Technology Identification and Selection

The appropriateness of sanitation technologies for the local context will directly influence the effectiveness and sustainability of an intervention. Appropriateness needs to be assessed through technical, geophysical, socio-cultural, financial and institutional factors as well as aspects related to skills and capacities. As well as selecting appropriate technologies along the sanitation service chain, their combination into entire systems needs to be appropriate. A wide variety of different technologies and systems exist, making rapid decision-making difficult. In the acute response, the focus is on appropriate community latrines (i.e. the user interface and on-site storage) to eliminate open defecation. Over time, the aim is to move to shared or household latrines and, when pits start filling up, to identify appropriate technologies for conveyance, treatment and safe disposal along the entire sanitation service chain. 

Key Actions

    • Assess the initial situation including the identification of the WASH practices and preferences of the user groups to be served, the geographical conditions, the existing WASH infrastructure and services in the area and the institutional and regulatory environment

    • Find out what sanitation practices the target communities are used to and evaluate if these are appropriate and can be implemented

    • Focus on the safe containment of faeces to protect human health in the immediate response

    • Identify technologies that are potentially appropriate for each of the functional groups. Parts of a sanitation system may already exist and can be integrated

    • Gather minimum information to check if technologies are appropriate. Include the number of users, water availability, special requirements for children, women and elderly people, space availability, soil conditions and the risk of flooding. Use simple guides and checklists such as those provided in OXFAM (2022) and Harvey (2007) or MacMahon et al. (2019)

    • Move as fast as possible from open defection to using shared latrines and on-site containments appropriate for the local context (e.g. shallow or deep trench latrines)

    • Consider raised latrines or container-based solutions that are water-tight if there is a risk of flooding, the groundwater table is high or the soil conditions do not allow pits

    • Consider single and double pits, cesspits, twin-pits for pour-flush or septic tanks as potential water-based sanitation solutions. These technologies are designed for solid-liquid separation and require a strategy for emptying. Effluent can be infiltrated locally if there is no nearby drinking water source. If not, emptying must take place more frequently

    • Consider Inclusive Design (women, children, elderly people) and socio-cultural aspects when designing latrines (‘washers’ versus ‘wipers’)

    • Use urinals to reduce the volume of liquid entering on-site containments. Urine usually does not contain pathogens and hence some infiltration is acceptable

    • Think about greywater and how to manage it. The aim is to keep the volume of products that are faecally contaminated as small as possible

    • Consider solid waste management to avoid its disposal in the pits

    • Identify Emptying and Transport technologies (as pits are filling up and desludging is required) that are appropriate for local skills and financial resources

    • Take account of subsequent phases when selecting technologies for each phase and develop a corresponding Exit Strategy. Key considerations include vehicular access to on-site facilities, the availability of vehicles and, most importantly, the designation of land to accommodate treatment facilities (see also Site Planning). Communities must be involved in the selection of land as early as possible: land is expensive, locations are controversial (nobody wants to live close to a faecal sludge treatment plant) and transportation distances should be optimised

    • Consider potential synergies with the sanitation systems of host communities

Author(s) (1)
Dorothee Spuhler
Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag)
Reviewer(s) / Contributor(s) (2)
Philippe Reymond
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
Rob Gensch
German Toilet Organization (GTO)

Found what you were looking for?

Found what you were looking for?

Still have questions?

You could not find the information you were looking for? Please contact our helpdesk team of experts for direct and individual support.

illustration of a woman in front of a question mark
x
News