Economic Effects of Sustainable Sanitation - SuSanA

Sustainable sanitation
Lower cost option (depending on type of conventional improved sanitation facility)
(cf. Rosemarin et al., 2008, p. 41)
Hence, when considering the above-mentioned classification of improved and unimproved
sanitation through this lens, most of the systems do not qualify for being sustainable.
Open defecation, for instance, does not protect and promote human health. Regardless of the
version, latrines rarely deliver the desired effects regarding environment and natural resources
(partly, if proper emptying can be ensured 21 and nutrient reuse is included) and, do only in
case of the improved versions contribute to human health improvement. The listed flush or
pour flush systems do not meet any of the criteria of sustainable sanitation as they mix large
amounts of clean water with small amounts of pathogen containing excreta, thereby not only
diluting the nutrients present in excreta, but also creating large volumes of harmful
wastewater, of which, considering global averages, only one out of ten litres is treated
properly (Langergraber and Muellegger, 2004, p. 435; Werner et al., 2003, p. 24). In fact, the
described practice leads to the invasion of faecal pathogens into aqueous environments, places
where these substances do not belong to, leading to a degradation of human health as well as
environmental quality. Additionally, the costs for construction, operation and maintenance of
the necessary hardware are rejecting those systems from the list of sustainable sanitation
systems (Langergraber and Muellegger, 2004).
Hence, solely, composting toilets comply with most of the requirements, only implying
problems regarding the social acceptability in faecophobic 22 societies or negative effects due
to misuse.
3.1.1 The aspect of source separation and technologies of sustainable
sanitation
However, unlike it might be concluded from the section above, based on the JMP
classification (WHO/UNICEF, 2010), sustainable sanitation systems are not limited to single
technologies like composting toilets, they rather represent a variety of technologies capable of
delivering the desired results (cf. remarks later in this chapter).
The first step in designing sustainable sanitation systems is to decide whether source
separation of human excreta is applied or not. In this thesis as well as in other publications
this practice is considered being a commonly applied strategy, optimising the process of
21 Literature and personal experience showed that emptying is often done manually using buckets. The faecal
matter is usually deposited into adjacent drains or the like (cf. WUP, 2003, p. 76; Still, 2002, p. 4; interview
findings chapter 6.1.1.1)
22 Societies can be classified as faecophilic and faecophobic. Countries like India, China and Asia in general, can
be considered faecophilic as they look back to a long history of managing their excreta and reusing it as
fertilisers. Other countries, like the ones of Europe are classified as faecophobic, as their inhabitants ceased
performing this practice at the end of the nineteenth century, among others, caused by believing in the ―miasma
theory‖, a theory on the spreading of diseases due to volatile substances (cf. Bracken et al. 2006, p. 4).
18