Open Planning of Sanitation Systems

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Open Planning of Sanitation SystemsSection 2: The use of criteria in sanitation projects and their ratingsThe purpose of the second section of the questionnaire was to find out whether the respondentssystematically use criteria to assess the merits of sanitation alternatives before a choice is made. Fiverespondents answered ‘yes’ and two ‘no’ to this question. The criteria practiced among the respondentsin their projects included an expressed demand for improving sanitation, local support, affordability,acceptability, environmental protection etc.One respondent explained that they work with a matrix in which the advantages and disadvantages ofdifferent technical solutions are compared. Another said that there is a need for project implementers tobe flexible and open to multiple solutions even on a household level, which implies a need to be able toassist with decision-making on a household level.The purpose of the remaining questions was to determine which criteria, in the opinion of therespondents, are important when selecting a sanitation system. The criteria proposed for considerationin the questionnaire were:1. Hygiene2. Water protection3. Nutrient recycling4. Water recycling5. Economy6. Reliability7. Flexibility8. User aspects9. Gender aspects10. Child aspects11. Sociological and cultural aspects12. Responsibility13. ControlIn summary, all respondents found that hygiene was the most important criterion for choosinga sanitation solution. The second most important criteria were water protection and economy,followed by reliability, sociological aspects and responsibility.It is noteworthy that nutrient and water recycling, commonly used to promote ecologicalsanitation were, on average, not perceived to be very important. A possible explanation is thatproject workers lack experience or commitment to work in an integrated way taking into accountboth agricultural aspects and sustainable water resources management. Another explanation isthat there is no shortage of water or nutrients in the areas where some respondents carry outtheir projects.25
Elisabeth Kvarnström and Ebba af PetersensAppendix 4: Matrix scoring exercise for Vadsbro village (Ridderstolpe, 1999)The alternatives for Vadsbro village were as follows:1. Primary treatment, storage, and forest irrigation2. Stabilisation ponds with chemical (Ca(OH)2 precipitation3. Primary treatment, trickling filter, and biofilter ditch4. Primary treatment, trickling filter, and crop/wetland rotation5. Primary treatment, sand filter, and biofilter ditch/wetland6. Package treatment plant (sequencing batch reactor, SBR), including nitrification followed by a biofilter ditch or wetlandAlt. 1Forest irrigationAlt 2Ca-precipitationAlt 3BioditchAlt 4Rotation systemAlt 5Sand filterCosts +++ +++ ++ ++ - --Reduction capacity +++ ++ ++ ++ ++ +Potential for recycling ++? ++ ++ +++ ++ ++Hygienically safe - ++ ++ - ++ -Local adaption -- + ++ ++? + ++Responsibility/Control - ++ ++ - +++ +++Conclusion Very efficient andcheap but hygienichazards. Landscapeimpact.Efficient, robust,service-demanding.Efficient, cheap,flexible, robust.Not enoughexperience, but veryinteresting.Efficient but quiteexpensive.Alt 6Treatment plantSimple planning butnot cost-efficient.The final choice of wastewater treatment system for Vadsbro village was alternative 3 where primary treatment and trickling filter was combined with abiofilter ditch.26
Page 2 and 3: Open Planning of Sanitation Systems
Page 4 and 5: ContentsPrefaceivBackground 1Object
Page 18: Open Planning of Sanitation Systems
Page 21 and 22: Elisabeth Kvarnström and Ebba af P
Page 29: Elisabeth Kvarnström and Ebba af P
Page 39: Elisabeth Kvarnström and Ebba af P

Open Planning of Sanitation Systems

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?