Preference for and characteristics of an appropriate sanitation technology for the slums of Kisumu, Kenya

Figures & data

Table 1. Preferred sanitation technologies from household interviews.

	Pit latrine	Sewer system	EcoSan	Total
First option	16 (47%)	16 (47%)	2 (6%)	34
Second option*	17 (71%)	5 (21%)	2 (8%)	24
Third option*	1 (14%)	1 (14%)	5 (72%)	7

*Second and third options have less count because respondents were allowed to give at least one technology depending on what they knew.

Table 2. Preferred sanitation technologies from group exercises.

	Pit latrine	Sewer system	EcoSan	Pour flush	Total
First option	38 (48%)	26 (32%)	16 (20%)	0	80
Second option	29 (43%)	22 (32%)	13 (19%)	4 (6%)	68
Third option	7 (18%)	13 (33%)	18 (46%)	1 (3%)	39

Table 3. Preferred sanitation technologies from participatory discussions.

Category of respondents	First option	Second option	Third option
Resident landlords, with tenants, but lack a sanitation facility	Pit latrine	Flush toilet	EcoSan
Resident landlords with tenants, and with a sanitation facility	Pit latrine	EcoSan	Flush toilet
Landlords without a sanitation facility	EcoSan	Pit latrine	Flush toilet
Tenants with resident landlords, and have a sanitation facility	Pit latrine	Flush toilet	EcoSan
Tenants with resident landlords, but lack a sanitation facility	Pit latrine	EcoSan	Flush toilet
Tenants with absentee landlords, and have a sanitation facility	Pit latrine	Flush toilet	EcoSan
Tenants with absentee landlords, and lack a sanitation facility	Pit latrine	Pour flush	EcoSan*
Tenants from compounds with a sanitation facility, and with caretakers	Pit latrine	EcoSan	Flush toilet

*This group ranked the flush toilet as the fourth option.

Table 4. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis of identified sanitation technologies in Kisumu’s slum settlements.

Technology	SWOT analysis
EcoSan	Strengths	Weaknesses
	Recycling of waste products	It requires proper management structures among users, especially if shared
		Lack of management structures can easily lead to conflicts and mismanagement
		It has a high fill-up rate if shared
		Many residents lack knowledge about it
		Lack of locally trained masons to construct it
		High installation costs
	Opportunities	Threats
	Emptying presents a business opportunity	Social and cultural rejection
	Can be used in flood-prone areas with weak soils
	Market for human waste as manure
Flush system	Strengths	Weaknesses
	Is aesthetically presentable	Lack of a sewer system in the slums
	Residents have some level of knowledge about it	High financial requirements for its installation
		Requires constant water supply
		It is not ideal for sharing by many households
	Opportunities	Threats
	Residents may require further knowledge on management	May break down easily due to high number of users
Pit latrine	Strengths	Weaknesses
	Does not need constant water supply	Requires emptying
	Residents have knowledge and experience on its functionality	Inaccessibility by municipality trucks
	Can work better with proper management structures
	Can be shared by several households
	Easier to manage if shared by several households
	Opportunities	Threats
	Emptying can be a business to locals	May collapse easily if poorly constructed due to poor soil structure
	Proper construction can promote its use	Manual emptying poses health risks if done without protective clothing and equipment
Pour flush	Strengths	Weaknesses
	It does not require constant water supply	Lack of a sewer system in the slums
	Can work well with proper management structures	Lack of skilled persons to construct it
	Can be shared by several households
	Opportunities
	It need not be connected to a sewer system
	It may be easily accepted if modified to adopt the advantages offered by the pit latrine

Table 5. Characteristics of an appropriate sanitation technology for Kisumu’s slums.

Theme	Characteristics
Technical	It should be easy to use It should not be wholly water and sewer dependent, which would limit its functionality One that can be constructed using locally available materials Local masons can be trained to construct it, which will ensure that more households can acquire the technology It should safely contain human waste while awaiting transfer to waste recovery site
Environmental	It should be feasible in an area that experiences flooding and that has a high water table and loose soils
Sociocultural	It should be socially and culturally acceptable Responsibilities between landlords and tenants can be defined, hence encouraging healthy relationships It should be aesthetically presentable in design A possible history of success and replicability elsewhere presents lessons to learn from
Operation and maintenance	One that is easy to operate One that can be shared by a certain number of households who can then develop a maintenance plan, e.g. for cleaning
Economic	It should be affordable in terms of installation, operation and maintenance It should have additional economic benefits other than human waste disposal (e.g. waste recovery) It should have avenues for employment/job creation
Public health	Should limit contact with human waste thus minimising spread of disease
Institutional settings	It should fall within the policy recommended guidelines and recommendations