Published: Nov. 29, 2018 By , ,
graph that presents a comparison of how well sanitation and community priorities are addressed by conventional and resource recovery technologies. successful resource recovery technologies address the most priorities and failed conventional technologies address the least.

Sanitation acceptance is unlikely if user priorities are not addressed. However, sanitation systems are commonly implemented, especially in resource-limited communities, without incorporating local context. Understanding sanitation systems’ abilities to address different priorities will further inform technology selection processes. Therefore, a protocol was created to identify priorities and measure how well sanitation systems address them, based upon their importance to a community. This protocol was applied to 20 community-based sanitation systems in India. Overall, 52 sanitation and 40 community priorities were identified; most, along with their relative importance, were case-specific and not yet identified in literature. Existing sanitation systems poorly addressed priorities. Nonfunctional systems addressed the fewest, but, if use and maintenance were improved, they had the potential to address priorities almost as well as functional systems. Resource recovery systems addressed the most priorities, but there was usually minimal benefit to adding all three resources to an existing system; biogas and water had greater potential to address more priorities than compost. This priority addressment protocol can help identify the most appropriate technologies and strategies to improve technology development and success.

Davis, A., Javernick-Will, A., Cook, S., 2019. Priority Addressment Protocol: Understanding the Ability and Potential of Sanitation Systems to Address Priorities. Environmental Science & Technology 53, 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b04761