Considering User Attitude in Early Development of Environmentally Friendly Technology:  A Case Study of NoMix Toilets

Abstract

Urine source separation (NoMix technology) has been proposed as a sustainable alternative to centralized wastewater treatment systems. Radical changes necessitate an early inclusion of sociological expertise, thus offering a real chance for transdisciplinary collaboration. The practical aim of our survey is to find out how users accept and use existing NoMix toilets and how this could be encouraged. We collected 1249 questionnaires from 2002 to 2004 in one Swiss school and one Swiss research institute. The technological immaturity of NoMix toilets was noted by many. Nevertheless, acceptance was high: 72% liked the idea and 86% would move into apartments with NoMix toilets. Moreover, most users found that NoMix toilets equal conventional toilets with respect to design (78%), hygiene (84%), and smell (78%). Like many other innovations, the NoMix technology only functions properly if it is used adequately, which we demonstrate for water saving and sitting to urinate. Many users adopted this behavior, e.g., 72% sat. Because perception and use of NoMix toilets is subjective, it can be influenced with certain measures such as good information and cleaning, or discussions with peers. We discuss the importance of social psychology for understanding the factors that influence the acceptance of environmentally friendly innovations.

Knowledge and awareness of eco-sanitation in central Nepal: a questionnaire survey

“…Another explanation could be that this concept is very new for the study area, and it always takes time to accept new ideas. As Lienert and Larsen (2006) showed that the discussion is more effective than only giving information about eco-toilet, but unfortunately we could not make long discussion with the participants in this study.…”

“…The eco-toilet was explained as a simple and a cheap model, which might make majority of the participants to be interested as Medilanski et al (2006) present that 79% people preferred to use cheap dry-toilet rather than the expensive No-Mix toilet. Our result showed that the people who were aware about urine fertilizer, however, were not interested to use urine fertilizer in home plots, and therefore it seems to be important to discuss and convince the people about this idea as presented by Lienert and Larsen (2006). However, the situation seems to be different in Nepal because many farmers who did not know about urine fertilizer were interested to use urine fertilizer as this might be due to needing of fertilizer and similar opinion presented by Manandhar et al (2004).…”

Charting a Path for Innovative Toilet Technology Using Multicriteria Decision Analysis

“…Many communities in Western Europe and the United States are faced with an aging wastewater treatment infrastructure, while also experiencing growth and development. This situation makes long-term planning and the definition of priorities much more demanding than in the past (16). Despite some remaining uncertainties in our analysis (see Supporting Information), we believe the application of MCDA helps to clarify the role that peak-shaving can play in allowing these communities to postpone or avoid expensive WWTP expansions.…”

Saneamento Básico Em Comunidade Peri-Urbana No Ceará: Perspectiva Para O Ecossaneamento E Sanitários Separadores

“…Em outra pesquisa, também na Suíça, feita por Lienert;Larsen (2006), realizada em prédios públicos (faculdade, instituto de pesquisa e uma biblioteca) que dispõem de sanitários separadores, os níveis de aceitação foram extremamente satisfatórios. De um total de 1.249 entrevistados da faculdade e do instituto de pesquisa, 72% afirmaram que essa tecnologia é uma boa ideia.…”