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

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. 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. Non-technical problems
• Poor management
• Poor population

4. The four projects
• Denmark - allotment gardens
• Afghanistan – rural villages in Herat province
• Burkina Faso – rural community
• Guatemala – rural villages

5. Location of projects
Middle
east

6. No mixing sanitation system
Denmark - allotment gardens

7. No mixing sanitation system
Denmark - allotment gardens

8. No mixing sanitation system
Denmark - allotment gardens

9. No mixing sanitation system
Denmark - allotment gardens

10. Child seat
Denmark - allotment gardens

11. Urine collection system
Denmark - allotment gardens

12. Urine collectors
Denmark - allotment gardens

13. Ventilation
Denmark - allotment gardens

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. 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. Drawing plan for double vault latrine
Afghanistan – rural villages

17. Drawing plan for double vault latrine
Afghanistan – rural villages

18. Squatting hole plate
Afghanistan – rural villages

19. Mould for squatting hole plate
Afghanistan – rural villages

20. Preliminary squatting hole plate
Afghanistan – rural villages

21. Access door and urine seepage pit
Afghanistan – rural villages

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. Double vault latrine (Vietnamese type)
Burkina Faso – rural community

24. Double vault latrines with urine collection
Guatemala – rural villages

25. Toilet seat
Guatemala – rural villages

26. Seat form
Guatemala – rural villages

27. Seat form
Guatemala – rural villages

28. Access door for emptying the latrine
Guatemala – rural villages

29. Composted excreta
Guatemala – rural villages

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. 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. 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. 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