Preference for and characteristics of an appropriate sanitation technology for the slums of Kisumu, Kenya

Abstract

Slums are faced with several challenges including lack of sanitation facilities. This lack is further compounded by the difficulty in determining an appropriate sanitation technology due to the challenging living conditions. An appropriate technology should, among others, consider the conditions of each settlement as well as views of the slum residents. Through interviews and participatory discussions, residents of the slums in Kisumu city identified sanitation technologies they preferred, and the reasons for or against these technologies. These responses were pointers to characteristics of an appropriate technology for the slums. Pit latrines, ecological sanitation and flush toilets were identified, but residents selected pit latrines as appropriate for their settlements. The results mean that technically, an ideal technology should be easy to construct and use, be socioculturally acceptable, environmentally friendly and economically affordable. This article calls for cooperation among stakeholders, including landlords and tenants in decision-making for sanitation in slums.

An Approach Incorporating User Preferences in the Design of Sanitation Systems and Its Application in the Rural Communities of Chiapas, Mexico

“…However, in poor rural areas where people are marginalized, the preference is commonly basic services. In these areas, the most important element is the sanitation service itself, where the appearance of the toilet or the system is not a must for the community to accept, as opposed to the assertion of [17] "where sanitation facilities are lacking or not functional, a pleasant-looking and functional toilet is a source of pride." Meanwhile, shared systems can be a source of community conflicts.…”

DMsan: A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework and Package to Characterize Contextualized Sustainability of Sanitation and Resource Recovery Technologies

“…13,27,28,31 (22 papers) 3,10,13,25−28,31−45 followed by LCA (seven papers). [12][13][14]27,28,31,46 Other techniques included cost−benefit analysis (CBA; four papers); 47−50 appropriateness assessment (AA; two papers); 51,52 strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis (one paper); 53 agent-based modeling (ABM; one paper); 54 probabilistic model (one paper); 55 and decision-support systems (one paper; 56 Figure 1A). Within MCDA, the most widely used ranking methodologies were the technique for order of preference by similarity (TOPSIS; nine papers) 13,25,27,28,31,32,38,40,41 a n d a n a l y t i c a l h i e r a r c h y p r o c e s s ( A H P ; n i n e p apers; 10,26,28,33,34,37,38,43,44 Figure 1B).…”

“…Expert stakeholder types include pit latrine emptiers, water and sanitation employees, government agencies, and researchers. The 14 unique stakeholder combinations were identified in literature (columns labeled A–N): A, B, C, ,,, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, ,, L, ,, M, , and N . For example, one paper included stakeholders defined in combination A (end-users, farmers, pit latrine emptiers, and water and sanitation employees), and four papers included stakeholders defined in combination C (water and sanitation employees, government agencies, and researchers).…”

Regenerative sanitation foundations

“…Technological systems, of course, also need to be understood, addressed and measured; they are still important but just not sufficient enough to deliver the needed access expansion and service improvement for the sector. Sanitation technologies, then, should be systemic, holistic and integrative, with the capacity to align with nature's principles, and should be psycho-socio-culturally acceptable, economically affordable and environmentally friendly (Illich, 1973;Mara, 2003;Pattnaik & Dhal, 2015;Schumacher, 1973;Semiyaga et al, 2015;Simiyu, 2017;Willoughby, 1990).…”