Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Experiences with Ecosan In Danish Allotment Gardens and Devellopment projects

161 views

Published on

Experience from 90 Dry Diverting Toilets installed in Allotment Gardens in Denmark are compared to Sanitation Experiences in Development Projects.

Published in: Environment
  • Hello Arne, Just went through the slides, interesting. Particularly for the participating countries, Afghanistan and Burkina Faso, I am wondering what social and cultural issues you encounter and how were these addressed? I know BF is one country where Ecosan is really possible and acceptable in Africa but it will be interesting to hear perspectives from Afghanistan.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

Experiences with Ecosan In Danish Allotment Gardens and Devellopment projects

  1. 1. Experiences with Ecosan in Danish Allotment Gardens and Development Projects H. Bregnhøj, A.M. Eilersen & A. BacklundH. Bregnhøj, A.M. Eilersen & A. Backlund
  2. 2. Population without sanitation in (%) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Urban Rural Africa Latin America Asia WHO/Unicef 2000
  3. 3. Non-technical problems • Poor management • Poor population
  4. 4. The four projects • Denmark - allotment gardens • Afghanistan – rural villages in Herat province • Burkina Faso – rural community • Guatemala – rural villages
  5. 5. Location of projects Middle east
  6. 6. No mixing sanitation system Denmark - allotment gardens
  7. 7. No mixing sanitation system Denmark - allotment gardens
  8. 8. No mixing sanitation system Denmark - allotment gardens
  9. 9. No mixing sanitation system Denmark - allotment gardens
  10. 10. Child seat Denmark - allotment gardens
  11. 11. Urine collection system Denmark - allotment gardens
  12. 12. Urine collectors Denmark - allotment gardens
  13. 13. Ventilation Denmark - allotment gardens
  14. 14. Number of residents distributed after age Denmark - allotment gardens Age Number 0-10 19 11-20 10 21-40 23 41-60 62 61-70 47 71-80 15 total 176
  15. 15. Attitudes towards and experiences with ecosan in Denmark 12 3 81 Total Chemical 21 Bucket 34 Indifferent 40 indifferent 75 Positive 78 Positive 81 Positive Water closet 76 Indifferent 40 Positive 41 Positive 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Total Previous Toilet Experiences with cleaning of toilet Interest in recycling urine/faeces Experiences with source diversion Attitude to handling of waste products Attitude to the system Experiences with the installation Positive PositivePositive Negative Indifferent Number of respondents
  16. 16. Drawing plan for double vault latrine Afghanistan – rural villages
  17. 17. Drawing plan for double vault latrine Afghanistan – rural villages
  18. 18. Squatting hole plate Afghanistan – rural villages
  19. 19. Mould for squatting hole plate Afghanistan – rural villages
  20. 20. Preliminary squatting hole plate Afghanistan – rural villages
  21. 21. Access door and urine seepage pit Afghanistan – rural villages
  22. 22. Latrine types and attitudes towards recycling in Western Afghanistan 1 3 55 Total 21 No 21 None 36 No 12 Pit latrine 19 Yes 9 Indif. 51 Positive 46 Positive 34 Yes 22 Vault latrine 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Total Has latrine Type latrine Already practice recycling Attitude to urine separation Attitude to recycling Number of respondents Neg. Indif.
  23. 23. Double vault latrine (Vietnamese type) Burkina Faso – rural community
  24. 24. Double vault latrines with urine collection Guatemala – rural villages
  25. 25. Toilet seat Guatemala – rural villages
  26. 26. Seat form Guatemala – rural villages
  27. 27. Seat form Guatemala – rural villages
  28. 28. Access door for emptying the latrine Guatemala – rural villages
  29. 29. Composted excreta Guatemala – rural villages
  30. 30. From idea to reality • Motivation for changing status • Clarification of relevant stakeholders • Listing of assessments criteria • On-site analysis • Posing alternative sanitation systems • Evaluation of the systems and determining order of priority • Selection of solution • Design and implementation • Organisation of use and operation • Evaluation, control and follow-up
  31. 31. ON-SITE ANALYSISON-SITE ANALYSIS Environmental analysisEnvironmental analysis • The physical conditions and sensitivity of the local environmentThe physical conditions and sensitivity of the local environment Stakeholder analysisStakeholder analysis • Identification of stakeholdersIdentification of stakeholders • Interaction between stakeholdersInteraction between stakeholders • The attitudes and preferences of the stakeholdersThe attitudes and preferences of the stakeholders
  32. 32. Criteria for assessment • Economy – construction and running cost, expected lifetime • Hygiene and safety – public health, working environment • Operation and maintenance • User aspects – shelter, odour, comfort, use, cleaning • Self-management/administration – visibility of local material recirculation, understanding and influence on decisions, installation and running • Robustness – adaptability to new users and new demands • Demonstration value – testing and presentation of new technologies, spreading of knowledge • Load on the environment – resource (energy, land, water, materials) consumption, pollution: impact on water, soil and air.
  33. 33. General priority of assessment criteria for the four projects • Economy • Hygiene, health and safety • User aspects – shelter from weather from animals from other people – order keeps all human waste in one place – odour, comfort • Self-management/administration – local material recirculation

×