it offers economic benefit by increasing

the productivity of soils and thus the supply of crops for farmers to sell; it is easy to use and the

concept makes sense to people in the developing world who find it wasteful to squander the

potential of excreta and urine; it has an aestheticadvantage over o ther latrines because it

doesnt


33/69



attract fl ies, it doesntsmell, and is perceiv edas more refined; it pro tects wate r supp liesby

utilizing a shallower pit; and it is relatively inexpensive, more than making up for capital costs

through improved agriculture (4, 41).

3.2.3.2. Disadvantages

Despite the lack of substantiation, some users resist the installation of Ecosan because

they fear that it does not ameliorate smell issues (36). Furthermore, because Ecosan reuses

waste, some cultures believe that the system is outmoded and disallowed by authorities (37).

These barriers can be overcome by manufacturing aesthetically pleasing and high quality toilets

in developing countries so that users conflate visual value with functional merit (4).

Furthermore, there is concern from female users and perhaps some of the scientific community

about the infiltration of menstrual blood into the Ecosan cycle. In some communities, the

menstrual blood may contaminate urine and preclude its use in agriculture (40).

By far the greatest criticism of Ecosan is that implementation and installation are

expensive. Although this is true, it is unfair to compare Ecosan to rudimentary pit systems

whose sole purpose is the avoidance of excreta. Ecosan is much more than a simple waste

repository like conventional systems: it is both a toilet and a nutrient recycling system.

Compared to other systems that can offer both functions, Ecosan is relatively cheaper (43).

Ecosan also suffers from a status problem: communities in the developing world tend to

perceive systems that use water as more sophisticated and thus tend to opt for pour-flush systems

or water carriage toilets (43). Furthermore, most Ecosan systems are implemented in the poorest

areas of the world (because these are the parts in most need of effective sanitation), which only

contributes to the idea that Ecosan is a poorer quality system (4, 43).


34/69



Odor is also a problem that affects some Ecosan systems. This problem is easily

remedied by encouraging users to add ash or soil to the excreta after use which reduces smell.

Thus, the odor problem is not a consequence of poor Ecosan construction but rather poor

education among communities that are not aware of techniques that can be used to suppress odor

(43).

The size of Ecosan can pose a problem for acceptance. Many houses in areas of the

developing world lack the space necessary to contain such systems (37). There is even more

resistance by communities who do not live by fields and have no use for the agricultural benefits

provided by Ecosan technologies (42). Given that economics is the most appealing, potent

variable in Ecosan propagation, those living in peri-urban areas that have no need for the

agricultural benefit provided by Ecosan tend to resist installation. This can be somewhat of a

large problem because peri-urban areas are sprouting up all around the developing world and are

in much need of environmentally-friendly sanitation solutions. Unfortunately, if users do not

perceive a personal advantage that can be accrued, they will choose simpler, cheaper sanitation

systems to use (38, 42).

Lastly, there appears to be some resistance to the use of urine as a fertilizer. This is

because most cultures believe that excreta have more potent agricultural capacity than urine,

despite evidence to the contrary (42). Fortunately, this problem can be solved with proper

education which instructs communities on the importance and proper use, maintenance, and

transport of urine for agricultural purposes (39).


35/69



Figure 7. Treatment and Utilization Options with Ecosan (47)


36/69



3.2.3.3. Case Study: TTC Bustee, Dhaka, Bangladesh

The Ecosan concept was developed in 2002 in Nepal on a pilot basis with support from

the World Health Organization after it became abundantly clear that access to sanitation facilities

was not solving health and environmental problems experienced by communities in Nepal. This

is because conventional latrines that were established in Nepal failed to effectively inhibit the

spread of pathogens and increased the risk of environmental pollution (43). A current trend

towards rapid urbanization in the South Asian subcontinent is wreaking havoc on sanitation

endeavors as over 23% of Nepalese are expected to live in urban areas by 2016 (44). For these

individuals and those living in rural areas, only 46% have access to sanitation facilities.

However, the sanitation facilities that are in place require more water to flush down waste than is

needed for human consumption (43). This is a significant problem for growing cities such as

Kathmandu which is affected with a critical water crisis. Furthermore, the sanitation systems

that currently exist in Nepal add a significant amount of wastewater, so much that fertile soils are

dying and rivers and ponds are being used as sewage tanks (43, 44).

Two projects were implemented simultaneously in different provinces within Nepal, and

both were overwhelmingly accepted and appreciated by the community. After these successful

pilot projects, Ecosan was spread across the country and international initiatives eventually

established over 605 systems by 2007 (43). A community perception survey done in 2006 shows

an overwhelming acceptance by the Nepali community for Ecosan. The survey shows near

unanimity (98%) in support for expanding the technology to other countries, and incredibly high

compliance rates (88%) with appropriate waste-use in agriculture. Over 60% of farmers noticed

improved agricultural output after using this system, proving the efficacy of the concept (45).

Furthermore, the ecosan paradigm directly complemented a historical tradition used in Nepal and


37/69



oth erneighbo ring countries kn ow nas nights oil , whereby traditionally farmers would use

animal waste and kitchen byproducts to fertilize and condition the soil (43, 45). This acceptance

of Ecosan is further compounded by statistics which show that not only do men and women

approve of the system, but so too do children th rough schoo ls program s wh ic heducate children

on th e merit o f im p ro ved sanitation .Itsinteresting to note th a talthough men and w omen bo th

approve of the technology, they do so for different reasons: men appreciate the hygienic aspect

of the technology, while women value the agricultural value of the system (43). The survey also

gave credence to the importance of taking into account cultural preferences when implementing

technology: the Nepalese prefer to use water to cleanse the anus, which limited ecosan

technologies to those which incorporated pour-flush mechanisms (45).

The pilot program and subsequent projects also have exhibited an interesting effect on

gender roles. During the study, it was found that Nepalese communities designated males the

task of emptying and cleaning out urine containers used in Ecosan, while with the more

conventional pit latrine systems it was the duty of the woman to clean and maintain the

components. A division of duties between males and females is a cultural norm in Nepal, and it

is thus important to note that the Ecosan technology did not affect the establishment of such

divisions (43). In addition, the technology has improved education for both men and women

about the importance of re-using waste and the imminent threats to the environment that more

conventional systems pose. This education is helping improve cross-gender collaboration on

Ecosan maintenance (43, 45).

The project in Nepal also necessitated the taxation of individuals so that the construction

of Ecosan could be subsidized. The project had the delicate task of striking a balance between


38/69



taxation and user acceptance, but eventually a policy was implemented that was perceived as fair

by the Nepali community (45).


39/69

Advantages Disadvantages

-Allows safe disposal of wastewater-Can be used in urban areas-Little maintenance-Little odor and fly problems-Possibility of later being connected to asewer

-Must be emptied regularly, usuallyrequiring a vacuum tanker.-High cost of construction-Requires large volumes of water forflushing-Susceptible to overflow issues- Must be built next to permeable soil toensure effluent absorption; increases risk ofgroundwater pollution



3.3. Other systems

3.3.1. Septic Tanks

A pour-flush latrine, as well as other latrines, has the option of being connected to a

septic tank: an underground, watertight chamber that receives the waste disposed of in the latrine

(14). Septic tanks function as effective storage containers for solid waste, while effluent flows

into a soakpit. Septic tanks can be used in urban areas and provide an alternative to directly

releasing effluent into the soil and waste into rivers. See Table 3 for a summary of the

advantages and disadvantages of septic tanks.

Table 3. Septic Tank Synopsis (Information adapted from 19 and 46)


40/69



3.3.2. Greywater management

Greywater refers to wastewater that is generated by domestic processes. It poses a risk

to both humans and the environment because of its potential to carry pathogens. Rather than

simply disposing of greywater, individuals can actually use the greywater for irrigation.

Although this process has strict guidelines codified by the World Health Organization, it is a

better alternative than simply wasting the greywater (14).


41/69



4. Choosing Appropriate Technology: Barriers and Considerations

The utility of sanitation systems depends largely on selecting the appropriate technology

to accommodate for geographical, financial, social, and institutional concerns (14). In order to

effectively select the right technology, environmental concerns such as groundwater pollution

must be addressed by assessing data on hydrogeological conditions. Along with selecting

technologies congruent with environmental restrictions, community preferences must also be

acknowledged. These preferences include having technologies that permit anal cleansing,

having aesthetically pleasing technologies, having technologies that require little maintenance

and require minimal construction costs, etc. In many instances, communal preferences will take

precedence over environmental concerns (48).

The factors of greatest priority can be categorized into technical, environmental,

institutional, financial, and community factors (50). Technical factors to be considered are the

design preference, including the form of the seat and the superstructure, the lifetime of the

technology, the availability of construction materials, and the cost of construction.

Environmental factors include the quality and composition of the soil and its susceptibility to

pollution or leaching, groundwater level, pre-existing status of environmental pollution, the

availability of water, and the potential of flooding. Institutional factors include pre-existing

governmental sanitation strategies, availability of workers that can be used in the making of

sanitation projects, and the potential involvement of the private sector. Financial factors involve

any potential obstacle to effectively financing sanitation technologies. These factors include

status quo public and private sector investment, availability of subsidies, community-based

financing initiatives, etc.


42/69



Community factors are abundant and can be divided into five subcategories: sociocultural

factors; motivational factors; discouraging factors; social organization factors; and other factors.

Potential sociocultural barriers include taboos, cultural habits, religious convention, preferred

posture, disposition towards human waste, and gender-roles. Potential motivational barriers

include convenience of use, privacy, status, health, and ownership. Discouraging factors include

fear of darkness, fear of falling into holes, disgust with smell and/or insect nuisances, and fear of

the sanitation technology breaking down. Social organization factors include the role of pre-

existing community leaders, the role of teachers with regard to encouraging sanitation policies,

and the role of permanent public health workers. Other factors to be considered are population

density, ground space for latrine implementation, and the size of roads (14, 48, 49, 50). In this

section, we will cover the technical, institutional, and financial factors concerning each type of

community in depth. Given the wide variability between different cultures, societies, and

communities, environmental and community factors will be only generally covered.


43/69



4.1. Unplanned, High-Density Urban Settlements

For the first time in history the majority of individuals around the world live in urban

areas (51). In these large urban areas, between 25%-50% of the population lacks access to

sanitation technologies (14). Unplanned urban environments refer to the heavily populated

settlements that arose without expectation (see Table 4 for more information). For this reason,

access to a sewerage system or institutional sanitation support is impossible. Because there is a

lack of clean water, people will either collect water from polluted rivers and streams or purchase

water from unverified vendors selling water of dubious origin (52). In these urban areas, the

streets are often turned into wastelands where open defecation and urination are regular

happenings (14, 52). Slum dwellers make up 43% of the urban population and account for the

majority of people who lack access to sanitation. Further complicating the issue is the fact that

slum dwellers typically are unable to pay for sanitation technologies (14).

Table 4. Unplanned Urban Settlement Overview (adapted from 64)

Unplanned, High-Density Urban Settlements Overview

Population Density 300-2000 persons per hectare

Average household size 5-6 persons

Water consumption 20-40 liters per capita per day

Sources of wastewater Kitchen, laundry, showers, sanitationblocks, pit latrines, informal businessand cottage industries


44/69



4.1.1. Technical challenges

Due to the constrained availability of water in high-density urban areas, dry latrines are

the most appropriate option (14). In India, for example, it is estimated that by 2050, half of

Ind iaspopu lation w ill be livin g in urban areas and will face acute water problems (53). In

slums, where homes can be less than 10 m2, private toilets are not feasible. Wherever there are

space constraints, community-based sanitation that utilizes a network within houses is viable.

However, many international agencies have cautioned against the use such shared sanitation

options because empirically users have failed to maintain the technology. Studies have shown

that confusion over ownership is to blame for failure in maintenance (14). Given that dry

latrines are the most technically feasible technologies, development projects must consider the

mechanism by which waste is to be transferred and disposed of. WaterAid has found that the

most effective technology is a vacutug, functionally a vacuum on wheels designed to create

pressure within pit latrine holes and suck up waste. Given the narrow streets of heavily

populated urban areas, a smaller, portable version of the vacutug may be necessary. One such

version is currently being piloted by WaterAid and has a capacity of 200 liters. Users are to suck

up as much waste as possible and transfer it to a larger, 1500 liter tanker that can be used to

transfer waste to its final destination (54). The necessity of transportation systems raises other,

technical and institutional problems that need to be addressed. For example, in many developing

countries, collection facilities are underdeveloped, which means that waste emptied by tankers

would go untreated and could eventually ferment dangerous bacteria (14, 54). Even if there are

developed collection facilities, they are often far away from the slums, which increases

transportation costs (54). In order to remedy this problem, a decentralized approach whereby


45/69



smaller treatment facilities are constructed closer to points of use is preferable to a single large

facility (63).

Another significant factor is the issue of land-rights in urban areas (54). The people

living in unplanned urban areas typically are housed in large slums that do not legally belong to

its inhabitants. Governments are therefore hesitant to recognize the legitimacy of such

settlements and thus refrain from providing public sanitation services (52). Furthermore,

because these communities tend to be transient and fear eviction, household and private sector

investment is depressed. What is worse is that the residents of these communities are often

evicted if the land they occupy becomes lucrative. For this reason, residents may resist

international sanitation assistance for fear that such developmental action would boost the

marketability of the land for authorities to sell (54). The below case study is one such example.


46/69



4.1.1.1 Case Study: TTC Bustee, Dhaka, Bangladesh

TTC bustee is an unplanned slum bordering roads in Dhaka. TTC is adjacent to a

residential compound known as the Colony which houses post office staff and oversees affairs of

th e bustee. O neofWaterAidspartners engaged in com m unity discu ssion swithoccupantsof

thebustee in order to address imminent sanitation concerns. Cooperation was nearly unanimous.

Through extensive discussion, it was revealed that the community demanded improved sanitation

not because of perceived health benefits but because of the social advantages new technologies

could offer: privacy, convenience, aesthetics, etc. Individual latrines were an impossibility due

to size constraints, so a community-based sanitation structure was designed that would

accommodate community preferences: separate washing area for women, division between

mensand womens sections, hand-washing station, good ventilation, and little maintenance and

operation requirements. The finished design was approved by the Dhaka City Corporation

(DCC) and the Dhaka Water and Sewerage Authority (DWASA), both of which oversee

developmental projects. The Colony community resisted the implementation of sanitation

technologies arguing that such intervention would legitimize the legal existence of the bustee.

Due to such complaints, the TTC bustee was forcibly evicted without any prior warning or plan

for relocation (54). WaterAid has since engaged in high-level communication with DCC,

DWASA, and th eDistrict Commission ers office and have negotiate da policy where

families

are permitted to return the bustee and are given access to the newly-built sanitation facility (55).

Fortunately,WaterAidspartners have coord inated on o therpro jects where they

successfully proved that people living in these high-density populations are accountable for

sanitation technologies and will pay their water bills, disproving the myth that slum residents are


47/69



unaccountable (52). WaterAid has outlined a couple of potential solutions to the land tenure

issue:

1. Legalize the slum communities- This would recognize the legitimacy of community

members and allow for the provision of public services such as sanitation.

Unfortunately, this tends to boost the desirability of living conditions, making the

community attractive to middle-class residents who displace poorer residents.

Legalization may also be fraught with resistance as municipalities are hesitant to

recognize these slums because many are prone to environmental disasters like

flooding (52).

2. Private sector participation- Private sector participation is advocated by the World

Bank and other international organizations with the idea that private sector

involvement can: a) address the lack government investment in sanitation and

rehabilitate old systems; b) improve the efficiency of water services delivery; and c)

allow the government to deal on actual governmental obligations rather than running

a service (53). It is suggested that the private sector will be able to see the potential

profitability of catering to poor slum communities and is likely to address sanitation

concerns without regard to the legal status of such communities, caring only about the

perceived permanency of the settlements (52). Current statistics show that public

sector provision of services is woefully inadequate, with many countries investing

only 1-2% of their GDP to water services. To reach their Millennium Development

Goals, many countries will have to invest $11-25 billion in sanitation endeavors alone

for the next 12 years. This is a feat seems like an impossibility without private sector

participation (53). The main criticism offered by opponents of private sector


48/69



participation is that basic human rights, like access to water, should not be

commodified, and that poor people will be unable to afford expensive water services.

However, studies show that the poorest of the poor are currently paying more for their

water from dubious water vendors than are middle-class residents who get their water

from a piped water supply (53).

3. Working together- Local communities and municipal governments should work

with each other to create collaborative policy solutions that ensure that each voice in

the community is heard. Municipal governments should also advocate on behalf of

their communities to non-governmental organizations (NGO) to ensure that the

poorest of the poor have a vehicle through which to communicate needs (52).

4.1.2. Financial Challenges

Underinvestment in sanitation services is one the main reasons that sanitation in urban

areas is rarely available (14). Community-based federations in more than 20 nations have risen

to the cause to improve infrastructural problems. These federations are representative

organizations that are formed by the urban poor to work with local and national governments to

address sanitation needs. These federations are large and work within and between communities

to address sanitation issues affecting each household. Over the last decade, these federations

have become transnational in nature and have demonstrated their capacity to work with local and

nongovernmental organizations to facilitate developmental projects. These communities help to

inject quick, short-term funds for those communities in need of immediate relief. Therefore,

international assistance should focus on developing these federations to provide for the

possibility of financial relief. For residents who are not reached by these federations or are

without an ability to pay for them, government subsidies or grants can be procured to incentivize


49/69



maintenance of sanitation technologies (57). Because of the lack of money available in many

urban areas, dry latrineswhich are the least expensive of the latrinesmay be the most viable

option (14).

4.1.3. Institutional Challenges

As stated before, governments and international institutions should reaffirm and

strengthen preexisting community efforts for water sanitation. Unfortunately, community-based

federations do not take responsibility for waste-water treatment, leaving the burden on municipal

governments . Th us ,it sh ou ldbe th em un icipal governments to pprio rity to fund and coordinate

projects that can implement wastewater treatment technologies (14). A primary institutional

necessity is one of capacity building characterized by the strengthening of knowledge, skills, and

attitudes of individuals and organizations within communities (58). Institutional capacities allow

an organization to swiftly and adequately resolve problems and harness opportunities (59).

UNU-INWH established 4 tenets of capacity building that are required at the community, state,

and federal levels (60):

1. Educate and train, including community awareness building, adult training, and

formal education, so as to provide sufficient numbers of competent human

resources to develop and apply enabling systems.

2. Measure and understand aquatic systems, through monitoring, applied research,

technology development, and forecasting, so that reliable data is used for

analysis and decision-making.


50/69



3. Legislate, regulate and achieve compliance through effective governmental, non-

governmental and private sector institutions and through efficient enforcement

and community acceptance.

4. Provideappropriate and affordable w ater infrastructu re, services and

products through sustained investment and management by both private

enterprises and public agencies.


51/69


52/69




Planned, high-density urban settlements have the greatest success in harnessing funds for

sanitation from loans and private investment, although these areas are notorious for failed

sanitation projects due to financial collapse (67). This is because the typical technologies used in

these areas are expensive, and residents cannot pay back loans, causing project failure (68). A

multiplicity of finance options is available due to the diverse nature of planned urban settlement

residents. In order to fund sanitation, governments have used many different mechanisms such

as taxes, grants, cro ss-subs idies, andlifelinerates (6 5 ,66). Long-term sanitation has proven

most effective when there has been a continuous stream of external funding (69).

4.2.3. Institutional Challenges

Inadequate institutional capacity is frequently cited as the biggest impediment to

sanitation success (69). As explained in Section 4.1.3., institutional capacity is crucial to

problem resolution. One such problem is that outdated public policies make it unaffordable for

the private sector to reach out to poor communities. Therefore, strong government oversight and

political change is crucial to ensuring private sector involvement in poor communities (14).


53/69



4.3. Peri-urban Settlements

Peri-urban centers are small urban locations with medium populations which exhibit

characteristics of both urban and rural areas (14). As of 2000, 53% of the people living in a

global urban population were living in communities with less than 500,000 people, and the

expansion of sanitation has failed to keep pace with the rate of growth (73). Peri-urban areas are

characterized by uncertain tenure, minimal or no infrastructure, low incomes, and lack of

recognition by formal governments. Because of the sheer size of peri-urban populations,

municipal governments tend to ignore them, overwhelmed by the needs of the populations (74).

Table 6. Peri-urban Settlements Overview (adapted from 64)

Peri-urban Settlements Overview

Population Density 100 - 300 persons per hectare

Average household size ~5 persons

Water consumption 40 - 60 liters per capita per day

Sources of wastewater Kitchen, laundry, showers, sanitation facilities,informal businesses and cottage industries

4.3.1. Technical Challenges

All of the technologies discussed in Section 4 are viable for the peri-urban sector,

although selection of technology will depend on housing density and other factors; for

communities with a high population density, simplified sewerage may be desirable, but for

smaller communities, on-site disposal options may be most attractive. Most peri-urban areas are

also developed on geographically undesirable areas (along gullies and ravines, rocky terrain, or

steep slopes), because those locations tend to be least expensive to purchase and are thus

attractive to poor individuals looking for cheap housing. Furthermore, the legality of tenure is

unlikely to be challenged when there is no motive for residential construction in those areas by

the government (74). Given the tendency for peri-urban areas to be geographically tenuous, it is


54/69



important to select a technology that is resistant to environmental anomalies, such as technologies

that are installed above ground. Latrines are usually insufficient for a number of reasons: they

are inadequate for high-density peri-urban areas; there is usually not enough land to re-dig holes

when old ones fill up; multistory housing which typifies peri-urban community

living is unsuitable for latrines; and nearby groundwater runs the risk of contamination. Even

water-based latrines can be problematic in areas with strained water supplies (74).

Many traditionally low-cost te chno logies are consid ered low-cos t only becausetheir

capital costs are low. Engineers and policymakers rarely factor in the labor necessitated for

maintenance and use of the technology when determining appropriate technology. However, in

peri-urban areas where entire families are expected to work whole days just to make enough

money to satisfy basic needs, time is invaluable and cannot be wasted on frivolities like repairing

and constructing latrines. It is therefore important to consider technologies that have high capital

costs but low maintenance and labor force requirements (14, 74).


Private investors tend to avoid financing sanitation projects in peri-urban areas more so

than urban areas because it is difficult to establish an economy of scale, and the smaller

population provides less lucrative opportunities. The unfortunate irony is that peri-urban areas

require the most funding because the technology in these areas tends to be expensive to

accommodate for the terrible physical terrain on which communities live (75). Research also

shows that smaller peri-urban areas have less accountable municipal governments which are

unlikely to get fiscally involved in sanitation policies (67). It has been shown that microloans

can stimulate demand for sanitation and lead to rapid dissemination of technology throughout


55/69



peri-urban regions (14). However, loans and credit programs have notable drawbacks: high

transaction costs, lengthy approval processes, high interest rates and loan security requirements,

legal land registration, mortgage requirements, and an insufficient number of personnel allocated

to serve customers in low-income brackets, etc. (75). Fortunately, these drawbacks have been

overcom eby NGOsin m any instances (see Figure 8).

Two NGO Loan Success Stories

CHF and UNICEF Provide Options for Peri-Urban Sanitation

In Honduras, the Cooperative Housing Foundation (CHF) and UNICEF hope to improveunhealthy sanitary conditions through a sanitation loan program for low-income families.

The program aims to increase interest in using credit to make sanitation improvements, and toraise awareness of the need for better environmental sanitation. Loans are available toparticipating families to build shower stalls, construct water storage tanks and wash stands,implement rooftop rainwater collection systems, or make other improvements, such as devisingan appropriate way to dispose of human excreta. People have the option of building alternativesto simple pit latrines, including ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrines, dry compost latrines, andpour- flush toilets. Loans also can be used to make a legal connection to a citys waterbornesewerage system when possible.

By offering a variety of options in a broader price range and linking them to well-managed creditprograms, CHF and UNICEF hope to increase the demand for urban sanitation.

Original Printed in Source: Ref. 77

Seen in Ref. 75

Grameen Bank: Sanitation Loans for the Poor

The Grameen Bank has gained international acclaim for its novel approach to economic

development and poverty reduction in Bangladeshmaking small loans at commercial

Documents

Water Sanitation Paper