10
EXAMENSARBETE INOM TEKNIK OCH LÄRANDE, AVANCERAD NIVÅ, 30 HP
STOCKHOLM, SVERIGE 2017
An evaluation of the long-term functionality of Ecological
Sanitation (EcoSan) projects in rural Burkina Faso
Reuse of sanitized human excreta as fertilizer in local agriculture
ANNA JONSSON ANNA LAND
KTH
SKOLAN FÖR TEKNIKVETENSKAPLIG KOMMUNIKATION OCH LÄRANDE
EXAMENSARBETE INOM TEKNIK OCH LÄRANDE PÅ PROGRAMMET CIVILINGENJÖR OCH LÄRARE
Main Supervisor: Daniel Franzén, Royal Institute of Technology, School of Architecture and Built Environment.
Assistant supervisor: Iben Maj Christiansen, Stockholm University, Department of Mathematics and Science Education.
External supervisor: Sarah Dickin, Stockholm Environment Institute External client: Stockholm Environment Institute.
Examiner: Monika Olsson, Royal Institute of Technology, School of Architecture and Built Environment.
En utvärdering av den långsiktiga funktionaliteten av ekologiska
sanitetsprojekt på Burkina Fasos landsbygd
Återanvändning av hygieniserat mänskligt avfall som gödningsmedel i lokalt jordbruk
ANNA JONSSON
ANNA LAND
Abstract
2.4 billion people worldwide lack access to basic sanitation solutions, with major health and environmental impact as a result. The recently adopted worldwide Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) aim to reduce this problem and extend the access to basic sanitation. The sanitation systems have to be safe to manage, and resources such as nutrients within the waste be recovered to a great extent, for the system to be worthwhile. For Burkina Faso, a low-income country in West Africa, achieving the SDGs will be a challenge, especially considering the almost 9 million people that lack access to basic sanitation. One way of achieving this is through Ecological Sanitation (EcoSan), an innovation with the goal of protecting human health and enabling reuse of sanitized human excreta as fertilizer. The overall purpose of this study is to provide sanitation practitioners in Burkina Faso with useful information on how to better carry out EcoSan interventions in the future, within the scope of achieving the SDGs.
The study aim is to investigate why and to what extent earlier EcoSan latrines have not been used to their full capacity regarding nutrient recovery to local agriculture.
The results are mainly based on a household survey conducted on rural Burkinabe households possessing an EcoSan latrine and supplemented with focus group discussions, key informant interviews and measurements on site. To fulfill the study objective, a material flow analysis was performed which showed that nutrient losses of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium all were likely to exceed 80%, compared to the theoretically calculated values. Additionally, 14 barriers for recovery of nutrients were identified, where the most important ones concern urine collection and storage.
Furthermore, results showed that use and reuse practices tended to be higher if initial training focused on agricultural aspects rather than hygiene aspects.
Keywords: Sustainable sanitation, Ecological Sanitation, EcoSan, UDDT, Human excreta, Nutrient recovery, Ecological fertilizer.
Sammanfattning
2.4 miljarder människor världen över saknar idag tillgång till grundläggande sanitetslösningar, med stora effekter på människor hälsa och närmiljö som följd.
Tillgång till sanitet ska inte bara uppfyllas, enligt de nyligen antagna globala målen för hållbar utveckling (SDG) ska hantering av det mänskliga avfallet ske på ett säkert sätt samt att näringsresurserna i detta återvinnas. För Burkina Faso beläget i Västafrika och ett av världens fattigaste länder, kommer det bli en stor utmaning att uppnå SDG-målsättningarna, särskilt med tanke på de nästan 9 miljoner invånare som helt saknar tillgång till grundläggande sanitet. Ett sätt att uppnå målsättningarna är genom ekologisk sanitet (EcoSan), ett koncept med målen att skydda människors hälsa samt möjliggöra återanvändning av hygieniserat mänskligt avfall som gödningsmedel i det lokala jordbruket.
Det övergripande syftet med denna studie är att ge aktörer inom sanitetssektorn i Burkina Faso användbar information om hur EcoSan-interventioner kan genomföras bättre i framtiden inom ramen för SDG. Det närliggande syftet var att undersöka varför och i vilken utsträckning tidigare EcoSan-latriner inte har använts till sin fulla kapacitet när det gäller näringsåtervinning till det lokala jordbruket. Resultaten baseras huvudsakligen på en enkät på Burkinska hushåll som äger en EcoSan och kompletterades med fokusgruppdiskussioner, intervjuer med nyckelpersoner och mätningar. För att uppfylla syftet med projektet genomfördes en materialflödesanalys för att kvantifiera skillnaden mellan teoretisk och praktisk återföring av näringsämnena kväve, fosfor och kalium till jordbruket. Förlusten av samtliga tre näringsämnen överskred 80%. Dessutom identifierades 14 barriärer för återföringen, där de viktigaste rör insamling och lagring av urin. Hushållens återföringspraxis tenderade att bli högre om den initiala undervisningen var mer inriktad mot jordbruksaspekten än på hygienaspekten.
Nyckelord: Hållbar sanitet, Ekologisk sanitet, Ecological Sanitation, EcoSan, UDDT, Mänskligt avfall, Näringsåtervinning, Ekologiskt gödningsmedel.
Preface
In December 2016 when we first started to plan our master thesis project, the finish line was out of sight. Now we are almost there. It has been a bumpy ride from the beginning, with language barriers and a study area situated across the globe, but it has also been one of the best experiences of our lives so far. We are especially grateful for the opportunity to perform a field visit in Burkina Faso in April 2017.
Educationally, the master thesis has been the most rewarding course we have taken during our five years at KTH. In addition to having learned an incredible amount, not least about cooperation and communication, it feels like the master thesis has linked all different parts of our education together and prepared us for life after KTH.
For giving us the opportunity to perform this project, we would like to give our greatest thanks to our external supervisor Sarah Dickin and Stockholm Environment Institute. Sarah, we also want to thank you for always keeping a scientific approach and challenging us to grow in our role as researchers and persons. A varm thanks to Daniel Franzén, our main supervisor, for keeping a systematic and holistic view all throughout the project and for giving us energy and positive reinforcement when we needed it the most. Thanks to our assistant supervisor Iben Maj Christiansen for quick feedback on our written material and for all the support you provided along the process. A special thanks to our ‘honorary’ supervisor Linus Dagerskog who always took time off to explain things for us, for helping us plan the field trip and for all the inspiration you provided.
Additionally, we want to thank all the people in Burkina Faso who helped us during our field visit, it would have been impossible without you. We would like to extend an especially large thank you to a few people: Karim, for all the support and help with organizing the trips and interviews; Bruno, for translating everything we did not understand, and for always being curious and happy; Kibora, for picking us up every day, for caring for us, buying us mangos and for only breaking the car once.
To everyone helping us in other ways, by proofreading the report and supporting us mentally in this sometimes stressful process, thank you.
Stockholm, June 2017 Anna Land & Anna Jonsson
ABBREVIATIONS 1
1 INTRODUCTION 2
1.1 The challenges of achieving the SDGs in Burkina Faso 4
1.2 The sustainability problem 5
1.3 Study aim and research questions 7
1.3.1 Research questions 7
1.3.2 Delimitations of the study 7
1.4 Additional background information 8
1.4.1 The infrastructure of EcoSan system includes soft and hard values 8
1.4.2 Earlier EcoSan projects in Burkina Faso 11
1.4.3 Agriculture in rural Burkina Faso 12
1.5 Previous research and similar sanitation projects 13
1.5.1 The content of available plant nutrients in human excreta can be calculated 14
2 THEORETICAL CONCEPTS 16
2.1 System perspective on sanitation systems 16
2.2 Material flow analysis 16
2.3 Descriptive analysis 17
2.4 Frequently used terms 17
2.5 Theoretical framework 18
2.5.1 Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation (PHAST) 20 2.5.2 Two principles that the PHAST approach builds upon are participatory decision making
and own responsibility among beneficiaries 20
3 METHOD 22
3.1 Data collection 23
3.1.1 Collection and content of household survey data 23
3.1.2 Focus group discussions 25
3.1.3 Key informant interviews 27
3.1.4 Measurements of volumes, vaults and wheelbarrows 27
3.1.5 Ethical considerations 28
3.2 Method of analyzing data 29
3.2.1 Calculating the discrepancy between theoretical and practical recovery of nutrients in
sanitized excreta using MFA 29
3.2.2 Three different method were used to find barriers within the EcoSan system 33 3.2.3 Method to investigate the differences in reuse practices 37
4 RESULTS 40
4.1 How big is the discrepancy between theoretical and practical recovery of
macronutrients N, P and K in sanitized excreta to agriculture? 40 4.1.1 Calculating theoretical recovery based on theoretical nutrient content in human excreta 40 4.1.2 Calculating practical recovery using prioritized values 41 4.1.3 Discrepancy between theoretical and practical recovery 42 4.2 What barriers for reuse of the sanitized excreta can be identified? 44 4.2.1 Findings concerning the usage of and the accessibility to the EcoSan latrine 44
4.2.2 Findings concerning collection of human excreta 49
4.2.3 Findings concerning storage and treatment of excreta 50 4.2.4 Findings concerning transport of excreta to reuse location 52
4.2.5 Findings concerning application of sanitized excreta in agriculture 53 4.2.6 Findings concerning operating the EcoSan system and handling the waist flows 56 4.2.7 Findings concerning the maintenance of the latrine and additional infrastructure 58
4.2.8 What findings are identified as barriers? 60
4.3 How does initial behavior changing actions affect the reuse practice? 62 4.3.1 How was initial behavior changing actions performed in the different projects? 63
4.3.2 How do reuse practices differ between the projects? 64
5 DISCUSSION 66
5.1 Main points of discussion 74
5.2 Suggested further research 74
REFERENCES 77
Appendix A – Household survey
Appendix B – Focus group discussion questionnaire
Appendix C – Values, assumptions and limitations for material flow analysis
1
Abbreviations
EcoSan Ecological Sanitation
INERA l’Institut de l’Environnement et de Recherches du Agricoles [Institute for Environmental and Agricultural Research]
LVIA Association Internationale Volontaires Laïcs [International Association of Lay Volunteers] (Swiss NGO in the WASH- sector)
MDG Millennium Development Goals
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
PHAST Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation SDG Sustainable Development Goals
SEI Stockholm Environment Institute SuSanA Sustainable Sanitation Alliance UDDT Urine-Diverting Dry Toilet WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene WSA (former
CREPA)
Water and Sanitation for Africa [Centre Régional pour l'Eau Potable et l'Assainissement à faible coût]
2
1 Introduction
The global sanitation challenge receives less attention than many other development topics in today’s public debate. However, it is a crucial problem for the 2.4 billion people that lack access to basic sanitation solutions to safely separate them from hazardous exposure to excreta pathogens. This means 2.4 billion people that are facing daily exposure to health risks and diseases, where the consequences often are deadly. In Burkina Faso, a low-income West African country, this problem concerns almost nine million people (WHO & UNICEF, 2016).
Until 2015, the global sanitation progress was monitored within the frame of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), where the focus was on access to basic sanitation solutions, meaning that the users are safely separated from excreta (WHO
& UNICEF, 2016). Now, within the recently adopted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the approach towards sanitation is more ambitious and access to basic sanitation infrastructure is no longer considered sufficient but instead reads
”achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation ... for all ... paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations” (SDG Target 6.2.). The sanitation infrastructure must meet the needs of the users and be constructed within environmental constrictions. Within the SDGs, special focus is put on safe management, treatment and reuse of resources in human excreta. In other words, the whole sanitation chain has to be taken into account as presented in figure 1.1. Another difference from earlier MDGs concerns the accountability; within the frame of the SDGs, each country is solely responsible for achieving these highly- aimed goals for their own population (UN, 2016). This study's overall purpose is to provide sanitation practitioners (e.g. government authorities and NGOs in Burkina Faso) with useful information regarding one sanitation intervention and how it can be used within the frame of achieving the SDGs concerning sanitation.
3
Figure 1.1 – The difference in aim between the MDGs and SDGs, based on author’s perception.
Sustainable sanitation is a framework that has emerged in recent years, used for analyzing the sustainability of sanitation systems. The main objective is to consider the entire sanitation system and the sustainability aspects of each process included.
In this study, the definition as stated by the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance is used (Andersson et al., 2016):
Sustainable sanitation and wastewater management systems are those that minimize depletion of the resource base, protect and promote human health, minimize environmental degradation, are technically and institutionally appropriate, socially acceptable and economically viable in the long term. They should both be sustained – used by target population while functioning properly over the long term, as well as resilient to disasters – and contribute to broader socio-economic and environmental sustainability (p. 8).
The definition has arisen from a circular system perspective where closing the loop of sanitation is crucial to achieving environmental sustainability. Until recently, most sanitation systems have mainly focused on the health aspect where the user is safely separated from the excreta and dangerous pathogens are removed. The environmental aspects are often forgotten and recovery of the nutrients and other resources takes place to a limited extent. Resource recovery is achieved to a higher extent considering for example manure from animals, but when it concerns human excreta, taboos and preconceptions around it has, at least in the past, often inhibited closing the loop (Andersson et al., 2016).
4
From a system perspective, a sustainable sanitation system includes five technical processes: user interface and waste production, collection and storage, treatment, transport, and resource recovery. Also, the system includes a safely handled waste flow between these processes, without and exposure to pathogens or environmental degradation. Figure 1.2 shows a schematic picture of a sustainable sanitation system and processes included (Andersson et al., 2016).
Figure 1.2 – System design of a sustainable sanitation chain, authors’ drawing.
There is a variety of ways to construct sanitation systems that are sustainable according to SuSanA’s definition, where systems may vary in level of treatment centralization, method and ways of resource recovery. The sustainability is dependent on the economic viability, social acceptance, and appropriation of the system rather than one specific technology. How to design a sustainable sanitation system depends on the settings: social, institutional and economic factors of the implementation area have to be aligned with the sanitation technology (Andersson et al., 2016).
1.1 The challenges of achieving the SDGs in Burkina Faso For Burkina Faso, a low-income country in West Africa, achieving the SDGs concerning sanitation is an ambitious goal, as three quarters of the rural population still lack access to basic sanitation. People living in rural areas account for 70% of Burkina Faso’s almost 17 million population, which means that almost nine million people are affected. Without access to basic sanitation, these people are left with the option of open defecation, with major impact on both people's health and the ecosystems (WHO & UNICEF, 2016). With such a high proportion of the population lacking basic sanitation, the Burkinabe government clearly has a big task ahead of them in order to fulfill the SDGs concerning sanitation.
Furthermore, Burkina Faso is an agricultural economy and most people living in rural areas have their main occupation in agriculture and livestock holdings. Most rely on subsistence farming, meaning that it is focused on minimizing food shortage, not to maximize production. Only 19% of the rural inhabitants can meet their food needs due to, among other things, low soil fertility. In addition to this the Burkinabe population is growing, which increases the severity of the agricultural problem area further (Tincani, 2012).
How to achieve the sanitation SDGs is up to the Burkinabe government itself, but one possible approach is to implement the concept of Ecological Sanitation.
5
Ecological Sanitation (hereafter called EcoSan) is a concept within the approach of sustainable sanitation with the twin goals to protect human health and enable reuse of sanitized human excreta as fertilizers in local agriculture. During the last decade, several sanitation projects implemented in Burkina Faso have been based on the concept of EcoSan (Dagerskog, Savadogo, Hamadou, Vodounhessi, 2015).
The implementation of EcoSan systems in Burkina Faso follows three phases, with the goal to achieve a sustainable sanitation chain:
1. Implementation of infrastructure and facilitation of behavior change within the target audience (the beneficiary households).
2. Use and maintenance of the latrine.
3. Reuse of the sanitized excreta in agriculture.
The first step is carried out by the implementing organizations (Usually non- governmental organizations (NGO) in the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH)- sector) and funded externally through aid. It includes constructing the infrastructure as well as facilitating actions to promote use and maintenance of the infrastructure and reuse of sanitized excreta among the beneficiary population. After phase one the users are supposed to be self-sufficient regarding operation and maintenance of the system without involvement from the NGO. Phase number two and three are carried out solely by the project beneficiaries (Dagerskog et al., 2015).
The EcoSan system infrastructure is based on decentralized, on-site treatment of excreta through urine-diverting dry toilets (UDDT) with double vaults for collection and storage of faeces (Dagerskog et al., 2015). The urine and feces are collected separately and passively treated in sealed containers, where the faeces is dried in ventilated vaults by adding drying material, usually ashes. In this way the pathogens are deactivated, as long as there is no technical malfunctioning of the system. The sanitized excreta should after treatment be safe to handle and can be reused as fertilizer in agriculture. The management is at household level, meaning that the users perform operation and maintenance of the system, to ensure high functionality over time. It is therefore crucial that the users have suitable tools, knowledges, competences and values for ensuring a high functionality of the system (Tilley, Ulrich, Lüthi, Reymond & Zurbrügg, 2014).
1.2 The sustainability problem
In Burkina Faso, upscale governmental actions have to be carried out to ensure the SDG target 6.2. to ”achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation ... for all...”
(UN, 2016). Coordinating with the SDGs, new guidelines for how to work with aid funding were developed. The guidelines state that funding should now be given to governmental actors instead of going through NGO projects. This way, Sweden can enable the Burkinabe government to further allocate Swedish funding in accordance with their own strategy for development. The development strategy in Burkina Faso includes, among other things, that governmental administration should work to improve citizen support, especially in the agricultural sector (Andersson et al., 2016).
6
Based on the SDGs, a national sanitation action plan for 2016-2030 has recently been adopted in Burkina Faso, emphasizing the reuse potential of sanitation systems.
This area of research has been earmarked by the Stockholm Environmental Institute (SEI) as an important target for contribution in the context of providing research to help governments carry out informed decisions. (Dickin et al., 2017)
The long-term functionality is an aspect that has not been addressed in previous research on EcoSan projects, where almost nothing is known about the long-term success of such projects or how they differ (Dagerskog et al., 2015). Some earlier EcoSan projects implemented in Burkina Faso have been evaluated right at the end of the implementation phase - but not several years later, as is necessary to investigate the aspect of long-term functionality, recalling that phase two and three are carried out by the users (Dickin et al., 2017). A thorough analysis of the sustainability and functionality of these projects would provide critical evidence to improve current initiatives and become of use for the Burkinabe government in reaching the SDGs (Dickin et al., 2017).
One difference between this study and earlier project evaluations is that users’
experiences are the main research objects here. Earlier project evaluations have been conducted based on the implementing organizations’ short term experiences. But since the users are highly responsible for system functionality, users’ thoughts and views are of great interest for future EcoSan projects to maximize the use of the system. A system with high level of human interference in areas where most of the population is illiterate and lacks basic hygiene knowledge (Dickin et al., 2017) faces several problems that might have a negative influence on the technology's ability to contribute to a more sustainable sanitation system.
To evaluate the long-term functionality and identify key factors for reuse of sanitized excreta as fertilizers of earlier EcoSan projects, SEI collected data from three of the EcoSan project implemented in Burkina Faso through a household survey conducted in 2016. The three projects were named EU_LVIA, Ecosan_EU2 and Ecosan_EU3 (Hereafter referred to as LVIA, EU2 and EU3) (Dickin et al., 2017).
An initial analysis of the responses showed that the EcoSan systems have not been used to their full capacity, e.g. with respect to urine collection and reuse. At the same time, most respondents also stated that their main reason for constructing the latrine was to produce fertilizers. Additionally, it showed how usage patterns varied between the projects, where a household within EU2 was more associated with using and emptying the latrine than a household within LVIA (Dickin et al., 2017).
Considering the agricultural challenges rural Burkinabe population face, there should be strong incentives for reusing human excreta in agriculture (Dagerskog et al., 2015). However, since the initial analysis indicated that there is a discrepancy between theoretical recovery and actual reuse, there is reason to believe that there exist some barriers for reuse which are not yet known. This was the starting point for this project.
7
1.3 Study aim and research questions
The overall purpose of this study is to help SEI provide sanitation practitioners (e.g.
government authorities and NGOs in Burkina Faso) with useful information on how to better carry out EcoSan interventions in the future, within the frame of achieving the SDGs. Based on the overall purpose, the related aim follows: The aim of this study is to investigate to what extent and why EcoSan systems have not been used to their full capacity.
1.3.1 Research questions
1. How big is the discrepancy between theoretical and practical recovery of nutrients nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) in sanitized human excreta?
2. What barriers for recovery of sanitized excreta can be identified?
3. How does initial training and behavior changing actions affect reuse practices?
a. How was initial training and behavior-changing actions performed during the different projects?
b. How do reuse practices differ between the projects?
1.3.2 Delimitations of the study
This study is limited to investigating the nutrient cycle of macronutrients nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) in human excreta. However, there are several other benefits from reusing sanitized excreta in agriculture, for instance regarding recovery of other nutrients, organic matter and water. This content is excluded from the results in this study even though most is brought back to agriculture following the macronutrients recycling.
This study is also limited to the quantity of macronutrients brought back to agriculture, additional nutrient losses after application in agriculture due to erosion, rainfall or wrong dosage is not included.
This study only investigates possible barriers, not drivers or possible drivers even though driver and barriers often are mentioned in pair. rivers will however be discussed to a small extent at the end of the report and investigating drivers is rather a focus for further research.
Lastly, only a small aspect of behavior change theory is examined in this report, namely the participatory hygiene and sanitation transformation (PHAST) approach that was used during some parts of the project implementation.
8
1.4 Additional background information
To understand the study area, some background information will be presented in this section, concerning the infrastructure, about the project and the study site.
1.4.1 The infrastructure of EcoSan system includes soft and hard values
The infrastructure of the EcoSan system is quite simple: the collection, storage and treatment of human excreta takes place on-site through a UDDT with double vaults for collecting faeces, see figure 1.3 for a schematic picture of the latrine. The vaults are usually built in solid burnt bricks, while the walls are usually built in banco, dried mud-bricks. The building materials for one latrine cost approximately 180 euro. Most of the material is provided by the funding organization, except for the walls that the beneficial households provide themselves from resources on hand (Dagerskog et al., 2015).
Figure 1.3. A schematic picture of an EcoSan UDDT latrine, Source: LVIA (2012)
The dehydration vaults for faeces need to be well ventilated and no additional liquid can enter for proper functioning. Each user is required to properly separate the urine and faeces when using the latrine, avoid adding water or other liquid matter to the faeces but ensure adding ashes after defecating to maintain the functionality of the system. Figure 1.4 shows the bottom plate in concrete enabling the users to separate excreta and figure 1.5 shows the separation in a cross sectional drawing. For users
1. Vaults in solid bricks 2. Holes for emptying faeces 3. Concrete bottom plate (slab) 4. Defecation holes (used alternately)
5. Urine outlet pipe to a jerry can on the outside of the latrine 6. Hand washing area
7. Anal cleansing wastewater 8. Vault ventilation pipe 9. Sheet metal roofing
9
carrying out anal cleansing this requires them to bring water inside. In EcoSan latrines, there is an additional area for carrying out anal cleansing, through a hose leading out the used anal cleansing water from the slab into a small container or bucket (worst case spilt on the ground) and separating it from users, the faeces vaults and the urine collection (Dagerskog et al., 2015). When one dehydration vault for faeces collection is full, it must be sealed by the users and left sealed for at least six months, without any water supply. Under these conditions, pathogens and harmful organisms cannot survive (Tilley et al., 2014).
Figure 1.4. The bottom plate (called slab) in an EcoSan latrine, urine collection in the middle (own picture from field visit).
Figure 1.5. Drawing of latrine infrastructure, Source: LVIA (2012)
Earlier research has shown that there is a very low level of pathogens left after treatment time of six months (K. Savadogo, personal communication, April 15, 2017). According to WHO, a minimum storage time of 6 months is recommended if ashes or other alkaline treatment is used, hence the storage and treatment processes merges in some ways (Tilley et al., 2014). However, if the second vault is full and the first one has been sealed for a minimum of six months but it is not yet farming season - additional storage outside the vaults might be needed.
How fast the vaults are filled depends on the number of users, but the latrine is dimensioned for 10 full time users where one vault should last for at least six month (S. Dickin, personal communication, spring 2017). From own measurements of eight latrines of EcoSan type in the study area, the mean volume of one vault was calculated to 485 liters (see the method chapter for more information regarding this).
Vaults are usually emptied manually using a shovel and a bucket. Additional storage of faeces outside the dehydration vaults can be carried out in different ways, like sanitation sacs or directly on the fields in small pits or furrows.
The urine is collected in a hollow part of the concrete bottom plate and runs through a plastic hose (ø ~25 mm) into a jerry can outside the latrine cabin. Jerry cans are light weighted, plastic containers sealed with a lid, usually with a volume of 20 liters. After being filled up with urine, a jerry can should be sealed for at least 45 days according to WHO guidelines for safe reuse of human excreta. Longer storage
10
time is not required from a sanitizing perspective, but long-term storage of urine increases sanitation (Tilley et al., 2014). Since urine can only be applied and used as fertilizer in agriculture during the rainy season (which lasts for approximately five to six months each year) (Dagerskog et al., 2015), additional storage capacity is needed. This is a problem known since earlier, due to the small number of jerry cans each household possesses. For example, a household of 10 people, with a mean value of 500 liters of urine produced per person and year (Dagerskog & Bonzi, 2010), would require a total number of 125 jerry cans of 20 liters each to store the potential volume produced in half a year (since there is a period of approximately half a year when application on fields in not supposed to be done). In some of the sanitation projects implemented in rural Burkina Faso, additional urine storage centers have been constructed, like in EU2 where the beneficiaries received poly tanks, but these were often not used (CLISS, 2012).
The storage and treatment of urine and faeces adds some requirements on the user to maintain system functionality. The user is required to seal vaults when full and keep track of the storage time, make sure the connection to the urine hose is in good condition, and change to an empty jerry can when the connected one is full, to avoid it from overflowing (Tilley et al., 2014).
Additional transport of sanitized excreta to fields and application as fertilizers is also carried out by the users, wherefore this system includes physical tools as wheelbarrows and shovels for safe handling, as well as soft values as knowledge about dosage and application and sanitation behaviors in the system. Further on, the system includes tools for application and reuse (Tilley et al., 2014).
To describe the EcoSan infrastructure systematically, recall the system view of sustainable sanitation, see figure 1.2 on page 10. However, due to EcoSan being based on on-site collection with urine diversion, treatment, storage and reuse, the system processes and order, which can be seen schematically in figure 1.6. below, is a bit different than the overall sustainable system design. Also, according to Tilley et al. (2014):
For the design of a robust sanitation system, it is necessary to define all of the products that are flowing into (inputs) and out of (outputs) each of the sanitation technologies in the system. (p. 10)
11
Figure 1.6. System design of the EcoSan system/sanitation chain.
1.4.2 Earlier EcoSan projects in Burkina Faso
In Burkina Faso, eleven identifiable EcoSan projects have been implemented between the years 2002 and 2015. Within this period, over 11,000 latrines of the EcoSan type were constructed in rural and peri-urban areas, across seven provinces all over Burkina Faso (Dagerskog et al., 2015). Above-mentioned EcoSan projects were implemented, monitored and evaluated within the implementing organization, from which final evaluation reports were sent to funders after completed projects.
These evaluation reports often contained a list of “Lessons learned” in the end of the report (LVIA, 2014; CLISS, 2012; ProConsult, 2011), however such evaluation lacks a structured scientific analysis of the long-term functionality and sustainability of EcoSan projects (Dagerskog et al., 2015).
The EU2 project implementation was coordinated by the NGO Water and Sanitation for Africa (WSA), and took place in the province Kouritenga between March 2008 and August 2011 (duration: 42 month). The aim of the project was to contribute to reduce food insecurity and poverty through improvement of soil fertility with use of human excreta in combination with Water and Soil Conservation Techniques (CES).
For this aim, 1,350 subsidized latrines were built with funding from EU’s food security fund (CLISS, 2012; Dickin et al., 2017, Dagerskog et al., 2015).
The EU3 project was implemented between January 2010 and October 2011 (duration: 22 months) also coordinated by WSA. However, this project was terminated early, due to lack of funding within the implementing organization WSA.
804 subsidized latrines were built in two provinces, Boulkiemdé́ and Sanguié. The aim here was to reduce food insecurity by using human excreta as fertilizer (ProConsult, 2011; Dagerskog et al., 2015).
The LVIA project was implemented in the provinces Boulkiemdé and Oubritenga between February 2011 and September 2014 (duration: 44 months). The coordinating organization was a Swiss NGO named LVIA, in collaboration with WSA on the agricultural parts. Within the LVIA project 5,012 latrines were
12
constructed, however only the province Oubritenga was included in this study to avoid possible influence from the EU3 project. In Oubritenga, 2,599 subsidized EcoSan latrines were built, with the main objective to increase the rate of access to family sanitation and a focus on health and sanitation aspects (LVIA, 2014; Dickin et al., 2017).
1.4.3 Agriculture in rural Burkina Faso
All projects were implemented in provinces situated on the Mossi plateau in the central parts of Burkina Faso; hence the agricultural background of this study focuses on this area as well. A study by Tincani is used as basis of this section, considering the study’s focus on agriculture of the Mossi population, living on the Mossi Plateau (Tincani, 2012).
The Mossi people constitutes about half of the entire Burkinabe population.
Characteristic for this people is the very hierarchical organization and the very strong social bonds (Tincani, 2012). This means that general conclusions cannot be drawn for the whole population in Burkina Faso, but for this study's population.
The soil fertility on the Mossi Plateau is described as poor and consists mainly of leached soils with high amount of iron and erosion soils derived. The soil usually has a sandy surface, about 15-20 cm deep, followed by clay underneath. This makes it difficult for roots to penetrate deeply, but also for water to drain. Subsequently, this shallowness also results in the soil having little organic material in which roots can bind. One method for repairing the soil condition is by letting the fields’ fallow, i.e. rest for a few growing seasons, to enable the nutrients to be restored. The fields should be left in fallow, but with an increasing population the fallow cycles are getting shorter (Tincani, 2012).
In the area of the Mossi Plateau, the rainy season lasts for approximately five to six months, from May/June to September/October, and is followed by a longer dry period. During these dry periods, the average twenty-four-hour temperature is 30- 35°C, in April around 45°C, which causes most of the water to dry out and the population is forced to rely on water reserves accessed through wells (with subterranean water). Steady winds from the Saharan desert coming over the Mossi Plateau during January-February contribute to the dehydration of the soil. This leads to people at times are facing big difficulties getting water resources to last for the agriculture when they themselves need it (Tincani, 2012). It would therefore also be of interest to increase the water conservation properties of the soil.
Both men and women are involved in the farming but farm on different fields.
Women are often responsible for smaller plots closer to the villages (called household fields) while the men take care of the larger fields further away from the compound (called bush fields) and potential livestock (L. Dagerskog, personal communication, 2017.). The management of agriculture is done with very few tools;
only 30% own a plow or animal traction. Despite the large family constellations, especially on the Mossi Plateau, there is labor shortage during periods when the agricultural work is most intense - in periods of planting, weeding and harvest.
13
Shortage of labor at harvest is solved partly by planning so that all crops do not need to be harvested simultaneously, which requires significant planning (Tincani, 2012).
Another problem when it comes to agriculture and land distribution is how most people do not have any control over the location of their fields. It is assigned through different social structures and hierarchies, and as a consequence of this some people have very distant fields (Tincani, 2012).
1.5 Previous research and similar sanitation projects
EcoSan-latrines have been implemented in other parts of the world here are some findings from India and Bangladesh followed by an explanation on why this cannot be transferred onto the projects in Burkina Faso.
During the last two decades, several large-scale sanitation projects have been implemented in India based on partly subsidized latrines for poor households (Hajra
& Dutta, 2016). In this way, the projects were similar to the ones implemented in Burkina Faso. A study performed by Hajra and Dutta (2016) aimed to perform a scientific analysis to identify inter- and intra-household barriers for use. Findings showed, among other things that issue, like age and gender that affect the extent of use of already existing latrines and that latrines in good conditions were more likely to be used. Acceptability among users should have been addressed to a higher extent during implementation of sanitation projects, to reduce open defecation and the existence of linked diseases, Hajra and Dutta suggest. The absence of consistent and systematic use of the latrines was identified as one of the main reasons for failure of large scale sanitation projects (Hajra & Dutta, 2016). However, it cannot be assumed that similar conclusions can be drawn from the implemented sanitation projects in Burkina Faso, due to cultural, geographical and socio-demographical differences.
Another study on the socio-cultural acceptance of UDDT in rural Muslim communities in Bangladesh showed that the technology had been generally accepted by all users with some socio-demographic barriers. All users who cultivated on own farmlands also reused sanitized urine and faeces on their fields. However, the biggest challenge for acceptance was high construction costs and the dependence of heavy subsidy for construction, rather than any of the socio- demographic barriers found. Finding the right incentives for implementation and including local government in the implementation process should be of higher priority when considering implementation of large scale sanitation projects based on the UDDT technology in low income countries (Uddin, Muhandiki, Sakai, Al Mamun & Hridi, 2014). Also in this study, the conclusions are not directly transferable to Burkina Faso conditions, due to socio-demographic differences.
A lack of transferability emerges since findings from previous research are often specifically linked to the implementations geographical area and socio- demographics of users. For instance, the latter study mentioned above only includes Muslim communities, when the population affected by sanitation projects in Burkina Faso consists of Muslims, Christians and “traditional religions” (Dickin et al., 2017).
14
Another example regarding lack of transferability is how the two above mentioned studies both have different results although they take place in a generally close geographical setting compared to each other.
1.5.1 The content of available plant nutrients in human excreta can be calculated
Human excreta contain both macronutrients and micronutrients, additionally it contains water and organic matter useful for agriculture, since plant roots have easier binding to soil with a high amount of soil organic matter (SOM). Six elements are usually counted as macronutrients: nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), sulphur (S), calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg). Nitrogen is usually the limiting factor in plant growth and is also usually the one used the most as fertilizer in agriculture. Micronutrients are as essential for plant growth as macronutrients, but only needed in small (micro) amounts. Only in special cases are micronutrients the limiting factors concerning plant growth, and human excreta contain all essential micronutrients (Jönsson, Stinzing, Vinnerås & Salomon, 2004). If lack of plant nutrients is not the limiting factor, adding more fertilizer to the soil will not improve the yields (Jönsson et al., 2004). This report is limited to the three macronutrients nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K).
Dagerskog and Bonzi (2010) calculated the theoretical content of the macronutrients nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in human excreta for ten West African countries included in EcoSan sanitation projects using a methodology developed by Jönsson et al. (2004). The method takes its theoretical standpoint in the fact that “Once the skeleton and muscles reach their full size, no more plant nutrients are retained and accumulated in the body. Thus, the amount of excreted plant nutrients essentially equals that consumed” (p. 4, 2010). Notable is also that growing children only accumulate a small portion of the available plant nutrients in the body. From these facts, it is possible to calculate the theoretical amount of nutrients in human excreta using data regarding food intake. Dagerskog and Bonzi based their calculations on protein intake statistics from the ten West African countries: Benin, Burkina Faso, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal and Togo.
Roughly the available amounts of macronutrients nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in average human excreta are:
• ! = 2.8 '( )*+ )*+,-. /.0 1*/+
• 2 = 0.45 '( )*+ )*+,-. /.0 1*/+
• 6 = 1.3 '( )*+ )*+,-. /.0 1*/+
Note that these macronutrients are available in different forms and chemical compounds in the excreta, but in this report, they are treated as being in their elemental forms. For a family of ten, the amount roughly corresponds to one bag á 50 kg with Urea, and one bag á 50 kg with NPK. These are the two most commonly used chemical fertilizers in Burkina Faso (Dagerskog & Bonzi, 2010).
The nutrients in human excreta are distributed in circa 500 liters of urine and circa 50 kg faeces (dry weight 10 kg) per person and year. According to Jönsson et al.
15
(2004), in Sweden around 88% of the excreta nitrogen and 67% of the excreta phosphorus is found in the urine, but in countries with less digestible diets, this fraction decreases a bit. There is not much research done on how this partitioning differs, and more measures are needed in countries with diets more difficult to digest. However, Dagerskog and Bonzi (2010) performed an analysis on nutrient content in urine on a sample population in Niger with the resulting average values (note that it is not the same unit as above):
• ! = 6.0 (/; .<=+-(*.
• 2 = 0.8 (/; )ℎ-,)ℎ-+?,
• 6 = 0.9 (/; )-=/,,<?A
Additionally, the nutrient content in human excreta and the distribution fractions for a person living in Uganda have been calculated in Jönsson et al. (2004) based on food intake. The results show following percentage for distribution: 88% of the N, 75% of the P and 71% of the K can be found in the urine and the remaining fractions are found in the faeces.
16
2 Theoretical concepts
In this section, theoretical concepts and terms used to support this project are presented and explained.
2.1 System perspective on sanitation systems
The system perspective is consistently used in this report and this section aims to give a brief understanding of what it is and how and why it is used in this report.
The purpose of a system must be clearly stated to understand what elements to include when modeling it. From a general point of view, a system includes a set of functional units or processes that are interacting with each other within a system boundary between the system and the outside environment. Systems can consist of hard units, e.g. the jerry cans for urine collection or soft values such as human beliefs regarding handling of the urine. Hard systems are easier to analyze and quantify, whereas soft systems often need other methods of analysis. Further on, a system can be of open or closed nature. In an open system material, information and energy can cross the system boundary, in a closed system material or information cannot cross. In an isolated system, energy cannot cross the system boundary either, but isolated systems only exist in theory (Felder & Rousseau, 2005).
A system model is a schematic representation of the real system, in this case the EcoSan system. A system model is often a simplification of the real system it is supposed to represent, since real systems can include many components and interactions between them. A simplification is often necessary to make system analysis possible, but it also introduces some limitations on possible results drawn from analyses based on a system model. There are many different methods of analyzing a system, where one that quantifies the flows between processes is called material flow analysis (MFA) (Felder & Rousseau, 2005), which is the one used in this report.
2.2 Material flow analysis
Here follows an explanation on what the material flow analysis is and what it can be used for.
Material flow analysis (MFA) is a method used to calculate and illustrate the mass flows of materials and substances in an open and defined system bounded in time and space. Since it is based on the law of conservation of mass, the results can easily be calculated using material balances on inputs and outputs to the system and processes within the system. The aim is to describe all flows within the system quantitatively (Brunner & Rechberger, 2005).
The term material includes analyzed goods and substances, where goods refer to a mixture of substances that has economic (positive or negative) value, like fertilizer.
Substances refer to the substances within the gods, i.e. plant nutrients like nitrogen
17
in accessible forms. Processes are defined as transport, storage or transformation of materials, and are linked by flows (measured in mass per time) of materials. Flows across the system boundary are named imports or exports, while flows to or from processes within the system boundary are called input and output (Brunner &
Rechberger, 2005).
According to Felder and Rousseau (2005), the first step of performing a basic material balance is to draw a fully labeled flowchart of the system, whereas the next step is to choose a convenient basis for calculations. For a multiple processes system, the following step is to identify subsystems over which material balances can be written, depending on degree of freedom and data availability (Felder &
Rousseau, 2005). In this study, each technical process included in the system model (figure 1.6 on page 17) is considered to be a subsystem.
2.3 Descriptive analysis
This section on theory of statistics gives some useful terms and concepts that were used in this report.
A statistical survey studies a population consisting of several elements, where a certain sample is taken to represent the population. For this sampling study, standard descriptive statistics has been used (Blom, Enger, Englund, Grandell & Holst, 2005).
Descriptive analysis is performed to represent the data in a comprehensive way;
hence it does not change the property of the data. One way to represent data is by classifying it into approximately equal sized classes. A classification of data can be graphically represented by a histogram, with the relative frequency on the y-axis and the classes on the x-axis (Blom et al., 2005). The terms central tendency and dispersion are often used to describe the collected data distribution. Central tendency is often measured by the arithmetic mean, where all observations are added together and divided by the total number of observations. The central tendency measurement is often complemented with dispersion measurements, such as standard error or standard deviation. Standard error of mean (Std) is default in Studio SAS survey mean procedure (SAS, 2010). A complementing measurement of the data dispersion is the variation interval, (xmax,xmin) (Blom et al., 2005).
2.4 Frequently used terms
Below follows a short explanation of terms and words that are frequently used and reused in the report. s
(Sanitized) urine and faeces
This report concerns nutrient content in human excreta, both urine and faeces included. The term urine refers to the urine before treatment has been conducted.
After treatment of urine, the terms sanitized urine and liquid fertilizer are both used.
Regarding faeces the same terminology is used, before treatment the term faeces is used, after treatment the terms sanitized faeces and solid fertilizer are used interchangeably. The reason for this is that the users themselves are using the terms
18
liquid and solid fertilizer in their local language after a renaming procedure performed initially by the implementation organization WSA. The renaming procedure was performed to overcome cultural constraints regarding handling human excreta among users (Dagerskog et al., 2015). When these local terms showed up during data analysis, they were translated to English but the meaning was kept to avoid unnecessary misinterpretation.
Concession and Ménage
A concession is the usual constellation of living in rural Burkina Faso, consisting of several households clustered together. Households, also called Ménages, here refer to core family units. Male polygamy is accepted; hence one household consists of one adult man, one or several adult women, children and at times additional elderly relatives. However, some households are headed by women, typically in the case of widows. All households within a concession are living in the same compound, where the head of the concession usually is the oldest man. Usually within the EcoSan projects only one household within each concession got a latrine, whereas the latrine is dimensioned for a household, not an entire concession (Dickin et al., 2017).
Barrier
Typing the search phrase ‘definition barrier’ into Google, the first result is this: “a fence or other obstacle that prevents movement or access” (Google-defined, May 9, 2017). This definition is close to the one used in this report; here, movement refers to the waste flows in the system, alias material flows between different processes.
Access can be translated into the amount of material that the users can access in the final process of the system model, as fertilizer in agriculture. Hence, all problems that affect the quantity of sanitized excreta available for application in agriculture is considered to be barriers. For example, if a beneficiary states that it is unpleasant to visit the latrine due to urine odor that is only considered a barrier if the experience is unpleasant enough for the beneficiary person to stop using the latrine, leading to the excreta not being collected into the system. Some barriers are too small or rare to be included in the result, but the method and requirement for this selection will be further explained in the methodology section of this report.
2.5 Theoretical framework
This section aims to give the reader an understanding of what behavior change using the PHAST approach is about.
To achieve sustainable sanitation, the management and use of the technology and services of the systems must be implemented correctly (SuSanA, 2017). SuSanA (Sustainable Sanitation Alliance) further states that it is of great importance that along with the sanitation hardware comes “software” to ensure behavior change since: “Behavior Change is a critical component of improving access to and practices around water, sanitation, and hygiene.” (2017, p. 1). To recall, the implementation phase of EcoSan projects in Burkina Faso was usually lead by
19
NGO’s, where these organized and constructed the sanitation infrastructure.
Additionally, the implementation included a kind of behavior change software according to an approach called Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation - PHAST (Dagerskog et al., 2015).
The Behavior change theory consists of five factor blocks that contribute to the way people act and which must be favorable regarding the new behavior. The factors are:
risk factors, attitude factors, normative factors, ability factors, and self- regulation factors. Further down these are given an explanation, though this will not be discussed further in the report. It is just to give an understanding for what factors the actual behavior change tool PHAST must deal with. (More about PHAST can be found in the following section.) The outcome of the behavior change process, e.g.
measuring the outcome of the factors, is done on intended behavior, actual behavior, use and habit. Among these the output of behaviors which have an intention and need little cognitive efforts are the most important ones. Starting habits are the most important, since the aim is to achieve a long-term behavior (Mosler, 2012).
The risk factor concerns the individual's understanding and awareness. It distinguishes between a person's subjective perception of a risk, such as the risk of being infected with a disease and the perception of the consequences of what happens if, for example, one encounters pathogen contamination. (Floyd et al., 2000 in Mosler, 2012).
Attitudinal factors are about values and beliefs about behaviors, “instrumental beliefs” (Mosler, 2012, p.4) and express a positive or negative attitude toward a behavior. It can for example concern consuming or saving things like money, time, effort and more (Mosler, 2012).
Normative factors are about how the social context looks at a behavior. Mosler (2012) puts the factors into three categories of norms, firstly actions and the social contexts among others and their opinions on a behavior (e.g. relatives’ and friends’
opinions) (Cialdini et al., 2006, Schultz et al., 2007; Mosler, 2012). The second category is institutional norms which are expressed by authorities such as the village counselor or other village leader, religious leaders etc. Finally, Mosler also talks about the personal norm that deals with the personal perception of how the "self"
should behave. This norm may contradict the other standards.
Ability factors represent the skills an individual believes he or she must possess to behave in a certain way. The ability factor is also about the individual's confidence in his or her own ability to perform a behavior and for a person to behave in a certain way and lastly, the person knowledge regarding how to perform the task (Mosler, 2012).
Self-regulation factors are factors that maintain a behavior and are the last factors that must be in place. Self-regulation factors are about believing in the own ability to handle future situations and cope with obstacles that might come in one’s way of behaving a certain way. Additionally, they are also the key to maintain a behavior and ability to learn and take advantage of inheritance (Mosler, 2012).
20
2.5.1 Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation (PHAST) The PHAST approach was introduced by the World Health Organization (WHO) and is based on the methodology of learning and planning through participatory activities. Communities are empowered to develop and carry out their own plans to improve their situation and thereby make lasting changes in behavior. By demonstrating the routes between health and sanitation, the goal is to achieve better hygiene and reduce faeces-to-oral diseases. PHAST aims at improving a society's management of water and sanitation services, where one key is believed to come with understanding of the situation. Information is therefore believed to work as an incentive to change behavior (WHO, 1997). With information, the communities are engaged in the developing process by making their own analysis of their hygienic behavior and take part of the planning process, which further gives them the self- esteem to operate and actually own the facilities themselves. The approach consist of six participatory steps:”Assessing their own knowledge base; investigating their own environmental situation; visualizing a future scenario; analyzing constraints to change; planning for change; and finally implementing change” (WHO, 1997, p. 2), and with them there is also a “tool box” with several tools to perform these steps.
PHAST uses local languages and situations (WHO, 1997). It is known that some tools were used during the implantation in LVIA, EU2 and EU3, but not which ones (Dagerskog et al., 2015).
As sustainable learning is best done in a group since it increases the chances of getting a change of habits and making the behavioral change socially accepted (WHO, 1997), the entire community (men, women, children, higher and lower status) are involved in the steps.
2.5.2 Two principles that the PHAST approach builds upon are participatory decision making and own responsibility among beneficiaries
Participatory decision-making means that the people closest to the problem also are involved in making decisions that affects their problems and their being, since they are the experts on their own situation. The community members are experts in their own situation and their involvement and dedication will have much stronger and sustainable impact than external decisions. Secondly, those who make the decisions will also be the ones most likely following them through, which further leads to the sustainability of the system. And thirdly, the more personal investments made both in material and financial assets, the greater the likelihood is that the users will fulfill what they have undertaken (WHO, 1997).
The exchange of information will increase if people themselves are responsible for resolving a problem; they are expected to look for the necessary information themselves and discover new things (WHO, 1997). The community is supposed to
"own the problem" and that is expected to increase the chances that they also will own the solution, in this case the latrine, and not sees it as the project’s facility (K.
Savadogo, personal communication, 2017). By helping and supporting people, they can learn from each other, learn to recognize their own knowledge and discover gaps
21
in it. With activity-based learning, communities can more easily choose to take initiative for development. it may affect it adversely. Finally, WHO (1997) argues that it might be good to present several benefits of a solution, because the connection between the faeces and disease can be difficult to understand and not sufficiently motivating to make a change in behavior. There can also be strong social norms, traditions, beliefs or religious motives that make a behavior change difficult to achieve. Understanding the main objective of the project does not need to be the objective that motivates the most (WHO, 1997).
The PHAST approach theory was mainly used to investigate the third research question. The following chapter presents all methodology of this study.
22
3 Method
The strength of the study is that several different complementary data types were used to answer the research questions. In the following section each data collection, content and methodological choices are explained separately and details about the methods applied are given a deeper insight.
This study was based on a mixed method approach, where both quantitative and qualitative data was used. This makes the method chapter of this report rather heavy.
Table 3.1 shows an overview of the methods to help the reader understand how they fit together with the research questions.
A household survey that was conducted by SEI in 2016 was the main data source.
This data includes both quantitative and qualitative data and the initial assignment for this study was to analyze the household survey data statistically. Then three additional data collections were performed during a field visits in Burkina Faso in April 2017.
After having decided research questions additional information was needed to further be able to answer them. Based on this the decision fell on three additional ways of collection. In total, three field visits were performed, each in a village included in one of the project chosen for the household survey (LVIA, EU2 and EU3). On each site data was collected based on what type of information was missing from the survey data but needed to answer the research questions.
Table 3.1 Overview of research questions, data collection and data analysis.
Research
question Method Raw Data Analysis
How big is the
discrepancy between theoretical and practical recovery of macronutrients N, P and K in sanitized excreta to
agriculture?
Calculate theoretical and practical recovery per household and year.
Compare theoretical and practical recovery and identify where main losses occurs.
1. Values drawn from household survey data.
2. Values from field study
measurements.
3. Values drawn from earlier research.
4. Qualified assumptions.
Material flow analysis.
