Abstract

Abstract To achieve citywide inclusive sanitation in developing countries, a strategic sanitation planning approach (SSA) needs to provide a variety of technical solutions that respond to different urban realities. Despite the development of various SSA frameworks, sanitation planning still often follows a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. Structured decision making (SDM) can help by balancing trade-offs among different solutions. But SDM requires a set of appropriate sanitation options to choose from. Because conventional sewer-based sanitation is often inappropriate, many novel technologies and systems have been developed (e.g. container-based sanitation). While these innovations enhance sustainability, they also increase planning complexity. In this review, we look at available frameworks and tools for SSA and discover a lack of systematic tools for the identification of planning options that are able to consider the growing portfolio of available solutions and multiple sustainability criteria. Therefore, we critically compare 15 tools from which we compile eight qualities that could help any future tool address the current sanitation challenge: it should be comprehensive, automated to deal with a large number of options, systematic, flexible towards future innovation and should consider all sustainability dimensions, make a contextualized evaluation, allow for participation, and consider uncertainties to be applicable ex-ante also for novel technologies.

Highlights

  • Safe sanitation services are a precondition for healthy people and a healthy environment and for social and economic development (WHO and UNICEF, ; Hutton & Varughese )

  • These eight qualities are based on our historical review of strategic sanitation planning approach (SSA) frameworks: (1) the use of a systematic evaluation method; (2) comprehensiveness regarding the entire system, (3) comprehensiveness regarding the diversity of technical options; (4) appropriateness of technologies; (5) consideration of uncertainty related to technology performance or the context; (6) participation of local actors; (7) consideration of multiple criteria from all sustainability dimensions; and (8) flexibility towards future technology innovations

  • Uncertainties that need to be considered are related to (i) local conditions; (ii) knowledge about a technology, and (ii) technology implementation; or (iv) ignorance, concerning novel technologies and their implementation at scale. These qualities are not intended as a precondition but are intended to provide guidance to improve the capability of future tools in addressing the current urban sanitation challenge

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Safe sanitation services are a precondition for healthy people and a healthy environment and for social and economic development (WHO and UNICEF , ; Hutton & Varughese ). Various SSA frameworks have been developed including, for instance, Household-centred Environmental Sanitation (HCES) or Sanitation (Eawag ; Parkinson et al ) Despite these efforts, sanitation planning in urban settings of developing countries still tends to follow a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach today. One main reason for failure is the lack of political will to invest time and human and financial resources for long-term strategic planning Another reason is that planners lack the knowledge and experience concerning viable solutions for high-density low-income areas where water, energy, space, and land tenure are often lacking. Current technological innovation provides a unique opportunity, especially for developing urban areas, to bypass the unsustainable conventional end-of-pipe approach to sanitation This has been recognized in the most recent urban strategic sanitation planning approach: Citywide Inclusive Sanitation (CWIS) (Lüthi & Narayan ; Gambrill et al ; Schrecongost et al ). The current sanitation challenge requires a tool that enables engineers and planners to consider the growing portfolio of technology options and the multiple sustainability criteria when providing suitable planning options

AIM OF THIS PAPER
METHODS
Tools to put these concepts into practice
Automated
Systematic
Inclusive of all sustainability dimensions
Encourages participation of all relevant stakeholders
Contextualized appropriateness assessment
Considers uncertainties
LIMITATIONS
Findings
CONCLUSIONS
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call