C1U1_D_Ecosan_for_Slums_Upgrading - Unesco-IHE
Download
Report
Transcript C1U1_D_Ecosan_for_Slums_Upgrading - Unesco-IHE
Course 1 Unit 1
Part D
Ecosan for Slum Upgrading
1
Slums world wide
There are about 1 billion slum dwellers; by 2020 this number
is expected to have extended to 1.4 billion(2)
What is a slum?
There is no internationally accepted definition of a slum.
However, an expert group meeting agreed on a generic
definition which is recommended for use as: a settlement
where inhabitants have inadequate housing and basic
services, often not recognized nor addressed by public
authorities as an integral part of the city.(2)
2
Slums are characterized by:
inadequate access to safe water (if available; cost!)
inadequate access to sanitation and other
infrastructure;
poor structural quality of housing;
overcrowding (high density)
insecure tenure(2)
3
Sanitation in slums globally
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/no-shelter-refugees-sanitation-and-slums
4
Upgrading of Slums
Slum upgrading is a proactive, efficient and effective way of
achieving MDG 7, Target 11 — to improve significantly the
lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers by the year 2020.
This entails physical, social, economic, organizational and
environmental improvements to existing slums.
Our interest in this course unit are environmental concerns
with a focus on sanitation.
5
Why ecosan for slum upgrading (1/2)?
Advantages of ecosan systems compared to
conventional sewer-based sanitation (for excreta
management*) include:
– Lower cost
– More flexible – can more easily accomodate rapid changes in
population numbers
– Not reliant on reliable water supply for flushing
– Decentralised approach, easier to involve residents
• More user participation in planning process
• Ownership and O&M can lie with the locals
* For greywater, some form of alternative sewer system may be called for, e.g. Settled sewerage,
or home treatment for greywater, like the greywater (mulch) tower – we will discuss this in the
greywater units
6
Why ecosan for slum upgrading (2/2)?
Advantages of ecosan systems compared to
conventional pit based sanitation:
– Toilets* can be “portable” therefore providing higher flexibility
– No groundwater pollution from excreta
– No soil required (can be indoors), no odour and flies, no
need to dig
– Costs are similar or only marginally higher
If space permits: residents can reuse ecosan
products as fertiliser to increase food security (urban
agriculture)
* For example urine diversion dehydration toilets (UDD toilets)
7
CASE STUDY
SCUSA- stands for Sanitation Challenges for Unsewered
African Mega cities.
It is a project whose undertakings currently focuses on
Bwaise III, a slum in Kampala Uganda
The project is pursuing an integrated intervention approach
under 3 disciplines (Sanitation, Hydrology and Socioeconomics)
8
Scusa Project
MSc: Sanitary
Engineering
Objective
selection of
Sustainable
Technology
Options
PhD Sanitary
Engineering
PhD Institutional,
social and
economical aspects
PhD Hydrogeology
Sanitation limitations in slums (Bwaise III)
Sewers are only for richer areas of Kampala (7.5%)
(more over trickling filters are used which discharges to
L. Victoria)
Sanitation: Bwaise III >73% pit latrines are unimproved
10
Sanitation limitations in slums (Bwaise III)
Poor housing due to low income status
Bwaise III a has a high Pop. density (>27,000Pple/KM2)
11
Sanitation limitations in slums (Bwaise III)
Often the area experiences floods on heavy rainy days
12
Sanitation limitations in slums (Bwaise III)
Poor access and unhygienic conditions.
13
Existing Sanitation Status in Bwaise III
The sanitation facilities from the 400 households
sampled are:
-Hanging pit latrines which in most cases are emptied
into drainage channels (55%)
-Traditional pit latrines (18.5%)
-VIP latrines do exist but most of them are public
toilets which are disludged routinely (25%)
- Septic tank systems (1.25%)
-No facilities (0.25%)
14
Existing Sanitation Status in Bwaise III
1.25
100%
25
90%
None
80%
Septic tank
70%
VIP latrine
60%
55
50%
Hanging pit latrines
Traditional Pit latrines
40%
30%
18.5
20%
10%
0%
1
15
Existing Sanitation Status in Bwaise III
Ownership of Sanitation Facilities in Bwaise III
15%
10%
Public
Self (Private)
Shared
75%
16
Solid Waste Management-Bwaise III
The Solid waste management practices in Bwaise III
include:
Burning (39.25%)
Burying (2.75%)
Bushes and open dumping (11%)
(The above methods (57%) could pose a health hazard)
Private sector and Kampala City Council-KCC (46.75%),
do collect and take to a land fill.
17
Solid Waste Management-Bwaise III
Solid waste management practices in Bwaise III
39.25
40
33.25
35
30
Proportion of 25
population (%) 20
13.5
15
7.75
10
2.75
5
3.25
0.25
0
Burn
Bury
Bushes
Dump sites
Private
sector
KCC
No Solid
waste
Management types
18
Suggested Remedies
For solid waste management:
Separation at source (recycling and possibly co-composting) is
encouraged
For excreta management:
Use of environmentally friendly solutions with possible re-use
eg. UDDTs, and Bio-latrines could be tried at the periphery of
Bwaise III,
To check the flooding problem, drainage of the area needs
urgent attention
Since management structures exist in the area, intensification
of health promotion education (CBOs, Village Health Teams &
WATSAN committees). Behavioural change is very important
19
Course 1 Unit 1
References for this presentation
WHO/UNICEF (2006) Meeting the MDG Drinking Water and Sanitation Target – The
Urban and Rural Challenge of the Decade. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring
Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation. Available:
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/monitoring/jmp2006/en/index.html * (1)
UN-HABITAT (2003) The challenge of slums – Global report on human
settlehttp://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/getPage.asp?page=downloads* (2)
A.Y. Katukiza, M. Ronteltap, A. Oleja, C.B. Niwagaba, F. Kansiime, P.N.L. Lens
Selection of sustainable sanitation technologies for urban slums — A case of Bwaise
III in Kampala, Uganda. Science of The Total Environment, Volume 409, Issue 1,
1 December 2010, Pages 52-62.
20
Course 1 Unit 1
Further reading on urban slums
Karki, M. J. (2005) Integrated infrastructure provision for slum
areas. MSc Thesis IUE 05-08, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water
Education, Delft, the Netherlands
Kalimba, I. (2007) Integrated urban slum infrastructure
development : case study of Kigali, Rwanda. MSc Thesis MWI
07.20, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, the
Netherlands *
Useful website: www.web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading
Google keyword combination for this topic: urban slum
upgrading
21