Comparisim of Sanitation Facilities Within Informal Settlements

COMPARISON OF LOW COST SANITATION TECHNOLOGIES PROVIDED TO INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS Mthunzi Rubuluza (Fill your name in under â€Å"Prepare, Properties, Doc Properties, Advanced†¦Ã¢â‚¬  and update this field) Student Number 200732536 A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Engineering, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the BTech Degree in Civil Engineering† Cape Town 23 September 2011 Declaration I, Mthunzi Rubuluza declare that this research dissertation is my own unaided work. It is being submitted for the BTech Degree at Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town.It has not been submitted before for any degree or examination in any other University. _______________________________________________ (Signature) Signed in Cape Town this _____________ day of ______________________ 2011 Abstract The influx of migrants to cities is placing a huge burden to infrastructure delivery in the Western Cape. This burden leads to the need for shelter and that in turn means that land is invaded illegally. The population now creates informal settlements. The rise of informal settlements leads to the lack of basic infrastructure such as water and sanitation.The environmental impact increases like pollution and that increases human health and gives rise to air-bone disease. As a result people tend to use open fields to defecate, illegal dumping, discharge of untreated waste water into wrong streams. The full range of technical options for providing adequate basic sanitation is still not widely known nor are the characteristics of the different options well understood. In particular, there is little appreciation of the long-term financial, environmental and institutional implications of operating and maintaining the various sanitation systems.As a result, in many cases communities and local governments are choosing technical options that, in the long term, are unaffordable and/or unsustainable. C hallenges arise from the wide range of options available and the differing environments and conditions to which each is suited. On-site sanitation is the main form of excreta disposal in most sub-Saharan African cities and will remain the most appropriate level of service for the urban poor in the medium term. Despite heavy public investment in sewerage systems in most primary and some secondary cities, typically only 10-15% of the urban population benefit from access to the sewer network.About 80% of the urban population depends on on-site facilities such as septic tanks and pit latrines which, unlike sewers, are usually the responsibility of households. Acknowledgements I would like to humbly acknowledge everybody who supported me with prayers and encouragement My supervisor, Mr. C. Muanda, thank you for your mentorship and guidance The group members for the support they gave me when hope was gone. My friends who opened up their house for me to become a study area My Family, thank you for your guidance and teachings My dear wife, I love you, thank you for being there for me, supporting me andMostly to my God, thank you Father for giving me strength every day Table of Contents Page Declarationii Abstractiii Acknowledgementsiv Table of Contentsv List of Figuresviii List of Tablesix List of Symbolsx Terms and conceptsxi Chapter 1Introduction1 1. 1Background and Motivation1 1. 2Research problem1 1. 3Research Question1 1. 4Objectives and outcomes2 1. 5Significance2 1. 6Delineation2 1. 7Assumptions2 1. 8Methodology2 1. 9Organisation of dissertation3 Chapter 2Literature review and theory4 2. 1Introduction4 2. 2Purpose of Sanitation Technologies4 2. 2. 1Planning Principles for Sanitation Facilities4 . 3Selection of Appropriate Sanitation Technologies6 2. 3. 1Low cost sanitation technology6 2. 3. 2Institutional technologies for sanitation6 2. 4Mobile Communal Sanitation Facilities7 2. 4. 1Types of Mobile Communal Sanitation Facilities7 2. 4. 2Wet system7 2. 5Operatio nal Requirements8 2. 5. 1Dry system8 2. 6Implementation Challenges in South Africa8 2. 6. 1Implementation Challenges at Provincial level9 2. 6. 2Implementation Challenges at City level9 2. 6. 3Implementation challenges within community and household level9 2. 7Types of Sanitation Facilities10 2. 7. 1Improved sanitation facilities10 . 7. 2Unimproved sanitation facilities10 2. 7. 3Unimproved sanitation (bucket system)10 2. 7. 4Improved sanitation (Septic tank)10 2. 8On-site sanitation11 2. 9Off-site sanitation11 2. 10Sanitation Guidelines for End-user11 2. 11Planning and Design for Sanitation by Local Authorities12 2. 11. 1Implementation process during planning12 2. 12Sanitation Provision Policy12 2. 13Costs13 2. 13. 1Cost on various levels13 2. 14Conclusion13 2. 15References15 Chapter 3Research methodology16 3. 1Research design16 3. 2Research methodology16 3. 2. 1Data16 3. 2. 2Data Collection16 3. 2. 3Research Equipment17 . 3Methodology17 3. 3. 1Objective 1 – To investigate av ailable sanitation technologies provided to informal settlement from operational, design, maintenance and cost. 17 3. 3. 2Objective 218 3. 3. 3Objective 3 – Selection of the suitable option18 3. 4Semi Structured Interviews19 Chapter 4Discussion20 4. 1Types of Sanitation Technologies20 4. 1. 1Dry toilets20 4. 1. 2MobiSan (Mobile Sanitation)21 4. 1. 3Conservancy tank21 4. 1. 4VIP (Ventilated Improved Pit)22 4. 2On-site Sanitation22 4. 2. 1Pour flush slabs22 4. 2. 2Communal or shared technologies23 4. 2. 3Septic Tank24 4. 3Design24 4. Manufactures Cost25 4. 4. 1MobiSan toilets25 4. 4. 2Pre-cast toilets25 4. 5Photographs25 Figure 4. 1 Cluster of communal toilets26 4. 6STATS SA26 4. 6. 1Population census 200126 Chapter 5Discussion28 5. 1Sanitation Technology Options28 5. 2Operation and Maintenance29 5. 3Selection of an Appropriate Technology30 5. 3. 1Key issues raised for selection appropriate technology30 5. 4Sanitation Provision Approach31 5. 4. 1Supply driven sanitation31 5. 4. 2Demand driven sanitation31 5. 5Performance of these Sanitation Facilities31 There is not enough space due to the density of the settlements. 40 5. Guidelines and Policy42 5. 6. 1Strategy for Sanitation Services to Informal Settlements42 5. 6. 2Costing Guideline for Sanitation Facilities42 5. 7Basic Sanitation Policy Principles44 1. Sanitation must respond to the demands of communities and should link to improved hygiene awareness. For people to benefit from sanitation improvements, everybody must understand the link between their own health, good hygiene and toilet facilities. 44 2. Communities must be fully involved in projects. DWAF is only the regulator. Citizens have rights but also responsibilities in taking charge of their own health. 4 3. Sanitation must be provided in conjunction with water supply and other municipal services. 44 4. Sanitation is more than just toilets; it must be accompanied by environmental and health education. 44 5. Access to basic sanitation is a huma n right. 44 6. Local government has the constitutional responsibility to provide access to sanitation services. 44 7. Scarce public funds must be prioritised to help those most at risk. 44 8. Limited national funds should be fairly distributed throughout the country. 44 9. Water has an economic value and must be protected through sanitation. 44 10.Polluters must pay to clean up the water and the environment they have polluted. 44 11. Sanitation must be financially sustainable. 44 12. The environment must be protected when sanitation systems are set up and run. 44 5. 7. 1What will the Basic Household Policy Achieve? 44 CHAPTER 6 Recommendation and Conclusion45 References47 Appendices48 Appendix A. Questionnaire for users48 List of Figures Page Body Figure 2. 1 Sample Figure CaptionError! Bookmark not defined. Figure 2. 2 [Replace this text with your own caption – don't forget to cite reference if appropriate – don't change figure numbering or caption style]Error!Bookmar k not defined. Figure 2. 3 [Replace this text with your own caption – don't forget to cite reference if appropriate – don't change figure numbering or caption style]Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 2. 4 Replace this text with your own caption – don't forget to cite reference if appropriate – don't change figure numbering or caption style – these are Blue Hills –don’t put them or Blue Sky stuff in your dissertation. (Name, 2007)Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 3. 1 Sample Figure CaptionError! Bookmark not defined. Figure 4. 1 Sample Figure CaptionError! Bookmark not defined. Figure 4. 2Sample figure and figure caption (Name, year)Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 4. 3 Sample figure and figure caption. Make sure figure is big enough to read easily – not like this one! (Name, year)Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendices Figure A. 1 Sample appendix figure caption48 Figure A. 2 Sample appendix figure caption48 Figure B. 1 Sa mple appendix figure captionError! Bookmark not defined. Figure B. 2 Sample appendix figure captionError! Bookmark not defined. Figure C. 1 Sample appendix figure caption49 Figure C. 2 Sample appendix figure captionError! Bookmark not defined. Figure D. 1 Sample appendix figure caption49Figure D. 2 Sample appendix figure caption49 Figure D. 3 Sample appendix figure caption49 List of Tables Page Body Table 4. 1Replace this text and table with your own – don't forget to cite reference if appropriate – don't change table numbering or caption styleError! Bookmark not defined. Table 4. 2 Sample Table (note use of repeated header as table split across page – only split if it can’t be avoided) (Name, year)Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4. 3Replace this text and table with your own – don't forget to cite reference if appropriate – don't change table numbering or caption style (Name, year)Error! Bookmark not defined.Appendices Table A. 1 Example Appendix table caption (Name, year)Error! Bookmark not defined. Table A. 2 Another appendix table example48 Table A. 3 Example Appendix table caption (Name, year)48 Table A. 4 Another appendix table example48 Table B. 1 Example Appendix table caption (Name, year)Error! Bookmark not defined. Table B. 2 Another appendix table exampleError! Bookmark not defined. Table B. 3 Example Appendix table caption (Name, year)Error! Bookmark not defined. Table B. 4 Another appendix table exampleError! Bookmark not defined. Table C. 1 Example Appendix table caption (Name, year)Error!Bookmark not defined. Table C. 2 Another appendix table example49 Table C. 3 Example Appendix table caption (Name, year)49 Table C. 4 Another appendix table example49 Table D. 1 Example Appendix table caption (Name, year)49 Table D. 2 Another appendix table example49 Table D. 3 Example Appendix table caption (Name, year)49 Table D. 4 Another appendix table example49 List of Symbols Constants ab| Distance between mid-ch ord and elastic axis(mm)| | B| Airfoil half-chord(mm)| | C| Non-dimensional distance between airfoil mid-chord and flap hinge line(-)| | U| Free stream velocity(m/s)| | W| Flexure width(mm)| |X| Distance along span(mm)| | x? | Non-dimensional distance between airfoil pitch axis and airfoil cg(-)| | x? | Non-dimensional distance between flap hinge axis and flap cg(-)| | | | | Greek letters ?| Pitch angle (rad)| | ?| Flap angle (rad)| | | Commanded flap angle (rad)| | ?| Tensile stress (MPa)| | ?| Shear stress (MPa)| | ?| Flutter frequency in (rad/s)| | | | | Subscripts/superscripts A| Aerodynamic| | H| Related to plunge degree of freedom| | ?| Related to pitch degree of freedom| | ?| Related to flap degree of freedom| | S| Structural| | W| Wing| | T| Flutter frequency in (rad/s)| | | | | Terms and conceptsVIP| Ventilated Improvement Pit| UDS| Urine Diversion System| Eco San| Ecological Sanitation| MCSF| Mobile Community Sanitation Facility| MO| Municipal Officer| IS| Informal Settle ment| MobiSan| Mobile Sanitation| AB| Ablution Block| Introduction The main objective of a sanitation system is to protect and promote human health by providing a clean environment and breaking the cycle of disease. In order to be sustainable a sanitation system has to be not only economically viable, socially acceptable and technically and institutionally appropriate, but it should also protect the environment and the natural resources.When improving an existing and/or designing a new sanitation system, sustainability criteria related to the following aspects should be considered, health, includes the risk of exposure to pathogens and hazardous substances that could affect public health at all points of the sanitation system from the toilet via the collection and treatment system to the point of reuse or disposal. This literature review covers types of sanitation, characteristics of sanitation, sanitation provision policy, criteria for selection of sanitation, conclusion. Backgroun d and MotivationThe influx of migrants to cities is placing a huge burden to infrastructure delivery in the Western Cape. This burden leads to the need for shelter and that in turn means that land is invaded illegally. The population now creates informal settlements. The rise of informal settlements leads to the lack of basic infrastructure such as water and sanitation. The environmental impact increases like pollution and that increases human health and gives rise to air-bone disease. As a result people tend to use open fields to defecate, illegal dumping, discharge of untreated waste water into wrong streams.Informal settlements by their nature are quite densely populated and access through the settlement is quite hard. Basic services are larking due to the fact there are no structures that govern the raise of settlements and the need to deliver basic sanitation services increases. There is a huge need to analyse which technology functions within the limits experienced in informal settlements. Research problem The influx of migrants from rural area impoverished and densely populated areas in South Africa towards prosperous regions is creating immense pressures on the existing infrastructure.The conditions of life to informal settlements tend to be poor, with low mobility, and difficult access to health, education, recreation and sanitation. Informal settlements are created without planning and basic infrastructure. Due to the large number of sanitation technologies available and dynamic of these informal settlements, the choice of suitable and sustainable sanitation technology is of utmost importance. Currently, sanitation services provided are not accepted by settlers. Where it is supplied, it is vandalised or misused.This results in unnecessary pressure on decision makers to provide adequate sanitation and loss of investment. Research Question Which is the most practical low cost sanitation technology that can be provided for informal settlements in the We stern Cape? Objectives and outcomes The aim of this work is to investigate the existing sanitation technologies provided to informal settlements in the Western Cape. To investigate available sanitation technologies provided in informal settlement (Cape Flats) technology by outlying, (advantages & disadvantages) from operational, design, maintenance and cost perspective.To classify the types of sanitation according to the characteristics; (dry or wet sanitation; individual or communal). To select the most suitable sanitation options. Recommend the most suitable option. A questioner will be used to find view points of the community within informal settlements. Operational costs and Structural costs per unit Significance This study intends to provide a Better Understanding of sanitation facilities within the Western Cape within informal settlements and to compare the cost implications of such facilities. DelineationThis study will focus only on the sanitation facilities within informal settlements in the Western Cape. The research will compare sanitation facilities provided for highly serviced areas within the Western Cape and the design for formal settlements will be mentioned. Assumptions The expected results of the study are as follow: †¢An overview of sanitation technologies provided to informal settlements †¢Outline key criteria used for selecting the area for the technology †¢Provide a cost effective sanitation technology for informal settlements MethodologyThere will be three (3) informal settlements around the Western Cape that will be selected based on the type of sanitation provided. (Kuyasa, New Crossroad and Nyanga). Field visits will be conducted to look at each sanitation type provided for the people of that particular informal settlement. Visual assessment will used as a way of assessing the facilities at selected case study sites. The assessment will be done with the following: -Design -Operation -Maintenance operations & cost effec tiveness -Interview with a Water & Sanitation official -Views of usersOrganisation of dissertation Here you must describe briefly how the dissertation unfolds. Don’t just list the chapter headings – say a little about each one. Introduce the chapters in the order in which they appear and give an overview of the main points considered in each, except for your introduction (Chapter 1) of which this is the last section i. e. it is reasonable to assume this introduction has just been read. Simply state what is covered in each chapter and in what order, to reveal the logic and structure of the dissertation. Do not give any proofs, arguments or results here.Complete this section last to ensure it describes the dissertation accurately. Literature review and theory This chapter is about the comparison of low cost sanitation technologies provided to informal settlements Introduction The main objective of a sanitation system is to protect and promote human health by providing a clean environment and breaking the cycle of disease. In order to be sustainable a sanitation system has to be not only economically viable, socially acceptable and technically and institutionally appropriate, but it should also protect the natural resources and the environment.When improving an existing or designing a new sanitation system, sustainable aspects should be considered. Institutional appropriateness, sanitation technologies should be managed at the lowest appropriate level, such as municipalities. The household is a major factor in sustaining human health and the environment. Beneficiary communities from the provision of sanitation technologies, or from improvements to existing sanitation technologies, must be partners in the planning, implementation and, where appropriate, operation and maintenance of these technologies or improvements.Of course, sanitation planning cannot be done in a wholly decentralized way: there has to be a coherent city-wide approach to sanitation , but the planning process has to take into account the views of the intended beneficiaries and recognise that the sanitation solutions for very poor, poor and non-poor households are likely to be very different. Affordable sanitation technologies must be affordable for the households using them. In the Western Cape in particular consideration must be given to the affordability of sanitation technologies for poor and very poor households.Purpose of Sanitation Technologies Background The prime purpose of a sanitation system is to break the disease cycle caused by the bacteria in human excreta. To do so, the system has to combat exposure to infection through all the stages from the generation of excreta to their final disposal or reuse. It is important to emphasise again that human behaviour is crucial and fostering behavioural change is a key component of sanitation system planning. In this chapter, though, we are concerned with the functional elements of the system.While individual components will vary considerably with local circumstances and will differ from community to community, the division into elements creates flexibility and choice in developing appropriate solutions. Planning Principles for Sanitation Facilities There are a few principles that lead to beneficial changes for the community and the city as a whole. Below are the six (6) principles for affective strategic planning: 1. Respond on sound finance Service provision should respond to what the potential user wants and willing to pay for. 2. Focus on sound financesIntended users’ willingness to pay for sanitation systems will not be possible for expansion for facilities required. 3. Develop incentives for good practice Individuals and organisations act in a way that ensures the on-going availability of functioning sanitation services need to be incentives for good practice. 4. Involve stakeholders in appropriate ways Groups, individuals and organisation with an interest in some particular subject, in this case sanitation become stakeholders. All stakeholders need to be involved in developing policy context for sanitation acting as intermediaries between service user and service providers. . Take a wide view of sanitation Stakeholders should look beyond local solutions to narrowly defined problems and recognise the links between different sanitation services. Excreta disposal, solid waste management and drainage are interrelated and the impact of improvements in one will be reduced if they are carried out without regard to the others. 6. Take management steps towards intermediate objectives This principle is derived from the incremental approach to the development and implementation of strategies identified, when considering steps of improving set objectives.ELEMENTS TO BE CONSIRDED FOR SANITATION PURPOSES Five elements which need to be considered separately are as follows: †¢ The toilet – there is a wide range of latrines, water closets, urine-diversion toilets, etc. , that may be considered, depending on local circumstances. †¢ The collection system – septic tanks, pits, vaults, drums, may be appropriate in different environments. †¢ Transportation – large or small sewer systems, motorised, mechanical or manual haulage may need to be considered. Treatment – systems vary from sophisticated wastewater treatment plants and sludge digestion to simple composting systems and soil filtration. †¢ Use of sanitation products – urine, composted excreta and biogas are all important resources. If all five (5) elements for sanitation are adhered too then, Health, which is one of the aspects which include the risk of exposure to hazardous substances and pathogens that could affect public health at all points of the sanitation system from the toilet via the collection and treatment system to the point of reuse or disposal.Aspects such as hygiene, nutrition and improvement of livelihood achieved by the ap plication of a certain sanitation system, as well as downstream effects needs to be prioritized. Selection of Appropriate Sanitation Technologies The selection of appropriate sanitation technologies within informal settlements either locally (SA) or internationally, should be considered. . The physical environment and technical feasibility in which it can be installed (sanitation facility) for example; consideration has to be given for (altitude, ground slopes, soils, hydrogeology, housing density, liability to flooding and local climate.The selection must also be compatible both with local socio-cultural practices and preferences and with local socio-economic conditions, with the ability to pay for the sanitation arrangement selected and also willingness to pay for services rendered. Any selected low cost sanitation for any given community has to comply with the six (6) principles for sustainable sanitation. Low cost sanitation technology Sanitation is divided into two broad groups : on site and off site systems.The technologies are further divided into three (3) reuse categories: centralized reuse, intermittent reuse and decentralized reuse and these leads to different sets of sanitation solutions. Household or local community level is Decentralized reuse (a house block). Natural drainage basins within an urban area are Centralized reuse level (town, city), wastewater collection is required followed by wastewater treatment. Pit latrines, pour-flush toilets and septic tanks are all intermittent reuse which refers to on-site systems. Conventional sewerage is not covered as it is too expensive for informal settlements (IWA, 2004).Service delivery in a recent inventory indicates that most of the informal settlements are severely lagging behind in sanitation coverage. Government’s current approach is to aim to supply informal settlements with toilets to be shared within five (5) households. Most of the toilets are locked and their maintenance relies on the users. In the Western Cape especially in the Cape Flats area the types of toilets that are mostly used are chemical (Nyanga) and bucket system (New cross) as shared facilities while VIP and UDS are considered as individual facilities.The options mentioned are not always available or suitable for the informal settlements due to the nature of the settlements. These services are considered as emergency services but however remain with the communities for a long period of time (Mel’s et al, 2009). Institutional technologies for sanitation Institutional technologies for sanitation within South African government structures need to incorporate accountability. During the planning phase all sanitation technologies are prone to mismanagement (including sanitation selection).An assessment for the comparison of sanitation technology needs to include, who is responsible for what and the likelihood that these responsibilities can and will be effectively discharged over the appropriate tim eframes (short, medium and long term commitments). A non-prescriptive professional attitude and in depth local knowledge is required for assessment purposes (Mara et al, 2001). Comparison of the two arrangements is vital because they deal with people and government entities on how to handle sanitation. The CoCT plays a critical role in identifying the need for sanitation in each community. Mobile Communal Sanitation FacilitiesDue to the ever increasing need for free land and lack of space in our urban areas, alternative technologies in order to meet the sanitation demand and respond to the communities need to be made available. Temporary sanitation facilities such as the Mobile Communal Sanitation Facility (MCSF) have been introduced recently in areas where sanitation is to take place (Muanda, 2010). Types of Mobile Communal Sanitation Facilities Mobile Communal Sanitation Facility (MCSF) varies in terms of their design, operational and use requirements. MCSF can be classified accor ding to their operational requirements.In practice the common types that are found are either dry (not requiring water) and wet (requiring water). A system that uses both scenarios has been identified as an improvement solution dealing with various situations. Wet system This type of system requires water for its operation. There are several types of such systems that are being used throughout the world and in Africa such as the DMT (dignified mobile toilet). There are solar powered toilets, sewer connected mobile toilet. Mostly in South Africa the most commonly used system is the Kayaloo and Mobisan (Parkison et al, 2008). Dry systemThis type of sanitation system does not require water for its operation. There are a few in South Africa such as the Mobile Pit toilet. In the international arena the following system for dry systems technologies include the wheel toilet (Burkina Faso), composting mobile toilet (France), tricycle toilet (India and Sri Lanka) {Pickford, 1995}. Combined s ystem This type of system is a dual system that can be used as dry or wet sanitation; it can operate without the availability of water or sewer. In the international arena, the NMT (Nepal Mobile Toilet) is the commonly used system under this category (Parkison et al, 2008).South African perception of MCSF The perception of users of mobile sanitation facilities are context based. The most preferred type of sanitation in South Africa is the individual full waterborne flush toilet. Communities within informal settlements are demanding that this type of sanitation should be provided to them at any cost regardless of the type of topography, shelter or the status of the land occupied. MCSF are seen by communities that the level of service is closer to that off the full flush toilet despite the communal status of the facility and communities are comfortable using it.Communities believe that this type of sanitation provides dignity and privacy compared to other types of sanitation in the ar eas. The slow pace of delivery and the long waiting for the provision of the individual sanitation has changed people’s perception recently. Most of the communities feel that the type of technology brought for a temporary basis has turned up to be a permanent solution (Grootboom, 2010). Operational Requirements City of Cape Town (CoCT) for example most of the settlements (75%) are located on land that is owned by the municipality and a large share which is (22%) is located in private lands.Consent from the owner has to be obtained by the Water Services Department in order to deliver services on site. Permission by many owners is not given due the fact that communities will make their temporally settlement a permanent one. A major constraint for sanitation service provision is the high density of settlements. Dry system The operation of this system does not require water for its operation and this is how the dry system is defined. Dry mobile sanitation system requires a locati on where the facility needs to be installed and the disposal point or discharging excreta when the box is full at the bottom of the system for cleaning purposes (Scandura & Sobsey,1997). 2. 5. 2 Wet system The wet system for mobile sanitation requires water and sewer in order to make the system operational. A toilet bowl is connected under this sanitation system using a pipe linking to the sewer or septic tank. The system depends on water and cannot function if water is not available. In cases where there is no sewer line, the wastewater is pumped out and taken to a disposal site (Dorrigton, 2000). 2. 5. Combined system The combined system was designed to overcome the unavailability of water and the effects that can happen to the operation of such a system. It combines both systems and can be operated without water and with water (Parkison et al, 2008). Implementation Challenges in South Africa Communities in needy areas are waiting for the implementation of sanitation technology th at will provide dignified sanitation to them. The success for the implementation should be designed in such that all the parameters of the technology are not compromised.In the past the focus was mainly on the technology of the sanitation facility, and recently the attention has shifted to the implementation methods of sanitation technologies. Implementation means the process of introduction of sanitation in communities, not necessary the design, but the development process of sanitation. Introduction of the strategy and approach towards the community is vita (Classen, 2003). Professionals in this field feel that the implementation plan should have the environment as the first priority, then after the technical aspects to meet he human societal needs, and finally the economic requirements with these communities. It has become clear from, human societal needs are important and technology must help achieve this basic needs (Grootboom, 2010). Implementation Challenges at Provincial lev el The role of the provincial government needs to be clarified in the funding of urban infrastructure investments and the planning and the delivery of sanitation services is of utmost importance. A key challenge is the lack of capacity for sanitation promotion and progress monitoring.Evasion of funds that are exclusively allocated to sanitation is affecting service provision (Grootboom, 2010). Implementation Challenges at City level Key challenges at municipal levels are related to the following issues: The lack of mechanisms bearing in mind the range of organizations that have a stake in sanitation for inter-agency collaboration on planning and service delivery. Not all municipalities at present accept that there is a problem with excreta disposal. For the achievements of national sanitation goals there is a lack of incentives and accountability.There is a shortage of capacity within the municipality in infrastructure development, planning, service delivery and sanitation promotion . Poorly understood and complicated mechanisms for accessing and allocating capital funds. The private sectors service delivery and maintenance in the safe removal, treatment and disposal of septic tank is under-developed and unregulated. Existing infrastructure is poorly maintained and operated (Grootboom, 2010). Implementation challenges within the community and household level Communities need to play a role as the intended usurers in the implementation of sanitation facilities.The challenge occur at this level, when limited appreciation of the need for safe disposal of wastewater. In most cases those that occupy land illegally are excluded from municipal projects and planning processes thus posing threats to the provision or implementation of sanitation services (Classen, 2003). For any technology to be embraced by the community they have to be involved from the inception phase, design phase and during the construction phase so that they can embrace the services being rendered b y government institutions.CoCT and Local government face a huge back log of housing projects that can play a role in elevating sanitation stumbling blocks within informal settlements. Implementation challenges within community and household level Communities need to play a role as the intended usurers in the implementation of sanitation facilities. The challenge occur at this level, when limited appreciation of the need for safe disposal of wastewater. In most cases those that occupy land illegally are excluded from municipal projects and planning processes thus posing threats to the provision or implementation of sanitation services (Classen, 2003).For any technology to be embraced by the community they have to be involved from the inception phase, design phase and during the construction phase so that they can embrace the services being rendered by government institutions. CoCT and Local government face a huge back log of housing projects that can play a role in elevating sanitati on stumbling blocks within informal settlements. Types of Sanitation Facilities The type of sanitation facilities listed below can be found throughout the Western Cape.The type of technology used for a particular settlement depends on the following elements which determine the final product being utilised i. e. topography, population, water resource and availability of the facility. Improved sanitation facilities This are facilities which are not shared or public, for example; flush or pour flush, piped system, pit latrine, septic tank, ventilated improved pit latrine with slab and compositing toilet (Franceys et. al 1992). Unimproved sanitation facilitiesExcreta is flushed to the street, yard or plot, open sewer, a ditch, a drainage way or other location pit latrine without slab or open pit, bucket, hanging toilet or hanging latrine and no facilities or bush or field (Lemer, 1996). Unimproved sanitation (bucket system) Design and function In the South African context the bucket is always black, pvc and is about 38 cm in diameter at the top and 30 cm at the bottom and has adequate handles for lifting and carrying. The collection chamber is situated below the squatting seat.All the chambers are open at the rear of the latrine, into the service lane used for collection. The collection chamber must be fly and animal proof. The chamber needs to be ventilated by means of a pipe vent carried to roof level of the superstructure (Pickford, 1995). Collection and conveyance of buckets On a weekly basis collection are done and gets replaced with a disinfected bucket. Buckets that are emptied into a tank and are returned immediately the practice should be condemned unreservedly.The time of the collection should be done in partnership with the community affected. Buckets are emptied at the disposal sites, thoroughly washed, and disinfected with phenol or creosol type of disinfectant before being stores away and re-used (Pickford, 1995). Improved sanitation (Septic tank) Th e most satisfactory unit all water-carried systems and the most useful system of disposal of excreta and other liquid wastes from individual dwellings, small groups of houses, or institutions located in informal settlements out of reach of sewer systems.The septic tank consists of a covered settling tank into which the raw sewage is led by the building sewer. Inside the septic tank the processes constitute the primary treatment of raw sewage; and those which occur in the disposal field form the secondary treatment. All liquids wastes, including those from bathrooms and kitchens, may be sent to the septic tank without endangering its normal operation. Contrary to popular belief, recent research has shown that sullage waste can and should be discharged into septic tanks (Lemer, 1996).On-site sanitation As it was mentioned before that there are two types of sanitation systems in this instance the On-site sanitation systems is generally designed and must operate in such a way excreta is deposited into a man-made container, usually a subsurface excavation or tank. The common trend to all forms of on-site sanitation is that decomposition process and settlement is performed on-site. This is the most low-cost sanitation system as it has various types of pit latrines. They can be either wet or dry systems.Due to the shortage of space and availability of land in informal settlements this system operates the best under these conditions (Lemer, 1996). Off-site sanitation This type of sanitation system transports sewage through sewer pipes using water. An off-site sanitation system only transport faecal matter away from households and does not include on-site decomposition to a significant degree. This type of system depends largely on the topography of the area and the planning around the system. There must be enough land and space before such a system is created, which is difficult in informal settlements.The cost of such a system is quite high (Scandura and Sobsey, 1997 ). The availability of funds and the topography play an important role in the decision making on what type of technology communities should have within informal settlements. Sanitation Guidelines for End-user Greater user acceptance is achieved through user involvement and influence in selection, implementation and management including operation of the technology is borne out of understanding and experience that people best understand their own development situation, social, cultural and religious practices.If the communities are involved it leads to greater ownership and empowerment and would translate into greater acceptance of responsibility and hence the technology. It is within the human nature to be more receptive and supportive when asked about one’s opinion as opposed to being dictated or told to what’s is best for oneself (Mara, 1996). Note the following reasons why services fail: †¢Ineffective planning, monitoring, evaluation and interventions †¢Poo r technical capacity to implement †¢Hygiene and inappropriate use practises. †¢Low user acceptance and satisfaction †¢Inadequate community involvement Low priority and †¢Lack of responsibilities between municipal, community and household Finally- it is of great importance not to move too fast from temporary programmes to full-scale programmes, the community need to receive the programme so that it is not rejected. Planning and Design for Sanitation by Local Authorities Sanitation technology is adequately dependent on the appropriate design specification is borne out of the understanding that the correct design standards and locally appropriate materials would enhance the durability of the technology in a given local context.Planning plays a pivotal role as it is used as an important factor to determine whether appropriate and sustainable sanitation technologies are achieved. A planning model that integrates everyone is ideal (WSP, 2007) that takes place within th e Integrated Development Planning (IDP) process (DWAF, 2001). The various sanitation options are demonstrated through the IDP process. A top-down to bottom-up approach for a planning model should drive the demand and should be entirely people centred, best achieved through a collective model (Tilley, 2008). Implementation process during planningA methodology for the provision of sanitation is necessary to establish sanitation for low-income settlements and to support and equip personal responsible for provision of sanitation to low-income settlements (Muanda, 2010). In the planning process specific emphasis for adequate functioning of the technology is placed on the environmental aspect, that local environmental and geological condition are considered and that the technology does not adversely impact on the environment (DWAF, undated). The recurring points that need to be systemised are as follows; Human rights and socio-cultural needs should be considered †¢Affordability for t he user †¢Sanitation should be demand driven †¢Stakeholder participation †¢Support, regulation and implementation within the community participation framework should be considered. †¢Provision for construction should be to locals. †¢Community linkage at all levels During the implementation place it is important to include health and hygiene training as to ensure improved health and hygiene practice (Still et. al, 2009). What happens in the case where a local authority has provided such training?Over time many new comers arrive into the settlement (as is the case in many informal settlements)? The only solution to the question here is to train trainers in the community who will be responsible for constantly creating awareness in their community (DWAF, 2009). Sanitation Provision Policy South Africa despite being a democratic country for more than a decade, with a sound constitution and sound policies there is still high levels of poverty and inequalities and budgetary realignments designed to address the legacies of the past and steady economic growth (DWAF, undated).Some policies have been relatively successful but still South Africa has the second highest in equality in the world behind Brazil (UNICEF, 2000). The fact is that by 1996 not that much had been achieved by way of sanitation provision in any of the provinces (DBSA, 2009). Sanitation has become a high priority on the development agenda, and not just with the Water Supply and Sanitation (WSS) sector specialist. The opportunities for financial support are better than ever, the political commitment is there, so as to deliver sustainable sanitation services to more than two billion people by 2015.A further 1,089 million rural and 1,085 million urban dwellers will need to gain access in the coming 15 years if the 2015 target is to be achieved. The first democratic government since 1994 has put in place policies that address the apartheid health legacy of racial discrimination. Du ring this process, several key-pro equity policies were inherited in the public sector. In the South African context the policy not only influences the approach to the financing and management of projects but also their technical features (WHO, 1999). CostsSocio-cultural landscapes and local variations in the physical landscape necessitate local input into the selection process and any preconceived ideas should be put on hold. Discussions with the targeted community about local capital and operation and maintenance costs have to be determined in each case that will enable the community and local authorities to come to a decision based on affordability. It is important that agencies reporting comparative costs on a wholly transparent basis, so that only the â€Å"true† basic costs of sanitation arrangement are presented to the communities (DBSA, 2009).Cost on various levels There are five (5) principles for various levels. †¢All costs relating to the provision of sanitati on service should be included †¢A distinction should be made between capital and operating costs †¢A clear distinction has to be made between internal and bulk services †¢Costs services must be expressed as current replacement at capacity cost. †¢Costs to be reduced per area or site. Cost sanitation technologies can also be influenced through the natural features such as vegetation, terrain and water availability and climatic conditions generally within the settlements.Conclusion The sanitation approach includes the perception, feel and practices involved in satisfying the primal need to defecate and urinate. Societal sanitation approach determines the nature of sanitation which serves as the crucial link between an unhealthy and healthy living environment. The term sanitation includes the safe disposal of domestic waste. For the purposes of this research, the structure seeks to understand the appropriate sanitation and identify a sanitation structure that is cos t effective and will be sustainable in informal settlements.Sanitation facilities are used to improve human dignity regardless of the area and the circumstances of the people. In this study we have looked at the process that needs to be followed in order to have sanitation technologies that safe guard the people. In informal settlements due to the nature of their existence and the lack of formal services, the communities usually do not take ownership of these facilities. The onus is upon government to train people about the importance of sanitation. The study focussed mostly on technologies that are used internationally and locally.The comparison of this technologies will be based on cost, structural intact and the maintenance therefore of the technology. References Rockstrom, Johan et al. : Sustainable Pathways to attain the Millennium Development Goals Assessing the Key Role of Water, Energy and Sanitation, Stockholm Environmental Institute, 2005. WHO & UNICEF: Meeting the MDG Dri nking Water and Sanitation Target – The urban and rural challenge. WSSCC/Sandec (2000). The Bellagio Statement on Sustainable Sanitation. Jenssen et al. , 2004 P. D. Jenssen, J. Heeb, E. Huba-Mang, K. Gnanakan, S. W. Warner, K. Refsgaard, Stenstorm Thor-Axel, B.Guterstam and K. W. Alsen, Ecological sanitation and reuse of wastewater, ecosan, a thinkpiece on ecological sanitation (2004). HDR (Human Development Report), 2006 HDR (Human Development Report), Beyond Scarcity: Power, poverty and the global water crisis, United Nations Development Programme, New York (2006). Dorrington RE, Bradshaw D, Budlender D. HIV/AIDS Profile of the Provinces of South Africa—Indicators for 2002. Cape Town, South Africa: Centre for Actuarial Research, Medical Research Council and the Actuarial Society of South Africa, University of Cape Town; 2002. Rogerson, C. (1993); South African policy lessons.Urban Forum Vol. 4; No. 2. Housing Conditions, sanitation status and associated health risks in selected subsidized low- cost housing settlements in Cape Town, South Africa. Govender, T. Jo M. Barnes. Joubert A, Stewart T (2003). Evaluation of water supply augmentation and water demand management options for the City of Cape Town, journal of Multi-criteria Decision Analysis. Lemanski, C (2009). Augmented informality; South Africans backyard dwellings as a by-product of formal housing policies. WHO, (2006). Surveillance, planning, financing. Available online. City of Cape Town, Department of housing, (2004).Breaking new ground, comprehensive plan for housing delivery. Available online. Research methodology This chapter provides a comprehensive description of the comparison methods used to analyse sanitation technologies in informal settlements (IS). It outlines an overview of the research design, data collection, research equipment and research methodology used in order to meet the study objectives. Research design This section of the study is made up of the following: * Li terature review which compromises of literature, a body review, a framework, a body of knowledge with regards to sanitation technologies. Data collection which compromise methods used to collect required data * Data Analysis and Presentation in the light of the literature review to determine the trends used for sanitation technologies for IS. Research methodology This study intends to provide a better understanding of sanitation facilities within the Western Cape within informal settlements and to compare the cost implications of such facilities. Data The data required in order to archive the study objectives includes the type of sanitation technology for IS and the cost in relation to sanitation technology.Data acquired was based on the following: †¢Type of sanitation †¢Cost (Operational & Maintenance) †¢Cost (Infrastructure) †¢Advantages and Disadvantages of On-site sanitation †¢Advantages and Disadvantages of Off-site sanitation Data Collection In order t o collect data two methods are used (Two interviews & Site visits). * Site visits on selected IS in order to assess the type of sanitation technology being used. The site visits where done by conducting visual assessment in three informal settlements with the Metro. Data was collected by comparing the types of technology that is being used within each settlement.A questionnaire template was used to gather user’s views and opinions on the technologies offered by the municipality. * An interview with the Municipal Officer (MO) to confirm or validate data/technology on site and the cost of the technology. The interview was set out to ascertain the magnitude and the need of sanitation facilities within informal settlements which is done by the municipality. Operational and maintenance cost of the technology being used was collected for comparison purposes. * An interview with manufactures of sanitation technologies was conducted in order to confirm cost per unit.All the manufactu res that where contacted where primary manufactures that the municipality procures all their sanitation technologies. Rocla was one of the manufactures that was interviewed about their precast toilets. Rocla has two sets of precast toilets one with sanitation facilities and one without sanitation facilities. A comparison of the two technologies has been tabled in Chapter 4. Santec was also interviewed about their Mobile toilets which comprised two sets of toilets (dry & wet). A comparison of the two technologies is outlined in Chapter 4.Research Equipment The following equipment was used for this study: * Pen; this tool was used to capture raw data from site. * Laptop; ; the laptop is used to store all data collected and is also used to make tables to present all the research work into a document * Digital Camera; the digital camera was used to take pictures on site and during interviews. * Mobile phone; mobile phones where used as a means of communication amongst all stakeholders i nvolved. * Fax Machine; was used to send and also receive data from stakeholders without email facilities and scans. Landline; the tool was used for communication between office hours and is the most affordable means of communication. Methodology Objective 1 – To investigate available sanitation technologies provided to informal settlement from operational, design, maintenance and cost. The objective was implemented by conducting of site visits, during which visual assessments where used to compile the name of the technology, specific technical aspects such as design and the condition of the technologies on site. Below is a list of design technologies within informal settlements that where visited. * Porta potiies * Chemical toilets Container toilets * Conservancy tanks * Pour flush toilets * Pit latrines * Urine diversion toilets * MobiSan toilets * Environmental loo Objective 2 * To classify the types of sanitation according to the characteristics (dry or wet sanitation; in dividual or communal). Classification of the technology was done by identifying individual and communal sanitation technologies. * * Dry sanitation | * Wet sanitation| * A dry toilet differs from a flush toilet (water closet) in that it does not need water. Excreta are collected directly beneath the seat in a shallow pit, container, chamber, such as the bucket system.Confusion must cleared between the systems especially latrine system which is constructed on a deep pit. Dry toilets ranges include a squatting plate or pedestal, with a smooth finished surface and is often utilised in limited area to minimise soiling. | * These are the conventional full flush system with sewers and waste water treatment plants, full flush systems with septic tank and small bore sewers, and the full flush systems with shallow sewerage. With septic tanks will significantly reduce operating costs, while the third system shallow sewers will significantly reduce the capital costs.The advantages of this grou p of toilets are that they operate as full flush toilets, can accommodate grey water disposal, and are well suited to densely populated areas where the plot sizes are insufficient to treat and drain household wastes. | * Objective 3 – Selection of the suitable option The suitable option was based on the advantages and disadvantages on the interview and the cost of the technology by the manufacture. The selected option is also based on the manufacture’s specification which used on site by the municipality and the budget allocated to the MO for that particular region.Advantages of On-site sanitation| Disadvantages of On-site sanitation| The system must be simple to construct, operate and maintain| This system is not suitable for substrata with hard rock and high water table conditions. | Installation should be less expensive and maintenance the same| The is a high possibility of pathogens contaminating the groundwater| Pollution of water surface should be eliminated| In highly densely populated urban areas such as informal settlements crucial groundwater resources can get contaminated. | Semi Structured InterviewsSemi structured interviews were conducted to collect data from users to obtain the users views on sanitation technologies and the type of service the municipality is rendering. Users were asked questions on sanitation situations, technology selection, performance of facilities, appropriateness of the technologies, operational and maintenance of the facilities. A total of twelve (12) interviews were conducted. See (Appendix A) for the questionnaire template. Table 1 shows the distribution of the interviews conducted. Area| No. of interviews| Gugulethu| 4| Khayelitsha| 4| Nyanga| 4|TOTAL| 12| Table 1Distribution of interviews The questionnaires were administered on site with the users of the selected informal settlements. Administration of questionnaires was conducted in Xhosa since most of the users were comfortable speaking the language. D ue to the lack of finding suitable donor’s to fund our survey only small sample was administered that actually uses the facilities. Discussion This section of study reflects the visual assessment that was conducted on site. A questioner was used to ascertain the level of service from the end user on the three (3) identified sites.A comparison of technologies that is being offered in informal settlements by the municipality is also reflected. The physical structure of the technologies being offered by manufactures to municipalities. Operational and maintenance cost implication from the manufacture and that cost is later transferred or felt by the municipality. Types of Sanitation Technologies Technology| Settlement Name| Suburb Name| Porta potiies| KTC| Nyanga| Chemical toilets| KTC| Nyanga| Conservancy toilets| Monwabisi Park| Khayelitsha| Pour flush toilets| Barcelona| Gugulethu|Pit Latrines| Monwabisi Park | Khayelitsha| MobiSan toilets. | KTC| Nyanga| Dry toilets A dry toi let differs from a flush toilet (water closet) in that it does not need water. Excreta are collected directly beneath the seat in a shallow pit, container, chamber, such as the bucket system. Confusion must cleared between the systems especially latrine system which is constructed on a deep pit. Dry toilets ranges include a squatting plate or pedestal, with a smooth finished surface and is often utilised in limited area to minimise soiling.ADVANTAGES| COST| DISADVANTAGES| No water required for flushing| Capital: R2000 – R 3500. 00 which can increase where soils not suited to drainage. | The toilet has to be cleaned without using much water. | Easy to construct with local material| Operating: R150 – R300 per annum where subsoil drainage is available| Collected excreta has to be carefully handled, excreta contains pathogens| May be used indoors| | Excreta have to be removed frequently to avoid smells, especially if the toilets are indoors| MobiSan (Mobile Sanitation)Mobi San (Mobile Sanitation) system in many ways has many advantages over existing dry systems. Below is a list of those advantages; MobiSan Advantages| MobiSan Disadvantages| The MobiSan system is an independent and self-contained system and has been proven that the system does not affect ground water at all. Faeces and urine are stored separately in the MobiSan. Urine is channelled away and the faeces fall into a ventilated chamber. The construction of the system is such that a handle on the outside of the cabin allows the solid waste to be stirred.The steering speeds up the drying of the excrement. The excrement is then channelled into a second component where this drying process is repeated again. The end product is dried up, it is pathogen-free manure that can be safely used to fertilise local vegetable gardens within the communities in informal settlements. This system lends itself as a more aesthetic and hygienic option for residents in informal settlements. | The technology provi ded is prone to vandalism and becomes full within a short period. Operating costs are very high. | Conservancy tank ADVANTAGES| COST| DISADVANTAGES|Waste is flushed into the tank where it is contained in isolation from the surrounding environment. | Capital: R2000 – R 5000. 00 depending on top structure and tank volume| Becomes full if domestic wastewater levels are high. | Easy to construct with local material| Operating: R 550. 00 per household and emptying cost estimated at R181 per tank. The tank is emptied on average 3 times per year| Emptying cost over the lifespan of the technology is quite high. | VIP (Ventilated Improved Pit) ADVANTAGES| COST| DISADVANTAGES| Applicable in rock terrain| Capital: R2500 – R 4500. 0Depending on householder input. | . Collected excreta has to be carefully handled, excreta contains pathogens| Does not require deep excavation| Operating: R35 – R135 every 2 years. | Prone to smells. | On-site Sanitation On-site sanitation has c ertain requirements, which need to be investigated before adopting the system. †¢The system must have adequate space for locating toilets and leach pits. †¢The designated site must have porous subsoil to absorb liquid content of excreta and †¢The groundwater depth should be greater than 1,5m from ground level.ADVANTAGES OF On-site sanitation| DISADVANTAGES OF On-site sanitation| The system must be simple to construct, operate and maintain| This system is not suitable for substrata with hard rock and high water table conditions. | Installation should be less expensive and maintenance the same| The is a high possibility of pathogens contaminating the groundwater| Pollution of water surface should be eliminated| In highly densely populated urban areas such as informal settlements crucial groundwater resources can get contaminated. | Pour flush slabs Pour flush slabs (squatting pans) are designed with a U-shaped facility which s partly filled with water under slab. The de sign which is U overcomes problems such as flies, mosquitoes’ and odour by serving as a water seal. After usage, excreta are manually flushed by pouring water into the pan with a scoop. The amount is about 1 to 4 litres of water which is required for each flush. The amount of water depends mainly on the design of the facility and the U-trap. This type of toilet can be made from plastic and ceramic, or from galvanized sheet metal . ADVANTAGES| COST| DISADVANTAGES| High level of convenience for the user| Capital: R 2000- R 3500 which can increase where soils are not well suited to drainage. Blockages occur a lot within these systems| The design reduces the need to handle fresh excreta. | Operating: R 150 – R 300 per annum where subsoil drainage is available| Requires small amounts of water for flushing| Can be used indoors| | Limited emptying service. | Communal or shared technologies In areas where there is not enough space, the sharing of latrines between several famil ies is a useful solution. The common situation is where groups of households or small communal areas have latrines to be used by all the families.The ownership of the latrines generally belongs to one of the houses, the owner of all the houses, or else ownership is shared between the households. The costs of pit emptying and other repairs is often included in the rent, causing problems when the owner does not live there, or the residents must collaborate to clean the latrine and collect money to get it emptied when necessary. This is a very widespread practice. Communal of blocks of latrines are located in a public area,