Search

NoMix toilets separate urine and feces at the source and are a promising resource recovery technology. However, design issues hamper the transformation from unattractive to aspirational products. Little effort has been done to design toilets that account for physiological differences, leading to adverse effects on user-friendliness and urine separation efficiency. We used infrared recordings to assess gender-specific urination practices. Based on field data, we developed the Urinator, a simple device that allows simulating male and female urine streams. This supports engineers in developing more user- and gender-friendly and reuse-oriented sanitation technologies.

Sanitation is a universal need and thus requires universal access. Despite having the world’s largest sanitation campaign, only 37% of urban India has access to safely managed sanitation systems. Due to the heterogeneity of Indian cities, a mix of different sanitation systems is required to meet the demands of these rapidly urbanising cities. The Manila principles on Citywide Inclusive Sanitation (CWIS) propose a mix of technologies as a key pillar in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals on urban sanitation. However, there is a lack of understanding on the criteria to consider when planning the technological options for CWIS. The mega-city of Chennai is chosen as a case study, and mixed methods including a Faecal Waste Flow diagram (SFD), Social Network Analysis (SNA) and interviews are applied. This study then presents a set of 14 contextually relevant criteria for the implementation of sewered and non-sewered technologies in the city. The SFD shows that 35% of Chennai’s faecal waste remains unsafely managed while using SNA identified that the water and sanitation utility, the municipal corporation and the slum clearance board are the best placed stakeholders in the city to create a change in the sanitation situation. Furthermore, 17 drivers and barriers for the implementation of non-sewered technologies are identified. The criteria catalogue was also theoretically tested for an example ward in Chennai. The findings of the study show that a catalogue of physical, technical, institutional and financial criteria is useful for planning a mix of technologies with the CWIS approach.

Recent developments in high- and middle-income countries have exhibited a shift from conventional urban water systems to alternative solutions that are more diverse in source separation, decentralization, and modularization. These solutions include nongrid, small-grid, and hybrid systems to address such pressing global challenges as climate change, eutrophication, and rapid urbanization. They close loops, recover valuable resources, and adapt quickly to changing boundary conditions such as population size. Moving to such alternative solutions requires both technical and social innovations to coevolve over time into integrated socio-technical urban water systems. Current implementations of alternative systems in high- and middle-income countries are promising, but they also underline the need for research questions to be addressed from technical, social, and transformative perspectives. Future research should pursue a transdisciplinary research approach to generating evidence through socio-technical “lighthouse” projects that apply alternative urban water systems at scale. Such research should leverage experiences from these projects in diverse socio-economic contexts, identify their potentials and limitations from an integrated perspective, and share their successes and failures across the urban water sector.

The need for taking a comprehensive perspective when selecting sanitation technologies in developing contexts has been increasingly discussed. Process guides, which are planning documents describing steps decision-makers need to take, represent one possible contribution to attain comprehensive decisions. An interview study with sanitation experts was carried out to understand the importance and real use of such planning documents for the selection of urban sanitation technologies in developing countries, as well as to understand the relevance and actual consideration of decision elements and to identify recommendations for taking them into account. Although process guides appear to be helpful to guide planning processes, their use does not seem to be common practice. It is actually doubtful that the sector is currently able to make better use of those documents in the form that they exist today. Furthermore, the importance of a comprehensive approach is generally recognised, but relevant decision elements were said to be often neglected. Finally, results from the interview analysis also emphasised the need for a conducive policy environment, namely by developing appropriate institutional and legal frameworks, and by incentivising planners and decision-makers to further adapt to comprehensive decision-making practices that effectively improve the sanitation situation in developing countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses Sanitation21, a planning framework towards improving urban sanitation services in cities in low- and middle-income countries. Other topics discussed include the aims of the Sanitation21 approach, the activities and outputs from the five stages in the planning process and the role of the International Water Association (IWA) for improving urban sanitation services.

Too often, standardized groupings of sanitation and treatment technologies are imposed in situations where they may not be appropriate. The Household-Centred Environmental Sanitation (HCES) approach instead emphasizes that the needs and means of households should be put first, and a collaborative process involving all stakeholders should steer the planning process.