Study of different modalities of public toilets in Kathmandu Metroplolitan City

  • 798 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Business , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • It would be useful if presentations are uploaded to slideshare to add a contact person with contact details if one has questions or comments! Greetings from Italy. Peter | IRC
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
798
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3

Actions

Shares
Downloads
7
Comments
1
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Study on Modalities of Public Toilets in Kathmandu Metropolitan City: Focus on City Service Centers and Mobile ToiletsPresenter: Manish Basnet Asia regional sanitation and hygiene practitioners workshop 31 January – 2 February 2012, Dhaka, Bangladesh
  • 2. Objectives & Methodology OBJECTIVES • To study public latrines of City Service Centers (CSCs) and Mobile Toilets based on management modality. • Financial status and users’ perspectives and catalog the findings. METHODOLOGY • Questionnaire Surveys of operators and users. • Inspection based on indicators: – Physical Infrastructure status – Hygiene Indicators
  • 3. Public Toilet’s ModalitiesTotal Public toilets - 32
  • 4. City Service Centers (CSCs) • Concept of Public Private Partnership (PPP) and Build, Operate, Own and Transfer (BOOT). • Only 3 constructed at Ratnapark, Khulamanch and Chabahil.
  • 5. Mobile Toilets (MTs) • Mobile Toilets operated under Public Private Partnership (PPP).• Limited holding capacity ofthe tank – limited water usefor cleaning and washing.
  • 6. Tender-run Toilets • Toilets constructed by KMC • Leased to operators by issuing tenders.
  • 7. Findings• CSCs and MTs – relativelybetter services.• CSCs and MTs profitable –good case for sustainability.• Most of the questionnairerespondents (65%) preferredpublic latrines of CSCs.• Currently, PPP and BOOTmodality of CSCs - bettermodality.
  • 8. Issues• CSCs’ and MTs’ hygiene standard is still below par .• Fecal waste of CSCs directly discharged into city sewerage line; innovation to utilize fecal waste through on-site bio-gas plant. • Lack of adequate water in CSCs for users cleanliness – rain water harvesting options. • MTs - limited holding capacity and problems with waste disposal. •Lack of adherence to stated agreement by KMC and the companies
  • 9. Challenges • No public toilets are child-friendly/differently-able friendly. Should be incorporated in ‘to be constructed public toilets’. • Monitoring mechanism weak – Provision for investing certain percentage of profit in maintaining toilets. • Public Toilet should be free – fares should be minimum. • CSCs focused only in core city areas and has not addressed informal settlements. How to address this problem?
  • 10. Thank You