EXAMENSARBETE INOM TEKNIK OCH LÄRANDE, AVANCERAD NIVÅ, 30 HP STOCKHOLM, SVERIGE 2017

An evaluation of the long-term functionality of Ecological (EcoSan) projects in rural

Reuse of sanitized human excreta as in local

ANNA JONSSON

ANNA LAND

KTH SKOLAN FÖR TEKNIKVETENSKAPLIG KOMMUNIKATION OCH LÄRANDE 10

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

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.

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 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 be recovered to a great extent, for the system to be worthwhile. For Burkina Faso, a low-income country in , 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 (EcoSan), an innovation with the goal of protecting human health and enabling 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 was performed which showed that nutrient losses of , and 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 collection and storage. Furthermore, results showed that use and reuse practices tended to be higher if initial training focused on agricultural aspects rather than aspects.

Keywords: , 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 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

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

WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

WSA (former Water and Sanitation for Africa [Centre Régional pour l'Eau CREPA) Potable et l'Assainissement à faible coût]

1

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 . 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.

2

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. is achieved to a higher extent considering for example 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).

3

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 , 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 . 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.

4

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 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 (UDDT) with double vaults for collection and storage of faeces (Dagerskog et al., 2015). The urine and 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).

5

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.

6

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 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 .

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.

7

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).

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

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

8 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 . Longer storage

9 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 , 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)

10

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 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

11 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 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.

12

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 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).

13

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), (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 , 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.

14

(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 (/; )-=/,,

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.

15

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

16 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

17 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

18

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 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).

19

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

20 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.

21

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 Method Raw Data Analysis question Calculate 1. Values drawn Material flow theoretical and from household analysis. How big is the practical recovery survey data. discrepancy between per household and 2. Values from field theoretical and year. study practical recovery of Compare measurements. macronutrients N, P and K in sanitized theoretical and 3. Values drawn excreta to practical recovery from earlier agriculture? and identify where research. main losses occurs. 4. Qualified assumptions.

22

Using the definition Household survey Descriptive for barrier closed questions analysis using identifying barriers regarding users Studio SAS What barriers for in data, searching in experienced Frequency recovery of sanitized predefined areas. problems. analysis using excreta can be Exclude barriers Household survey Excel. identified? that do not fulfill open questions. requirements. Place Focus group barriers in system discussions, main flowchart. themes. Use project report Project evaluation Literature and interview reports from review and information to projects: LVIA, EU2 summary of investigate the and EU3. findings. difference in Key informant project interviews with How does initial implementations. former project training and behavior members. changing actions affect reuse Create reuse-index Household survey Descriptive practices? in SAS using data questions on analysis of relevant survey reuse patterns. reuse-index questions. and project Investigate index belonging values with project using SAS belonging. Studio software.

3.1 Data collection

The data used in this report was collected using four different approaches:

1. Household survey data (collected by field agents on behalf of SEI in 2016). 2. Focus group discussions with EcoSan users. 3. Key informant interviews with former project members within EU2, EU3 and LVIA. 4. Measurements of volumes for material flow analysis.

3.1.1 Collection and content of household survey data

To identify key factors for sustainability of the EcoSan system, the survey data collection covered all phases of the sanitation chain: sanitation infrastructure, operation of the system, and reuse of sanitized excreta in agriculture. The aim was to identify reasons for why the sanitation chain has or has not continued to function, as

23 high functionality of the system was assumed to implicate sustainability of the sanitation system (Dickin et al., 2017).

The collected data was covering sustainability of the sanitation chain in several different areas related to health, technical, economic, socio-cultural, institutional and environmental aspects. Recall, SEI’s thought was to “go back to former project sites and identify key factors that have encouraged or discouraged sustainable toilet use and productive reuse of excreta.” (Dagerskog et al., 2015, p. 3). A range of data was collected in the survey, within nine subject sections:

1. General Information 2. Socio-demographics of household 3. Agricultural activities of the household 4. Information about the sanitation infrastructure 5. Use of the EcoSan latrine 6. Maintenance of the latrine and infrastructure 7. Storage of sanitized products 8. Assessment of reuse of sanitized products 9. Checklist of observations (was filled in by the field agent)

The measuring unit was one concession, a group of households of which one was beneficiary of one subsided EcoSan latrine within one of the three sanitation projects. Following this, the population consisted of the total amount of beneficiary households from the three projects, approximately 5200 households (Dickin et al., 2017). The survey (Appendix A) was conducted by field agents on behalf of SEI. The open responses were written in non-academic French by the field agents who filled out the survey.

The survey data was based on the three projects on productive sanitation - LVIA, EU2 and EU3, who together stood for more than 5200 of the constructed latrines in rural Burkina Faso between 2002 and 2015. Within these projects, a two-step random sampling took place; first, villages were chosen randomly from a list with the number of villages corresponding to several latrines implemented within the project. After the randomized sample of villages, an additional random sampling of 522 households (10%) within these villages was selected. The head of the family was the respondent of the survey (in 75% of the cases a man), and was hence responsible for all the data collected from a household even though the measuring unit includes all members in the household. These answers might therefore not be representative for all members of the household (Dickin et al., 2017).

The survey was designed based on a mixed methods approach where both quantitative and qualitative data were collected to enable triangulation of results. Out of the 108 questions asked in the survey (Appendix A), most were closed ended multiple choice questions, hence the answers were categorized into one or several pre-defined categories (Ruel, Wagner & Gillespie, 2016). However, these questions also had the option of adding an open response if it did not correspond to any of the premade categories. In this study those responses have been omitted from calculations and results due to time limitations.

24

Additionally, the survey included dichotomous questions (two optioned, usually Y/N), rating scales, and open estimations of field sizes etc. Finally, the survey included some open questions, which generated qualitative data (Ruel et al., 2016), concerning first and foremost respondents’ perceptions of barriers for usage and recommendations for future projects.

Regarding validity and reliability of the survey data, some confounding factors should be mentioned. According to Ruel et al. (2016), validity concerns the ability of measurements to represent the studied concept, while for reliability consistency of results if repeating the survey was required. Decreasing the measurement errors can increase both validity and reliability of the data, where the two main causes of measurement errors in survey research are systematic error and random error. Systematic error occur due to flaws in the survey design and affect the validity, while random errors are bound to individual observations and affect the reliability. The effect of random errors can often be balanced out in large samples (Ruel et al., 2016), and here 10% of the total population was considered to be large enough (Dickin et al., 2017). However, the reliability of specific questions was in some cases low, as when the survey design of measurements generated non-accurate responses. Mostly this reliability problem occurred when a question was hard to understand for the respondents, for example this may happen when double negations or advanced words are used (Ruel et al., 2016). However, most questions with low reliability were known to the project supervisors (S. Dickin, personal communication, 2017) and therefore not used as data in this report. Also, several triangulations were included in the survey design, where specific concepts were investigated through multiple questions.

One of the main implementing flaws concerned a question regarding transport of the sanitized excreta, which should include both urine and faeces. Unfortunately, the field agents conducting the survey failed to ask that specific question concerning transport. If the respondent reported that they had not emptied the faeces vaults of the latrine yet the following questions regarding transport were not asked, therefore data on transport for urine in these cases was also missing.

3.1.2 Focus group discussions

As stated before, the responses from the survey gave mixed messages about urine collection and incentives for the sanitized urine as fertilizer (Dickin et al., 2017). Additionally, the users are responsible for the long-term functionality of the system (Dagerskog et al., 2015). To gain a greater understanding focus group discussion with beneficiaries were performed as complementary data collection since:

The primary aim of a focus group is to describe and understand meanings and interpretations of a selected group of people to gain an understanding of a specific issue from the perspective of the participants of the group (Liamputtong, 2017 p.1)

All methodological choices concerning group size, discussion duration and question guide including question design were based on Liamputtong’s (2017) methodological suggestions concerning how to best gain information.

25

Three villages were chosen, based on the requirements that they had to be beneficiaries from one of the projects (LVIA, EU2 and EU3) and be close enough to Ouagadougou for day trips to be conducted. A coordinator in Ouagadougou was approached to make all practical preparations and to contact a person at each community who could take the role of site-coordinator. The site-coordinator was in charge of inviting villagers (beneficiaries of the latrine) to the focus group meeting. The requirements for participants in the focus groups were: only including members of beneficiary households, approximately 10 participants in total, preferably participants with a variety of age, gender and other socio-demographic characteristics. These requirements were expressed from the researchers to the village coordinator through the overall coordinator.

The focus group discussions were performed with help from an interpreter from Mòoré to English and vice versa, since Mòoré is the local language in the Mossi plateau-area. All discussions were based on a focus group questionnaire that was developed in advance, specifically concerning missing aspects in the survey data (Appendix B). The interviews were audio recorded with both a smartphone and a tape recorder. The researcher not asking the interview questions took notes regarding who said what and if something happened during the interview, e.g. new people joined or left.

All focus group discussion took approximately two hours. The first discussion was performed under a tree with approximately 13 villagers. All participants were Mossi and Muslims, with only three beneficiaries. All but one participant were men. Thus, the selection requirements were not met in this case. During the focus group interview, the participants were scattered around where some sat on the ground, some leaned against the trees and others sat on their mopeds. Sometimes someone changed places, and people left or joined during the discussion.

Before the second focus group discussion, it was again emphasized to the coordinator that only beneficiaries were desired for the task. The discussion took place under a thatched roof with 16 beneficiaries and some curious non- beneficiaries. All participants were Mossi and all but two were Muslims, where the two were Christians. Four were women, while the rest were men. Due to insights from the first session the order in how the questions were asked was changed. Also the participants sat more gathered and did not move around so much, creating a more conducive environment for sustained discussions.

The third and last focus group discussion was performed under a metal roof in some kind of center of the village, close to a marketplace that for the moment was quite empty of people. All the participants were beneficiaries and sat together in a circle together with the project members. The group consisted of 15 men and one woman, all Mossi, with 13 Muslims and three Christians. Some curious people sat outside the circle and listened.

26

3.1.3 Key informant interviews

The information about training and behavior change aspects during the implementation phase gained from the literature study (and none from the household survey) was considered insufficient. To gain a greater understanding, it was decided together with supervisors to conduct interviews with former project members involved in the implementation of the projects during the trip to Burkina Faso. Due to time constraints and practical considerations concerning finding former project members the requirements on participants were: one or two English speaking persons involved in the training or behavior changing actions during implementation phase in each of the projects (EU2, EU3, LVIA). These requirements were communicated to the coordinator in Ouagadougou through email beforehand. The coordinator arranged five interviews with involved parties in the projects who met the requirements, except for the English proficiency. The language barrier was instead dealt with using a translator during the interviews.

A question guide was developed and used as a basis for interviewing, with questions mainly concerning how training was performed during the implementation. Emphasis was on understanding how initial training and behavior changing actions were performed during the different projects (Research question 3a). However, depending on what interesting aspects rose during the interview, the focus of the interview could deviate from the guide and be held more freely using follow-up questions or probing questions.

Both a tape recorder and two phones were used for audio recording. One of the project members took the role as note-taker and one was conducting the interview, with the roles sometimes alternating.

3.1.4 Measurements of volumes, vaults and wheelbarrows

At each site visited for conducting focus group discussions, measurements of three latrine vaults and three wheelbarrows were also performed. The samples were not randomly collected; at the end of each focus group discussion, the participants were asked if anyone had liquid fertilizer that had been stored for at least 30 days and solid fertilizer in sacks.

The outside of the vault was measured by length, width and height. To calculate the inner volume, it was also necessary to know the thickness of the walls which was the purpose of measuring the thickness of the bricks. All measurements were taken with a rigid measuring tape and documented in a premade protocol.

Two to three wheelbarrows at each site were measured, where all the wheelbarrows, except one, looked as if they were equal in volume, with minor deviations such as some were higher in the front compared to in the back, see figure 3.1 below. The side lengths were presented in a hand-drawn picture of the cart so that it would be possible to identify the dimensions afterwards. All measurements and condition of each latrine and wheelbarrow were noted in the premade protocol and then filled into tables in Excel. Calculations of mean volume were then performed.

27

Figure 3.1 A wheelbarrow used to transport EcoSan fertilizers, among other things (own picture)

3.1.5 Ethical considerations

For ethical considerations, the Swedish Scientific Council's Research Ethical Principles (2002) were followed. These consist of four main requirements: the information requirement, the requirement for consent, the confidentiality requirement and the utility requirement.

The information requirement was met during initial information stage in focus group discussions and key informant interviews. He purposes of the gathering was explicitly stated as can be seen in Appendix B. It was also important to state that the project members could and would not provide the participants with more latrines or equipment. Neither was money, gifts or such to be handed out, as the wish was that the participation would then have a sense of dependency or gratitude.

The requirement for consent was considered by asking the focus group participants and key informant interviewees for consent before initiating the audio recording of the discussion or interview. Information about the reasons for audio recording and the planned use of the recordings was given before asking for consent. The group was informed of how long the discussion was expected to take and in conjunction with that, participants were able to indicate if they could not attend all the time or similar, they were free to leave the site at all times, which some also did. It is more usual to have written consent, but in this case the project members decided it was enough to have it recorded since the level of literacy was uncertain.

The confidentiality requirements are met using following approach. Firstly, it is not possible to determine any focus group participants’ identity from this report or any other public material, nor is information regarding individual participants of interest. Regarding key informant interviews are the initial and last name use in the report, and no personal information was gathered regarding these persons. Considering the

28 topic of the focus group discussion, some participants may have experienced that they were asked very personal questions and they often belong to a relatively small community (about 3000 people). This can be the weak point of this study, considering how Liamputtong (2017) writes that the confidentiality might be compromised in a focus discussion if the participants know each other well and belong to the same community. This might indicate a lack of validity regarding the focus group discussion data, as people may not say something that paints them in a negative light in front of everyone else.

The utility requirements states that no personal information about participants should be shared or used in any other purpose than for the research it was collected for. This requirement was met since all data concerning age, gender, religion and ethnicity collected during the focus group discussion is kept within the project group. Gender information is however included in the report since this is significant for the validity of the results and considered to not jeopardize the confidentiality of the participants.

3.2 Method of analyzing data

In this section, the different methods of analysis are presented based on the research questions, since the same data were analyzed in different ways depending on the research question.

3.2.1 Calculating the discrepancy between theoretical and practical recovery of nutrients in sanitized excreta using MFA

To recall, the first research question was: How big is the discrepancy between theoretical and practical of nutrients N, P and K in sanitized excreta? Also there is earlier research calculating the theoretical content of N, P and K in excreta based on food intake, specifically concerning the West African population (Dagerskog & Bonzi, 2010). In this study, a material flow analysis (read more in section 2.2) was performed following the methodology presented in Felder and Rousseau (2005) in order to calculate the quantitative discrepancy between theoretical and practical recovery of the nutrients in the sanitized excreta. To be clear, this study concerned the quantity of nutrients recycled to agriculture; additional nutrient losses after application in agriculture due to erosion, rainfall or wrong dosage were not included.

The first methodological step was to decide a basis of calculation; the second step was to create a system model. The third step was to collect and assess data values for calculations; the fourth step was to perform the material flow analysis based on those values using the system model (Felder & Rousseau, 2005). The analysis was performed using the software Studio SAS. Below, each methodological step is presented more thoroughly. The calculation basis for further calculations was decided to:

m(N,P,K) = mass N, P and K produced from one EcoSan system in one year

29

Since the EcoSan systems consist of both the latrine, additional infrastructure and its users (Tilley et al., 2014), the mass differs between households depending on number of users and user patterns. Each household was calculated separately and a mean value calculated in each phase of the system model to decide where main losses appear.

To estimate numbers of users for each system, calculations are based on survey questions concerning number of users. This was not an obvious choice since the survey data give a total number of user mean almost twice as big as the number of users the latrine is dimensioned for (The mean is 19 users per latrine, while one latrine is dimensioned for 10 people).

The system model was developed based on the system description of the EcoSan system found in section 1.4 Additional background (page 17). The aim of the EcoSan system is to achieve a sustainable sanitation chain which closes the loop between agriculture and humans (Dagerskog et al., 2015), hence usage, collection, storage, treatment, transport and reuse processes must be included. A sustainable sanitation chain also includes safely handled waste flows between different processes (Andersson et al, 2016).

The blocks in figure 3.2 on the next page are representing each process (Abbreviated: P1-P6) that the nutrients have to pass. Blue arrows are material flows between processes and red, dotted arrows are representing nutritional losses in each process. No losses occur between processes.

Since the model is a simplification of the real system, the validity of results based on the model has to be considered. For instance, the model lacks a division between different usage losses, i.e. losses due to lack of usage and losses due to faulty usage.

30

Figure 3.2 Flowchart of the EcoSan system used to calculate practical recovery of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium

31

For theoretical recovery, the assumption was 100% recovery of nutrients content in agriculture, hence all losses along the flow equals zero. This gives a simplified system model (figure 3.3 below), where the mass nutrients that were reused in agriculture were the same as the theoretical mass nutrients in excreta.

Figure 3.3 Flowchart for simplified system model, used to calculate theoretical recovery

Choosing data values for calculations was difficult, considering that data often are scarce or missing completely for these kinds of calculations in low-income countries (Jönsson et al., 2004). Therefore, values had to be drawn from several different origins, where they were chosen prioritized in following order:

1. Survey data values were used as far as possible, due to high reliability considering the big amount of respondents (522 households included). 2. Where actual values were missing in survey data, own sampling was performed for values, e.g. volumes of dehydration vaults and wheelbarrows. In this draft, values used to calculate fractions of nutrients are drawn from earlier research instead of own samplings since there has been a delay in getting lab results from the chemical analysis. 3. If survey data was missing, theoretical values gained from earlier research were used, such as. Values for nutrient losses during storage were drawn from research on manure storage in . 4. If theoretical values could not be found, values were estimated based on knowledge about the system. For instance, the dry mass of sanitized faeces gained from emptying one dehydration vault was estimated to 200 kg, based on the theoretical dry mass gained depending on number of users and a survey question regarding how many bags á 50 kg the respondent got when emptying (with the mean of 5 bags (Survey data)). 5. Assumptions were made to simplify the system and calculations, for instance no transport losses were assumed due to data unavailability and small volumes transported.

For full insight on made assumptions, limitations and values used for calculations see Appendix C.

32

Analysis of material flow for the modeled systems was performed using Studio SAS software survey procedures. The quantity of EcoSan collection outflow, (P3)out, was possible to calculate using the survey data on frequency of emptying the dehydration vaults and changing the jerry can for urine collection and the practical recovery calculations initiates from (P3)out. The nutrients mass in human excreta (P1)out was assumed to be the same as the theoretical mass; hence it was possible to calculate the total loss concerning usage and collection processes. However, the partition between usage loss and collection loss was not possible to calculate precisely, since there was no quantified data available regarding this, see figure 3.4 below for sub-flowchart of the usage and collection processes.

Figure 3.4 The subsystem with known inflow and outflow, unknown partition between losses

The remaining losses within the system (treatment & storage, transport and application in agriculture) are calculated separately concerning inflow and outflow to each process.

Whenever there are considerable large uncertainties in what the actual values are, the methodological choices are conducted so that nutrient losses are minimized in the MFA. For example, not much was found on losses of P and K during storage of urine, hence these losses are assumed to equal zero. In this way it is safe to say that the final losses presented at least are in the estimated size, and deviations in the real system will, if anything, increase the losses.

3.2.2 Three different method were used to find barriers within the EcoSan system

The EcoSan system design presented in section 1.4 Additional background (p. 17) was used as a model for the EcoSan system, where possible barriers could be found in each system process, in the human interaction with the system, or be general

33 barriers affecting the overall functionality following the definition used for barriers. The first methodological step was to identify possible processes where barriers could occur, the second step was investigating each place individually using three different approaches (defined and explained below). The third and last step was to decide which findings should be considered as barriers.

What kinds of barriers are there and where do barriers occur?

From the definition of Sustainable Sanitation which can be found in the introduction (p. 3), the system should be “technically and institutionally appropriate, socially acceptable and economically viable in the long term” (Andersson et al. 2016, p. 8). This suggests that there can be barriers concerning these aspects, concerning two different types of barriers, technical or socio-cultural. Technical barriers concern aspects of the system such as accessibility for users, malfunctioning infrastructure or equipment for operating and maintaining infrastructure. Socio-cultural barriers concern all human preconceptions, missing knowledge, incentives or cultural and religious constraints against operating, maintaining or using the system. The only economical aspect included in this study concerns the sanitized excreta economical value, which should be a strong incentive for long term use, maintenance and reuse.

The system model suggests five possible processes or areas where barriers can occur in the sanitation chain: Usage, Collection, Storage/treatment, Transport and Application in agriculture (Andersson et al., 2016). Tilley et al. (2014) classifies the system at household level of operation and maintenance, meaning that users themselves perform these tasks to sustain functionality. Therefore, barriers in handling the waste and maintaining the latrine functionality was also included. In each phase, different types of barriers can occur, classed as either technical or socio- cultural, see Table 3.2 on the next page.

34

Table 3.2 Possible areas for barriers for the EcoSan system

Possible area for barriers Including

• Cultural/religious constraints of usage • Accessibility constraints (menstruation, variety functionality 1. Usage of EcoSan etc.) • Missing knowledge on how to use it properly • User interface fits the system aim

• Technical malfunction 2. EcoSan collection • Usage losses

• Urine storage & treatment 3. Storage/Treatment • Lack of jerry cans for urine storage • Faeces storage & treatment

• Liquid fertilizer • Solid fertilizer 4. Transport • Equipment for transportation • Incentives for transportation

• Equipment for application 5. Application in agriculture • Incentives for reuse

• Equipment for emptying vaults • Incentives for emptying 6. Operation of system: Handling • Cultural, religious constraints for the waste flows handling • Knowledge constraints for handling

• Incentives for repairing and 7. Maintenance of the latrine maintenance for proper functionality (infrastructure and technology) • Equipment for maintenance of the latrine (infrastructure)

Identification of barriers

For each possible area of barriers, three different approaches were used for investigation, the main one being descriptive analysis of the household survey data. Further investigation was performed using frequency analysis of open-ended questions in the household survey and presentation of information collected during focus group interviews. The focus groups information was used supplementary since the reliability of the data is low due to the small number of data collection points and respondents.

35

Descriptive analysis of the survey data was performed using Studio SAS Software, software that provides specific functions for statistical analysis of survey data (SAS, 2017). By analyzing the proportion of respondents on selected issues, the ambition was to distinguish problems and possible barriers in all areas for barriers listed above.

Seven of the open-ended questions in the household survey were analyzed using a word frequency approach. The word frequency analysis was performed on the origin French answers in an online word frequency program, approved to be used by a supervisor (S. Dicking, Personal communication, May 9, 2017). The method included searching for a word and finding out how many times this word occurred in a set of open answers. Interesting words or terms were categorized by themes following the structure of areas for possible barriers. The first selection of words was made on the French words by this supervisor when skimmed through the entire frequency. The thorough analysis was then made by the project members. Many of the French words used in the open-ended answers were recognized and know but they were also translated into English to make sure to important content was left out. From there, verbatim reading on 5 to 10 randomly picked answers, revealed in what context each term appeared. To avoid the validity being reduced the major part of the analysis was made on the French words before being translated into English. The results of the word frequency analysis are presented as a summary of what appeared together with a number indicating how many of the answers stated this regarding each used question.

The focus group discussions were analyzed in two steps. First the data were cleaned, by listening to the audio recordings and noting sessions where heavy discussions occurred or where the translation was experienced as inadequate. Those sessions were then played for the interpreter who translated the discussions sentence by sentence and recorded in a new recording. In this way, the trustworthiness of the data was enhanced and some misinterpretations were found when compared to the on-site translations. Secondly, the main points of each focus group discussion were condensed down to a two to three pages long summary of the content. From these summaries main points used in results are drawn, included as citations in the result chapter.

Which findings should be considered as barriers?

After investigating each area using the three approaches explained above, the next step was to decide which findings should be included in the results as barriers and which findings should not be included. The definition used for the term barrier is “A … obstacle that prevents movement or access [to sanitized excreta in agriculture]” (from 2.4 Frequently used terms in the theory chapter). Hence, barriers in this study are findings considered to break the nutrient loop of nutrients in human excreta.

The final selection of barriers was qualitative and subjective in the sense that findings were classified as barriers based on project members’ earlier knowledge about the EcoSan system and where losses appeared in it (Using results from the comparative material flow analysis in the first research question), but also on

36 suggestions from project supervisors Sarah Dickin and Linus Dagerskog who are experts on the area of EcoSan projects in Burkina Faso. When the project members believed, a finding affected the nutrient flow to a large extent, it was classified as a barrier for the system. The selection was performed using a interrater reliability approach (Ruel et al., 2016) where first each project member individually selected barriers, then compared and got an external approval in consultation with the project supervisor, Sarah Dickin.

3.2.3 Method to investigate the differences in reuse practices

To answer the first sub-question on how initial training and behavior changing actions were performed in the different projects, information was collected by reviewing former project reports and through key informant interviews with project members. From earlier research, it was clear that the projects had different focus and that training was performed differently within them (Dagerskog et al., 2015). However, the aim of additional information collection was to gain a greater understanding about how and to what extent the training differed. The results of this collection will be connected to behavior change theory in the discussion section.

The second sub-question was based on the thesis that the reuse practices differ between the projects. Initial analysis of the survey data shows that households who received training with more focus on agriculture was more likely to use the latrine and empty the vaults than households who received training with focus on the health aspects (Dickin et al., 2017). The thesis was that there is a notable difference in reuse practice between the projects. To investigate this thesis, a reuse-index was created, based on survey questions that indicate good reuse behavior among the users. The index is additive where a high score indicates good reuse practices.

To deal with the problem of validity, the following approaches were used: one project member created a first draft of the index, choosing potential questions to include. Then the other project member questioned these choices and the first had to justify and motivate the choices. Together a second index draft was created, which was presented to the project supervisor Sarah Dickin. The choices were once again questioned and a third and final index was created. This selection process was hence performed using an interrater reliability approach (Ruel et al., 2016). Below follows a short justification of included households, chosen questions and scoring.

A household that has possessed an EcoSan latrine for more than three years, and with more than 10 users were included, to exclude possible households that have not had the latrine long enough to create sustainable reuse practices. All included households should at least have emptied the vaults once based on numbers of users, and have therefore had the possibility to create sustainable reuse practices regarding both the sanitized urine and the sanitized faeces. Additionally, this report aims to investigate the long term sustainability and functionality of the EcoSan system, which also justifies excluding latrines built less than three years ago.

37

All questions used, their scoring and frequency of missing answers are presented in the table below (Table 3.3). All questions are chosen based on the assumption that they indicate a good reuse behavior in some way. For instance, if the beneficiary household had possibility to reuse the sanitized excreta all year around in a vegetable garden, if the users valued the sanitized excreta and the infrastructure of the system, and if all infrastructure was maintained properly etc. Urine collection was weighted a bit higher than faeces collection since more questions regarding urine was included in the index. Mainly this was because the urine contains most of the (Jönsson et al., 2004); also, the potential volume was much bigger than for faeces (Dagerskog & Bonzi, 2010). Additionally, the system maintenance regarding urine collection, storage and reuse requires more labor from users, and hygiene risks were not as important as for handling faeces (Jönsson et al., 2004). Therefore, if urine reuse was high, it was considered to indicate high overall reuse practices.

The reuse index includes 14 questions and gives each household included a score between 0-16. If the household did not answer the question asked, they did not get any score. The index is an interval scale and therefore it is possible to perform statistical analysis on it. The index was divided into three classes: low, medium and high reuse practices. Scores between 0-5 classifies a household as low; scores between 6-10 classifies it as medium and scores between 11-16 classifies it as high.

Lastly the different projects are compared regarding the distribution between the classes low, medium and high reuse using Studio SAS software.

Table 3.3 The survey questions, scoring and frequency of missing answers

Number Question Score

Are you engaged in vegetable gardening during the dry Q130 (1/0) season? (Y/N) Q135 Do you use your pit (Y/N) (1/0) Do you have a system for urine collection besides the Q202 (1/0) EcoSan latrine? (Y/N) Why did you decide to build an EcoSan latrine? Is one of Q203a (1/0) the three main reasons “interest in fertilizer”? (Y/N) To urinate only, where do most of the members of the Q210 concession go? (The latrine/urinoirs/the (1/1/0/0/0) shower/outside/other) Have you ever made any improvements to your latrine? Q217 (1/0) (Y/N) Q306 Have you already emptied the latrine vaults? (Y/N) (1/0) Q401 What kind of EcoSan fertilizer do you reuse? (2/1/1/0)

38

Number Question Score

(Both/urine/faeces/none) What are the yields obtained from using EcoSan Q404 fertilizers? (0/0/1/2) (Low/medium/good/very good) Q503 Urine jerry can is present? (Y/N) (1/0) Q504 Hose for urine is connected to jerry can? (Y/N) (1/0) Q510 The hole not in use is closed (Y/N) (1/0) Presence of ashes Q522 (0/0/1) (No ash/insufficient/sufficient) The latrine seems to be used Q525 (0/0/1) (No/a bit used/regularly used)

39

4 Results

This chapter is structured according to the research questions, in the first section the quantified discrepancy between theoretical and actual reuse of sanitized excreta is presented.

In the first section of the results, the quantified discrepancy between theoretical and actual reuse of sanitized excreta is presented. If the losses within the system are substantial, it can indicate that the functionality of the latrine has failed in some way. In the second section, possible explanations for this failure are presented, particularly barriers or obstacles within the system that affect the discrepancy. Lastly, users’ knowledge and their incentives for reuse of the sanitized excreta are specifically investigated, since the system is manually maintained. To sustain a high functioning system, the human factor and the users’ appropriate behavior are necessary; therefore this is regarded as a possible general barrier to reuse.

4.1 How big is the discrepancy between theoretical and practical recovery of macronutrients N, P and K in sanitized excreta to agriculture?

In this section of the report, some values used for material flow analysis (MFA) calculations are presented, together with the mean values of nutrient recovery for nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K). Firstly, results of the theoretical recovery are presented, then results of the practical recovery. Lastly, the mean values of nutrients recovery are compared, in order to determine how big the discrepancy is, where total and fractioned losses are presented.

As the method chapter states, two different system models were created to calculate the discrepancy. Data from different origins, prioritized in the method chapter, have been collected to enable material flow analysis (MFA) calculations of the theoretical and the practical recovery. The values used for calculations are not all included in this section, but are available in Appendix D along with all assumptions and limitations of the data.

4.1.1 Calculating theoretical recovery based on theoretical nutrient content in human excreta

All nutrient losses are assumed to be equal to zero in the calculation of theoretical recovery since all of the theoretical nutrient content is assumed to be recovered to agriculture. Hence, the simplified system model (Figure 4 in 3.2.1) can be used. All values used for calculation of the material balance are presented below, including an explanation, data reliability score and origin. The reliability of some important values is further discussed in the discussion chapter.

The mean value of users is calculated to 19 users per system (Std = 0.61), with a distribution between 0-100 users per household. However, over 40% of the 520 households have somewhere between 8 and 16 users.

40

Using Studio SAS software each household’s theoretical recovery is calculated and the mean values of each nutrient in the last section are derived. The resulting mean value of nutrient content per household and year is:

!"#$ = 53.9 +, -./ 010$.2 345 1.3/ (7$5: 1.7 +,) <"#$ = 8.7 +, -./ 010$.2 345 1.3/ (7$5: 0.3 +,) ?"#$ = 25.0 +, -./ 010$.2 345 1.3/ (7$5: 0.8 +,)

The nutrients are distributed in approximately 500 liter urine and 10 kg dry material per user, according to Dagerskog and Bonzi (2010). This gives a theoretical mean volume of 9625 liter urine produced per system and year (Std. 306.5 liter) and a theoretical mean dry mass of 192.5 kg faeces produced by a system in one year (Std. 6.1 kg). The distribution fractions used here are the same as for Uganda, found in Jönsson et al. (2004) due to scarce data. 88% of the excreta N, 75% of the excreta P and 71% of the excreta K can be found in the urine, the remaining fractions are found in the faeces.

4.1.2 Calculating practical recovery using prioritized values

For practical recovery it is not possible to assume that all the losses are equal to zero, hence the full (not simplified) system model is used for calculations (Figure 5 can be found in section 3.2.1 and in Appendix C). All values used for calculations are presented in table C.2. and table C.3. in Appendix C. The reliability of some values is further discussed in the discussion section.

The practical number of users is calculated in the same way as the theoretical number of users based on survey data, but members belonging to vulnerable groups are removed in cases where they are reported not to use the latrine. Vulnerable groups are considered to be children less than four years, elderly, menstruating or pregnant women and handicapped people. The mean number of practical users therefore decreases to 16 users per EcoSan system (Std. 0.55) compared to 19 theoretical users. This indicates a usage loss concerning usage by vulnerable groups. Still around 40% of households have between 8 and 16 users.

Practical recovery of sanitized urine

The mean volume of sanitized urine that reaches agriculture, P6(in), is 195 liter per household, with a variation interval between 0-7300 liter/household, based on data from the household survey. The mean volume of urine outflow from the EcoSan collection, P3(out), is 365 liter collected per household and year, according to the household survey data. Regarding nutrient content, assuming values are as above, the mean value of recovered nutrients that reach agriculture are estimated as follows:

!

41

Practical recovery of sanitized faeces

For faeces recovery, the mass is assumed to be the same all the way through the system processes, meaning that the initial value (P3)out, based on emptying frequency remains all the way to (P6)in. This is a simplification and most likely not entirely true for the real system, due to mass losses occurring while emptying the vaults or transporting the sanitized faeces to the fields. However, such mass losses are assumed to be rather small. In cases where the sanitized faeces are not reused at all, the mass losses are assumed to be 100%. The nutrient losses during storage depend on location of storage, where survey data regarding place of storage is used in combination with theoretical values from earlier research on nutrient losses during storage of manure in Kenya and different places such as in a pile on the ground, in bags, in soil, or in a pit. The mean values of nutrients in faeces that reach and are recovered in agriculture:

!

4.1.3 Discrepancy between theoretical and practical recovery

The discrepancy is presented in table 4.1 below in mass nutrients produced per system and year (mean value). In the following section, it is also presented using percentage.

Table 4.1 Mean values of theoretical and practical nutrient recovery, fractionated

Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, [kg produced per system & year] N P K

Total 53.9 8.7 25.0

Urine (9625 Theoretical 47.4 6.5 17.8 recovery liter) Faeces (192.5 6.5 2.2 7.2 kg)

Total 5.4 1.7 4.1

Urine (195 1.7 0.3 0.3 Practical recovery liter) Faeces (192.5 3.7 1.3 3.7 kg)

42

From theoretical recovery calculations, the potential mean volume of urine is calculated to exceed 9600 liters of urine per household and year. This can be compared to the practical recovery calculations where an estimated actual volume of 195 liters of urine was recovered. This is a loss of more than 98%. The main losses occur between P1(out), theoretical nutrient content in human urine and the quantified urine outflow of the P3(out), EcoSan collection process. This means that the losses come from either usage or collection. This can be seen in that the mean outflow from the EcoSan collection is small (365 liter) compared to the theoretical one (Still 9625 liter).

For nutrients in faeces the difference between theoretical and practical recovery is translated into a total of 43% loss of nitrogen, 41% loss of phosphorus and 49% loss of potassium within the EcoSan system. The losses are more evenly distributed for faeces than for urine, see table 4.2 below.

Table 4.2 Losses within the faeces nutrient balance based on MFA calculation in [mean mass nutrients in kg] Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, Process N P K

P1 (Theoretical content) 6.5 2.2 7.2

P2 (Usage) ? ? ?

P3 (Collection, Treatment and 4.8 1.6 5.3 storage)

P4 (Additional storage) 3.9 1.4 3.9

P5 (Transport) 3.9 1.4 3.9

P6 Application 3.7 1.3 3.7

In total, for both the sanitized urine and faeces, the nutrient losses within the EcoSan systems are (based on the difference between theoretical recovery and practical recovery material balances): 90% loss of nitrogen, 80% loss of phosphorus and 84% loss of potassium. This is based on the fact that 70% of the nutrients are in the urine, while the remaining 30% are in the faeces. Hence, if all urine were lost and none of the faeces, a total nutrient loss of 70% would occur.

43

4.2 What barriers for reuse of the sanitized excreta can be identified?

For each area for barrier, a short summary of the main findings will be presented followed by a short summary of the main findings and a table including all findings.

Following the system model, which can be found in section 1.4 on page 17, and following table 3.2 on page 41, barriers can be linked to each functional unit in the model, or concern the maintenance of infrastructure or operation of waste flows. In this section, the findings are structured in tables according to these predefined possible areas for: Usage, collection, storage and treatment, transport, application in agriculture, operation and maintenance. For each area, a table including all findings follows a short summary of the main findings. In the tables, each finding is named and the different methods used to investigate it are listed. Method 1 is the descriptive analysis of survey data, Method 2 is the word frequency analysis and Method 3 is citations gained from focus group discussion. Relative frequencies of answers are stated both for the descriptive analysis and for the word frequency analysis. For the frequency analysis the numbers of total respondents are also included. The codes F1, F2 or F3 state from which focus discussion a quote is taken. In the frequency analysis, the survey question where results are drawn from is stated since there are several different findings drawn from each question.

4.2.1 Findings concerning the usage of and the accessibility to the EcoSan latrine

Findings from the descriptive analysis indicate that the general accessibility to the latrine is good, with the exception being for small children and the elderly who in 75% respectively 24% of the cases cannot use or enter the latrine because of the stairs. Findings from the same dataset also show a usage loss concerning menstruating women, where 62% of the asked women state that they stop using the latrine during menstruation.

Usage of the latrine for urinating is another main point in the findings, where most respondents (51%) claim that they use the latrine for urinating, however not during daytime when they are away from home (F1, F2 and F3). Other findings from the household survey concerning usage include bad odor from the urine, dirty latrines and doors that easily break. 7% of respondents mention a problem with carrying out anal cleansing; all findings are presented in table 4.3 on the next page.

44

Table 4.3 Findings concerning usage of the EcoSan latrine. Findings Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Descriptive Word frequency Focus group analysis closed- analysis open-ended discussions end questions questions

Accessibility 95% claim that it is When asked about “Even if you are to the easy or very easy to general blind or sick you latrine use the latrine. 28% recommendations can use the latrine state that they have (Q208), the most if someone helps not met any common answer is to you inside” (F2) problems make the steps of the “Everyone wants concerning usage of stairs lower (13/382 to go to the the latrine. 7% answers), and enlarge latrine: men, reports that the cabin (7/382 women, children” handicapped people answers). (F1) cannot use the Investigating Q218, The participants latrine. concerning all agree that Field agents recommendations to everyone in the reported that the ease usage and household gets to latrine do not seem maintenance, where use the latrine, to be used in 10% of 125 out of 412 say except for the the observations something about small children while 74% seem to entering the latrine, who cannot use it. be using it either that the stairs (F2) regularly. should be lowered or to have a ramp instead.

Children Children younger 8/412 explicitly states “Small children accessibility than 4 years old do that access for cannot enter not use the latrine children is a problem because of the in 75% of the cases, (Q218). stairs”, but 62% report that The recommendation “beneficiaries can they throw the for solving this is to still collect the small children's lower the steps small child faeces into the (13/383 Q208, excreta in a potty vaults after 107/412 Q218) or to and pour it to the defecation. build a ramp (15/412 latrine later” (F2) Q218).

Elderly's 24% of the That old people can “Old people have accessibility surveyed people have difficulty using a difficult time report that elderly the latrine seems to be using the latrine

45

Findings Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Descriptive Word frequency Focus group analysis closed- analysis open-ended discussions end questions questions

do not use the a problem regarding because of the latrine. access and is stairs.” (F1) mentioned 3/412 “There can be a times in Q218. problem with the For recommendations, elevation since it see “children's makes it difficult accessibility” above. for older people to enter the latrine” (F2)

Women’s Out of all the Q221, concerning why “Those who use usage respondents 7% the latrine does not the latrine are state that allow menstruation mostly women menstruating hygiene managing, because men are women do not use shows that the reasons not home during the latrine. When for not using the the days.” (F3) excluding male latrine during respondents, this menstruation are percentage mainly two: increases to 11%. Cultural, where the Asking women women feel ashamed specifically on their of their menstruation own menstruating and want to preserve practices, 62% state their dignity by not that they do not use letting others know the latrine during they are having their menstruation. period. It is also out of respect to other users that they do not visit the latrine during this period (30/72). Women stated that they do not visit the latrine during menstruation since they cannot use water for cleaning themselves in it since they know they are

46

Findings Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Descriptive Word frequency Focus group analysis closed- analysis open-ended discussions end questions questions

not supposed to mix it with the faeces and believe it shouldn’t be mixed with the urine (63/72).

Usage for 51% report that - “If you are not at urinating they use the EcoSan home, you do not latrine for urinating use the latrine”, when asked “You don’t use it specifically about during the day”, urinating practices. “If you are at the 35% state that most field, you do not members in the leave to go home concession urinate and urinate.” (F1) in the shower area. “The participants speak about having many school boys in the ménage who are not using the latrine during the day.” (F2) “They have a shower where they can go themselves, here they can also pee.” (F3)

Urine odor Out of the surveyed, In Q208, 6/382 “When asked 35% report that requests a product of directly, there often is a bad which 5 ask for one participants odor from the that will take away the speak about the urine. smell. Q218 receives odor as a problem The field agents 16 responses and inquiries have in 13% of the regarding odor of some product to cases reported that which 14 ask for a solve this there is heavy odor, product against this. problem.” (F1)

47

Findings Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Descriptive Word frequency Focus group analysis closed- analysis open-ended discussions end questions questions

in 33% that there is no odor and in 54% that there is little odor.

Dirty latrine 26% report that the From Q218, it seems - latrine often is dirty. like there is Field agents state equipment missing for that the latrine slab cleaning the cabinet was a bit dirty or and the latrine e.g. very dirty in 70% of gloves and brushes - the observations. 18/412 brushes, 13/412 soap or similar. 33/412 lack gloves for emptying, cleaning and/or maintenance.

Doors in bad 22% report The doors need to be “Also the doors condition problems with better is reported by are not closing the latrine 61/382 in Q208 and convenient, they door. by 41/412 in Q218. can easily break.” In 21% of Respondents (F2) observations, the preferably want doors field agents have in some kind of metal, reported doors that which 16/382 are out of function reported in Q208. while 13% are missing doors completely.

Performing 7% state that it is Q207, one person “One reason urine anal hard to carry out doesn’t want other collection has cleansing the anal cleansing. people to see they you slowed down are going to the toilet. might be that it is “Shame to be seen by hard to clean others when going to oneself after or leaving the latrine ” using the latrine, (Q207) therefore, we do

48

Findings Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Descriptive Word frequency Focus group analysis closed- analysis open-ended discussions end questions questions

not use it as frequently for urinating as for defecating” (F1)

4.2.2 Findings concerning collection of human excreta

Findings regarding collection mainly concern technical problems such as clogging of the urine hose (present in 34% of answers). The solution to this problem (to use a stick for cleaning it) was mentioned at the same time as the problem during focus group discussions.

Regarding infrastructure for urine collection, there are likely nutrient losses during urine collection. This is likely due to the fact that the connection between the jerry can and the urine hose was reported to be insufficient in 47% of the observed cases; in 36% of cases, the hose was not present at all. In all focus discussions, the jerry can availability was a main issue which sometimes resulted in no jerry can being attached to the urine outlet hose.

Table 4.4 Findings concerning collection of human excreta using the EcoSan latrine. Findings Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Descriptive Word frequency Focus group analysis closed- analysis open- discussions end questions ended questions

Clogged urine 34% state that 1/412 states a “When asked hose the urine hose problem with the directly, the often is clogged. pipe and would like it participants say 35% regularly to be wider (Q218). that the hose maintain and Amongst women, two being clogged is a clean the pipe. say that they do not problem. use the latrine during However, they menstruation know how to because they are solve this problem afraid of clogging the by disconnecting pipe. the hose and “I'm afraid to dirty using a stick to the slab and clog the remove the

49

pipes” blockage.” (F1) Urine Out of all field 116/421 answering “When all jerry collection observations, a on Q316 regarding cans are full they infrastructure jerry can for operating and sometimes have urine collection is storage give the to let the urine not present in recommendation that flow directly out 16% of cases, that the project should of the hose on to there is no hose hand out more jerry the ground.” (F1) in 36% of cases cans since they are and that the short on them and connection need them for both between the jerry collection and can and the hose storage. is bad in 47% of cases.

4.2.3 Findings concerning storage and treatment of excreta

The main finding in storage and treatment processes was concerning the problem with availability of jerry cans for urine storage. This finding occurs from all three methods used, and only 7% of the survey respondents claimed that jerry can availability was not a problem. The mean number of jerry cans possessed per beneficiary household was five.

Table 4.5 Findings concerning storage and treatment of human excreta. Findings Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Descriptive Word Focus group analysis closed- frequency discussions end questions analysis open- ended questions

The mean number 116/421 This was a main point Availability of jerry cans reports a lack of all focus group of jerry cans possessed per of jerry cans discussions. All groups household is and raised the problem of calculated to 5 pc, recommends availability, not the with std. 0.18. the project to price of jerry cans, 7% of the assist in this. when specifically respondents state “Give us more discussing problems that the jerry can jerry cans for concerning this. availability is not a storage of “When all jerry cans problem when urine.” are full they asked what they do See also “urine sometimes have to let

50

Findings Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Descriptive Word Focus group analysis closed- frequency discussions end questions analysis open- ended questions

when all jerry cans collection” the urine flow directly are full and it is not above. out of the hose on to time to use it in the ground.” (F1) agriculture. “There is always a jerry can connected to the hose of the latrine, if all jerry cans are full they just empty one on the compost pit and reconnect it”(F2) “If everyone had their own polytank the small numbers of jerry cans would not be a problem.” (F3)

93% state that the - - Faeces faeces are very dry treatment when they empty the dehydration vaults. 68% of respondents empty the vaults once or twice a year.

43% of respondents 45/421 “It you need to empty Faeces store sanitized respondents of the vault and it is not storage faeces in sacks after Q316 wish to rain season, they can emptying the vaults. receive sacks or put the solid fertilizer 30% put it directly have more into bags and store it on the fields, sacks. in a cool place.” (F3) whereas the rest “We need put it in a pit or pile wheelbarrows, or add it to their sacks, cans etc.” compost pit. (Q316)

51

4.2.4 Findings concerning transport of excreta to reuse location

Most households (85%) have access to a wheelbarrow which they also use for transportation of sanitized excreta to their fields. However, the wheelbarrow might be unavailable at times, due to many neighbors using the same one. Most households estimate the distance to their bush field by foot (49%) with the mean value of 19 minutes by foot. The mean value for going to the bush field by charrette and donkey is 40 minutes. For those respondents practicing vegetable gardening, 21% estimate the distance going by moped, with a mean value of 40 minutes.

Table 4.6 - Findings concerning transport of excreta to reuse location. Findings Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Descriptive analysis Word frequency Focus group closed-end questions analysis open- discussions ended questions

Access to One respondent did not 119 out of 421 “Totally nine people transport have access to any have met (out of 16) mention vehicle transport vehicle. Over problems with the the same problem 85% have access to a transportation concerning wheelbarrow and 80% since they do not unavailable state they use a possess any or wheelbarrows since wheelbarrow with a enough they have to donkey to transport wheelbarrows. borrow one from a sanitized excreta to the (Q316) neighbor.” (F2) fields.

Distance When respondents are - “Most of the liquid to bush asked to estimate the fertilizer is used on field distance to their bush the field closest to field, 49% estimate the the house, where distance in minutes by mainly vegetables foot with a mean value are grown. They of 19 minutes (std. 1.2). don’t bring it to the 31% estimated the places further distance in minutes by away.” (F3) bicycle with a mean of “The solid fertilizer 18 minutes (Std. 1.3) is … used in fields and 11% estimate the further away where distance by they, among other wheelbarrow and things, grow millet, donkey with the mean corn, sorghum, is 40 minutes (std. sesame and peas.” 4.8). (F3)

52

Distance When respondents - “The participants to are asked to estimate use the liquid vegetable the distance to their fertilizer more garden vegetable garden frequently [than 48% answer in once a year like minutes by foot, with the solid one], a mean time of 13 therefore it is minutes (Std. 1.5). used in the 29% of the vegetable garden.” respondents (F3) estimated the distance in minutes by bicycle, with a mean time of 18 minutes (Std. 2.3). 21% estimated distance by moped, with a mean time of 40 minutes (Std. 8.7)

4.2.5 Findings concerning application of sanitized excreta in agriculture

Most respondents in the survey (55%) reuse both kinds of fertilizer in agriculture. Among those who do not reuse both kinds, the main reason given for this is that they have not emptied the latrine vaults yet, hence have not produced any sanitized faeces. There is missing knowledge among respondents concerning dosage of sanitized urine in 17% of the cases, but there is a consensus in the focus groups and the survey that the sanitized excreta can be used on all crops and that the results will be good if the fertilizer is used properly. The most common problem concerning application is the bad urine odor (55%). Worries about whether the urine is actually sanitized (25%) and lack of equipment for application of urine (36%) and faeces (21%) are subsequently the most common problems reported concerning application.

Table 4.7 Findings concerning application of sanitized excreta in agriculture. Findings Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Descriptive analysis Word frequency Focus group closed-end analysis open- discussions questions ended questions

Overall 5% report no reuse at all, When asked why only “For the solid fertilizer, reuse 38% report only reusing one product is reused, you have to wait for the liquid fertilizer, 2% only the main reason is rainy season to use it.”, reuse the solid one and that they have not yet “Both the liquid and the

53

Findings Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Descriptive analysis Word frequency Focus group closed-end analysis open- discussions questions ended questions

55% report reusing both emptied the latrine solid fertilizer can be the liquid and solid vault (128/215) and used on all crops.” (F3) fertilizers. therefore have not had the chance to When asked how they reuse solid fertilizer. find application of liquid (Q402) fertilizer in general, 42% state that it is easy. For 61/215 state that the the solid one 55% claim reason is because the the same. vaults are not full yet. (Q402)

Dosage- 17% report that one 18 out of 443 state Dosage was a main knowledge problem they face that there is a need point mentioned in all concerning application of for more training on three discussions. liquid fertilizer is that how to dose the they do not know the fertilizers. (Q407) “The crops will be correct dosage This successful if you use the percentage decreases to right dosage, but if you 6% for the solid fertilizer. use the wrong dosage you will kill them.” (F1)

“The participants miss specific knowledge on how to use the liquid and solid fertilizer, and say that anything that can increase the harvest is welcome.” (F2)

Place for 54% reuse sanitized - “They reuse the liquid reuse excreta on their fertilizer only in the household field, 52% in household field … this is the bush fields (possible because they don’t have to choose both options). enough liquid fertilizer Out of the households to make it worth it to practicing vegetable transport it to the bush gardening 43% reuse fields, not because it is sanitized excreta on bad.” (F1) vegetables.

Out of the households that possess a compost pit 95% use the compost and 74% have watering restraints concerning the compost. 40% reuse

54

Findings Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Descriptive analysis Word frequency Focus group closed-end analysis open- discussions questions ended questions

sanitized excreta by adding it to the compost.

Crops and The most commonly - “Participants do not usability grown crops for study reuse any sanitized population are: Millet excreta on peanuts (76%), Sorghum (77%), because they grow Corn (60%), Beans (83%), close to the ground.” Peanuts (65%) and rice (F1) (22%). Each household grows several different “Participants can notice crops and 38% also that their crops are practice vegetable flourishing, not very gardening. much but better than before they got the 88% of the respondent latrine.” (F1) state that the harvest is better or much better “After some discussions when using EcoSan the participants agree fertilizers. that the urine can be used on all crops and vegetables, which is good.“ (F2)

“The sanitized urine is good for all crops.” (F3)

Equipment 36% report that one Concerning liquid “All the gloves and restrains problem is that they do fertilizer 44/443 masks they received for not have the right want some tool that handling the urine from equipment for applying would help them doze the project now are liquid fertilizer. For the the fertilizer in the damaged.” (F3) solid one this percentage right amount (Q407). is 21%.

Hygiene 25% report that they fear - “The participants think worries the liquid fertilizer is not the liquid fertilizer is sanitized when applying it not efficient until it has in agriculture. For the been stored for 45 solid fertilizer the days.” (F1) percentage decreases to 9%.

55

Findings Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Descriptive analysis Word frequency Focus group closed-end analysis open- discussions questions ended questions

Urine odor The most common 88/443 state that - problem reported sometimes there is a concerning application is problem with bad the urine odor. 55% have odor from the ticked that option. sanitized urine (Q407).

Cultural/ One respondent reported - - religious a problem with shame taboos regarding using the sanitized faeces on the crops. Seven respondents report the same problem concerning usage of sanitized urine.

4.2.6 Findings concerning operating the EcoSan system and handling the waist flows

Concerning operating and handling waste flows within the EcoSan system, the most frequently mentioned problem concerns insufficient equipment for this. Gloves, masks and shovels are requested, among other things. The work with changing the jerry can and emptying the vaults is according to most respondents not difficult; however a large number of respondents (44%) had never emptied the latrine vaults when the survey was performed. The main reason for this was that the vaults were not full yet (62%). Interest in the sanitized excreta’s possibility as fertilizer was one of the main reasons for constructing the latrines, 92% of the respondents include this as one of three possible reasons. However, additional knowledge about how to handle waste flows safely is requested frequently among the respondents.

Table 4.8 Findings concerning operating the EcoSan system and handling the waste flows. Findings Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Descriptive Word frequency Focus group analysis closed- analysis open- discussions end questions ended questions

Changing 70 % of the answers - - jerry can stated that the work with changing and

56

Findings Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Descriptive Word frequency Focus group analysis closed- analysis open- discussions end questions ended questions

storing the urine is easy or very easy.

Emptying 295 respondents - “It is sanitized when you the vaults (56%) had emptied empty the vault and you the vault at least once can take it in your hand when the survey was without problems.” (F1) conducted.

21% of these report that the work with emptying the latrine vaults is difficult or very difficult.

Out of the remaining respondents, 62% report that the reason they have not yet emptied the latrine vaults is because they are not full.

Equipment 96% reports using a The equipment with “Lack of equipment for for shovel for emptying the biggest demand emptying the vaults is the vaults, 60% uses when it comes to lifted as a problem”, emptying gloves, 37% uses some emptying is gloves, “Participants were latrine sort of mask to cover where 127/421 promised equipment like vaults their mouth. Two require gloves. gloves and masks but respondents report Additional demands never receive those from not using anything for are for shovels, masks the project. However, they emptying the latrine and boots (127, 106, state that they manage to vaults (e.i. just grab it 68). (Q316) empty the vaults without in their hands). this equipment.” (F2)

“The participants Knowledge Over 53% of the - emphasize that they need respondents are more training, several illiterate and have times during the never attended school. discussions, specifically 28% can read but have linked to having more never attended school. people understanding the 84% state that their benefits of using the

57

Findings Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Descriptive Word frequency Focus group analysis closed- analysis open- discussions end questions ended questions

main livelihood is latrine and how to handle agriculture. the sanitized urine .... They like handling the solid fertilizer more” (F1)

Incentives 92% of the 65/382 (Q208) quote “[The latrine] is good to produce respondents state that “more latrines” or because there are no more interest in EcoSan “numbers of latrines” dirty places … and we get fertilizer fertilizers was one of in sentences fertilizer.” (F2) the three main reasons suggesting they want for constructing the more latrines because latrine. 32% state it is the family is growing the most important or that they want for reason. more people to be beneficiaries. In Q218, 11/412 say the same.

4.2.7 Findings concerning the maintenance of the latrine and additional infrastructure

Concerning barriers related to maintenance of the latrine, some interesting results were found. There was low gender-diversion between who performs maintenance, and regular maintenance and cleaning was performed in most cases (all except five out of 522 respondents in the survey). The most common maintenance made was cleaning the latrine slab and making sure there were ashes present in the latrine cabin. 19% of the respondents reported having made improvements on their latrine since they received it.

58

Table 4.9 Findings concerning the maintenance of sanitation infrastructure. Findings Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Descriptive Word frequency Focus group analysis closed- analysis open- discussions end questions ended questions

Construction Field agents report Out of 382 answers, “The material that the latrine walls 111 give participants are constructed in recommendations like the latrine banco (mud bricks) that the latrines but want in 82% of the ought to be built in cement for observations. some other material reinforcement or that the exterior is of the cabin” in some way (F1) reinforced. 56 suggest that the latrine or parts of it should be made in “cement”.

Cleaning the 79% state that 25/412 state a lack of “We were latrine sweeping the cabin equipment such as promised some is one of the regular gloves and brushes. equipment [for maintenance done. 16/412 want a cleaning], like 84% say they clean product like soap or gloves and the slab with water other disinfectant brooms but regularly. 5 (Q218). never received respondents claim them” (F2) never to have cleaned the latrine.

Insufficient Field agents’ Three answers state When asked presence of observations state that they would like specifically, ash that in 56% of the some kind of help to they state that cases there is no get rid of the flies odor or flies are presence or (2/382 from Q208, not problems insufficient presence 1/412 from Q218). since they use of ash. 69% of ash. (F2) respondents state that ensuring the presence of ashes is one of the maintenance tasks regularly done.

59

Presence of There are few - See insects and observations of “Insufficient flies large numbers of presence of insects or flies ash” above. around the latrine (1% resp. 2%). Smaller numbers of insects and flies were reported more frequently (22 % resp. 41 %)

4.2.8 What findings are identified as barriers?

Within the above findings, several barriers of different types (technical or socio- cultural) can be identified based on the selection method.

Identified usage barriers concern constraints of children's, elderly's and menstruating women’s usage of the latrine and overall usage of the latrine for urinating. These losses of usage subsequently affect the amount of nutrients brought back to agriculture and enable closing the nutrient loop. Furthermore, the urine usage and collection losses calculations performed in relation to research question one indicate a big discrepancy between theoretical and estimated actual values.

The collection barriers identified concern regularly clogged urine hose and faulty connections to and absence of a urine collection container, negatively affecting the amount of nutrients brought back to agriculture if leakage occurs. The only storage barrier identified is the lack of jerry cans or other urine storage possibilities, but this has a big effect on the nutrient losses due to the discrepancy in available storage (mean: 5 jerry cans á 20 liter per household) and needed storage (mean volume per household and year 9625 liter).

The distance to places of reuse is identified as a transport barrier due to the long mean distances to bush fields and vegetable gardens (~40 min with donkey and wheelbarrow), where the subsequent transport time and possibilities to access a vehicle might affect households’ possibility to reuse. Concerning application, several barriers have been identified: knowledge about dosage, equipment restraints, hygiene concerns, and bad odor from the urine.

One identified barrier linked to operation of the system and handling the waste flows is the lack of equipment for emptying the latrine dehydration vaults. One barrier identified regarding maintenance is the insufficient presence of ashes in the latrines. On the next page in table 4.10 all barriers are summarized.

60

Table 4.10 Summary of all findings.

Area Findings Type of barrier

Usage barriers U1: Usage loss, children Technical barrier U2: Usage loss, elderly Technical barrier U3: Usage loss, menstruating Social barrier Technical/ women Social barrier U4: Usage for urinating

Collection barriers C1: Clogged urine hose Technical barrier C2: Connection urine hose and Technical barrier jerry can

Storage & treatment S1: Jerry can availability Technical barrier barriers

Transport barriers T1: Distance to place of reuse Technical barrier

Barriers regarding O1: Equipment for emptying Technical barrier operating the system vaults

Barriers regarding A1: Dosage knowledge urine Knowledge barrier application in A2: Equipment restraints for Technical barrier agriculture application A3: Hygiene worries for urine Social barrier A4: Urine odor Social barrier

Maintenance barriers M1: Insufficient presence of Technical barrier ashes

61

Figure 4.11 System model with all barriers placed

As seen in figure 4.1 and table 4.10, totally 14 barriers were identified, and all processes in the EcoSan system are at least affected by one barrier each. The meaning and implications of these findings are further discussed in the discussion chapter.

4.3 How does initial behavior changing actions affect the reuse practice?

The question was investigated based on the thesis that training and behavior changing actions during the project implementation affected the reuse practices of the users. The thesis was investigated through the two sub-questions below.

First off, all three projects had different focus and implementation aim during implementation. LVIA focused on the hygiene aspect, while EU2 and EU3 focused more on agricultural possibilities and how to increase food security by reusing sanitized excreta as fertilizers. All three projects were, however, including both health and agricultural aspects during initial training in the implementation phase (Dickin et al., 2017).

The main objective for LVIA was to increase the rate of access to with focus on sanitation and health aspects (LVIA, 2012), while the aim for EU3 was to reduce food insecurity by using sanitized human excreta as fertilizer (ProConsult, 2011). The aim for EU2 was “to contribute to reducing food insecurity and poverty of the people ... through the improvement of soil fertility through the use of human excreta in combination with water and soil conservation techniques (CES)” (CLISS, 2012, p.1). Due to the focus on agriculture within EU2 and EU3, the National Institute for Environment and Agricultural Research (INERA) were also a participating actor during the implementation phase, with focus on reuse and agricultural training (Dickin et al., 2017).

62

The difference is shown in how the projects were implemented regarding additional equipment for agricultural practices. Within the EU2 project, each beneficiary household received an agricultural kit consisting of, among other things: a shovel, a pickaxe, a wheelbarrow & a watering can (CLISS, 2012). The EU3 project included a similar kit, but with slight deviations, for instance the EU2 beneficiaries received some sort of tool used for water and soil conservation techniques (ProConsult, 2011). The project report from LVIA does not indicate that any equipment except the latrine and a pair of jerry cans were handed out (LVIA, 2012).

4.3.1 How was initial behavior changing actions performed in the different projects?

For training and awareness raising concerning health aspects, means such as local theatre and community meetings with villagers were used in all projects (Dickin et al., 2017). This training concerning health aspects was performed according to the Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation-approach (PHAST-approach).

Training concerning the agricultural aspects of all project implementations included something called farmer field schools. In fields for cereal and vegetables, one member from each beneficiary household was trained practically in usage of the sanitized excreta as fertilizers. Tests with different kinds of excreta were performed to visualize the effects of usage on the crop yields (Dickin et al., 2017). Within EU2, urine collection was started early during the project implementation phase (before introducing latrines), and tests on yield with urine as a fertilizer were performed with participants from beneficial households, and agricultural producers. Sensitization sessions on hygiene aspects were then performed, and lastly the EcoSan latrines were introduced. Same approach was used within EU3, where EU2 included 2000 and EU3 1800 (Dagerskog & Bonzi, 2010). Within LVIA, the practical field training was outsourced to agents from the NGO Water and Sanitation for Africa (WSA) and performed later in the project implementation (LVIA, 2014), but no urinoirs and early sessions with participants from beneficial households regarding urine applications effect on yields seems to have been performed (Dagerskog & Bonzi, 2010).

According to Karim Savadogo, who has worked within CREPA/WSA for 23 years and was involved in implementing all three projects, the difference in approach between the projects affected the depth and quantity of agricultural training the beneficiaries got. Especially LVIA did not include as much field training as the other projects (K. Savadogo, Personal communication, April 18, 2017). Training schools within EU2 also included water and soil conservation techniques, because of the poor soil quality and scarce water supply Burkinabe farmers often meet (CLISS, 2012; Tincani, 2012).

During focus group discussions, the difference regarding training and equipment could be noted. First and foremost, the participants of LVIA requested more training and additional equipment several times, while during the other two discussions these aspects were only brought up when participants were asked directly. There was also a notable difference in knowledge among the participants. For instance, one man

63 within LVIA talks about how the liquid fertilizer (urine) has to be stored for 45 days to get efficient, when another man within EU3 states the actual reason, that urine should be stored for 45 days to make sure it is sanitized.

In the EU3 final project report, one recommendation for future projects was to include a consolidation phase after the infrastructure was in place, including retraining of beneficiaries to make sure their actions are kept on track (ProConsult, 2011). This was also a main point stated by Sano Martin, a researcher from the Institute for Environment and Agricultural research (INERA) who was involved in both EU2 and EU3. He spoke about how WSA in the end of EU2 project realized that long-term follow up training was needed. This lesson was later included in the project plan of EU3, but since the project was terminated before intended, it was never conducted (S. Martin, Personal communication, April 21, 2017). LVIA writes about how one lesson learned is that training should not only include correct use and maintenance of the latrine, but all parts of the sanitation chain. Since the EcoSan system requires emptying and safe handling of the urine and faeces, it is impossible to achieve long-term sustainability otherwise (LVIA, 2014).

Another aspect that affects the long-term functionality is what Karim Savadogo refers to as the factor of time. For the implementation of the latrines to be successful, all the infrastructure and other necessary features have to be implemented in just a few years before the project dead-line runs out. Additionally, to enable long term use and functionality, the users’ needs to feel ownership and manage the maintenance of the system without any support after these years. In practice, the time for project implementation is often not enough to perform all the above (Personal communication, April 18, 2017). To recall, EU2 was implemented during 42 months, EU3 during 22 months and LVIA during 44 (Dickin et al., 2017).

4.3.2 How do reuse practices differ between the projects?

To recall, the reuse index includes 14 questions and gives each household a score between 0-16. It is divided into three classes: low, medium and high reuse practices. Scores between 0-5 classifies a household as low, scores between 6-10 classifies it as medium and scores between 11-16 classifies it as high.

Following the requirements stated in method on which households to include, a total of 326 households are included. Also the distribution of the projects in the included data is: 98 households (30%) from EU2, 90 households (28%) from EU3 and 138 households (42%) from LVIA. The reuse index total mean value is 9 out of 16, which classifies as medium reuse of both the feces and the urine.

No household met all the criteria for a good reuse practice and got a score over 14. In the intervals, 45 households (14%) classify as low reuse (0-5 points in index), 198 households (61%) score within the range of a medium reuse (6-10 points) and 83 households, 25%, appear within the high reuse practice range (11-16 points).

64

Figure 4.3 Class distribution for households belonging to the different projects

From the diagram above, the difference between reuse practice within the three projects is revealed. From the LVIA low reuse is at 22% compared to EU2 and EU3 that have 3% respectively 12%. Medium reuse is 66% for LVIA, 57% for EU2 and 56% for EU3. High reuse ads up to 12% in LVIA, 40% in EU2 and 30% in EU3.

65

5 Discussion

In this chapter, the results and methodological choices are discussed for each of the research questions.

The aim of this study was to identify barriers for reuse of sanitized excreta in local agriculture and the goal was pursued through answering three research and further discussing them. The first research question presented below was included to investigate the practical situation among the study population and quantify how barriers were affecting the overall recovery. By performing a comparative material flow analysis using mostly survey data, earlier research and assumptions, some interesting results were found.

How big is the discrepancy between theoretical and practical recovery of nutrients N, P and K in sanitized human excreta?

Here bellows a discussion on the results on the gap between theoretical and practical recovery, followed by a discussion on the mythological choices.

The main results can be summarized into a total discrepancy, where a mean value of 90% N, 80% P and 84% K is lost between theoretical recovery and practical recovery. This result indicates that the identified barriers affect the system functionality and long term sustainability in a broad sense, since the sanitation chain cannot be considered to work properly with this discrepancy. To recall, EcoSan systems have twin goals: to minimize health hazards and provide users with fertilizers (Dagerskog et al., 2015). Based on the results, EcoSan systems studied here at least fail on the second one.

When investigating the two different types of excreta separately, findings suggest a total volume discrepancy of over 98% regarding urine. This is further discussed in the four following paragraphs.

When investigating the two different types of excreta separately, findings suggest a total volume discrepancy of over 98% regarding urine. The absolute majority of this loss (~96%) occurs in the usage or collection phase, but the partition between usage and collection loss is not known due to data scarcity. Additionally, not even households who have the highest recovery practices produce a volume corresponding to the theoretical mean volume. Urine contains around 70% of the excreta nutrients (Dagerskog & Bonzi, 2010), therefore the discrepancy here indicates a failure of the system’s functionality and sustainability. However, the

66 question remains why the urine losses are so big. This will be further discussed in relation to barriers affecting especially urine collection and storage.

98% discrepancy in volume between practical and theoretical recovery is a lot and gives one reason to question the methodological choices concerning calculation of the usage of the latrine for urinating and the collection of urine. This study argues that the result is reasonable since users’ own estimates regarding how often they change the urine jerry were used as a basis. The survey question is easy to understand, and there does not seem to be any inaccuracies in the survey data, with indicates a high reliability. A considerably large part of the answers report a different changing frequency than any of the predefined options. There is a possibility to improve the accuracy of the result by analyzing the open answers more thoroughly and estimate volumes individually, however this would probably not change the results drastically. The results match the quantity of jerry cans that each household possesses, where the mean is five jerry cans each. Earlier project evaluations show that even in cases where additional urine storage centers are constructed (as for EU2) they often end up not being used (CLISS, 2012). During focus group discussions, the same pattern of low changing frequency came up as in the survey, but further explanations regarding the difference between what the participants say and do were given (Liamputtong, 2016). For instance, one reason for the low collection rate was a lack of usage for urinating during daytime, mainly due to being on the fields or in school (F2). This was an interesting finding concerning the technical and institutional aspects of sustainable sanitation of the EcoSan, indicating that only implementing the latrine as an option for collection of excreta might not be the best solution, according to the sustainable sanitation definition (Anderson et al., 2016).

Another explanation to why the amount of recycled urine is low is that the latrines are dirty. The survey results showed that 70% of the latrines were a bit dirty or very dirty at the time when the field agents were making observations. From earlier research by Hajra and Dutta (2016), it is known that a well-maintained latrine is more likely to be used. The responsibility of the maintenance of EcoSan systems lies on the users which requires that they are provided with the right conditions to do this, for instance the right equipment and tools for maintenance (Tilley et al., 2014). During the focus group discussions, information was gained regarding how people in the EU2 did not receive the equipment for cleaning which they were promised. So here the project implementation has failed, since providing equipment is a way to ensure high system function over time (Dagerskog et al., 2015).

The main result for the faeces is that there is approximately a 50% discrepancy between theoretical and practical recovery regarding all nutrients. This result’s reliability is questionable however, since it is based on estimations instead of measurements. Instead of basing calculations on mean vault volume, density, water and nutrition content of the emptied dry matter, estimations based on theoretical values and assumptions had to be made. The Uganda nutrient distribution was the closest one found geographically (Jönsson et al., 2004), but it might not be a good substitute for the Burkina Faso one due to differences regarding diet, which for the

67 moment of writing are not known. More importantly, the mass faeces emptied is an estimation based on earlier research from Dagerskog & Bonzi (2010), and estimated to 200 kg for every household.

Limitations of the method and this study regarding the results of the big gap between theoretical and practical recovery.

A limitation of this study is how it only concerns the content of macronutrients N, P and K in human excreta, when as Jönsson et al. (2004) states, human excreta also contains many other substances necessary for plant growth. Among other things, the study excludes water, soil organic matter and micronutrients content in human excreta. However, a high rate of recovery of N, P and K would in most cases also indicate a high recovery of other content. And as Jönsson et al also state, N is frequently the limiting factor for plant growth and it is rare that micronutrients limit the growth.

Since the soil fertility is poor and has a composition with little organic material (Tincani, 2012), the recycling of sanitized faeces containing organic matter would be a major asset for agriculture. Also, the fact that the population is growing leads to that the agricultural sector is increasing, while there is no more soil to grow on, and the soil does not have the time to recover between harvests. This means that more nutrients for the soil is needed and better soil quality required (Tincani, 2012). One way to accomplish this can be by mixing the soil with pollutant material, such as sanitized faeces. If the soil can better maintain liquid, significant watering can be reduced to further compensate for the dry periods (Tincani, 2012).

The choice of method for calculating the discrepancy is brought up in the following the paragraphs and contains limitations of this and what the outcome of this might have led to.

Another limitation of the study concerns how it only includes calculations regarding the possible recovery, not the actual uptake of nutrients in plants. Getting the fertilizer to the fields is only the first step; where the second step is to dose and apply it properly to ensure that plants will be able take it up. Also, since the soil is usually poor in organic matter, erosion and other possible nutrient losses which occur after application might be of considerable importance (Tincani, 2012). However, it is outside of this study’s boundary to investigate these losses quantitatively.

Some assumptions made and values used for calculating the discrepancy should also be discussed, where the main point to raise is how the flow charts are a simplification and how that subsequently affects the reliability of the results. For instance, there might be more losses along the sanitation chain. Additionally, no transport losses are assumed for any of the excreta, with the argument that the volumes are small enough to make transport rather easy. What is collected and treated is assumed to also be transported to agriculture, since otherwise it would probably not have been collected in the first place.

68

What barriers for recovery of sanitized excreta can be identified?

A short recapitulation of the results will lead into discussing them and the method for attaining them.

A total of 14 barriers were found, seven were solely concerning the urine recovery chain. The two barriers that seem to have the biggest impact on urine recycling are usage of the latrine for urinating and availability of jerry cans.

Below a discussion concerning the findings on what is considered barriers presented and a hint what the reason for these might be.

The effects on the system functionality and sustainability are huge, as the discrepancy between theoretical recovery and practical recovery exceeds 98%. Earlier research regarding barriers for usage by Hajra and Dutta (2016) show that the absence of consistent and systematic use of the latrines was one of the main reasons for failure of large-scale sanitation projects. A possible conclusion is that the beneficiaries do not use the latrine for urinating since they know that they will not be able to store and reuse sanitized urine anyways; additionally they know that open defecation of urine is exposing them to few if any diseases (Dagerskog et al., 2015). The barrier concerning availability of jerry cans is considered to be technical since the system is based on the usage of jerry cans for collection and storage, but the projects only supplied a limited number of jerry cans to each beneficial household (Dickin et al., 2017).

Three barriers concerned usage of the EcoSan latrine, where children and elderly had accessibility constraints and menstruating women seemed to be constrained socio-culturally. This can, and should, be compared with the SDG target 6.2. which aims towards providing “access to adequate and equitable sanitation ... for all, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations”. These barriers are affecting women's and other vulnerable groups’ access to the sanitation system, which could indicate that the EcoSan system as is might not be appropriate to be used for reaching the SDGs, at least not in rural Burkina Faso. Another possible implication is that the system infrastructure needs to be better modified to the social, institutional and technical setting where it is implemented. This is a good example of what Andersson et al. (2016) mean by that a sustainable system has to fit the setting to be truly sustainable.

Furthermore, the results indicate that the urine recovery is affected by a few social barriers such as cultural constraints. Only 7% of respondents report not reusing urine in agriculture and less than 2% state that this is due to religious constraints. A social barrier is lacking knowledge among beneficiaries concerning how to dose the sanitized urine, and several technical barriers such as bad connection between the

69 jerry can and the urine hose affect the recovery of urine. But despite these barriers, urine is still reused in agriculture, which shows strong incentives for reuse among the beneficiaries. This can be compared to what Dagerskog & Bonzi (2010) addressed as mental barriers, where one approach to overcome the unwillingness to handle urine was to rename it as liquid fertilizer in the local language. Also as one participant in focus group 3 stated: “anything that improves the yield is welcome.” So, social or mental barrier might not be of great importance concerning the urine handling.

Concerning barriers for the recovery of nutrients in faeces, the found barriers are fewer than for urine, and social barriers such as religious constraints concerning Muslims and anal cleansing only showed up in 7% of the survey responses. This aligns with the findings of Uddin et al. (2014) which showed a general acceptance for sanitation systems based on urine-diverting dry toilets (UDDT) in rural Muslim communities. Additionally, Uddin et al. showed that the rate of beneficiaries reusing sanitized excreta on their own fields was high, where results from this study show similar patterns, except for households that have not yet emptied the latrine dehydration vaults of sanitized excreta.

Another result is that 93% of the households that have emptied the faeces vaults report that the faeces is very dry, which indicates that the treatment was successful (Tilley et al., 2014). There are no technical barriers concerning treatment even though the only maintenance barrier found concerns the insufficient presence of treatment additive in the form of ashes (M1) (for 56%). Whereas no bigger barriers are identified concerning recovery of faeces, and those found are mainly technical, a conclusion is that the EcoSan system has been accepted among users regarding the faeces. The socio-cultural acceptance is high and the EcoSan system seems to be institutionally appropriate concerning the faeces collection, according to SuSanA’s definition of sustainable sanitation (Andersson et al., 2016).

One barrier affecting both kinds of excreta was the joint transport barrier (T1) concerning distance to bush field and vegetable gardens. To get to their bush field by donkey and wheelbarrow the mean time is estimated to 40 minutes, and for going to the vegetable garden the mean time by moped is estimated to 40 minutes (results). Even if there was no identifiable barrier concerning the availability of transport vehicles, the potential volume of sanitized urine produced (Dagerskog & Bonzi, 2010) would require several trips to the locations each week. During focus group discussions, participants talked about how they often must borrow transport vehicles from each other, showing that beneficial households might have access to several transport vehicles, but not for the total amount of time it would take to transport all sanitized excreta to distant bush fields or vegetable gardens. This barrier can also be discussed in relation to the poor infrastructure of rural Burkina Faso, where roads often are in bad condition (Tincani, 2012), making trips even harder to conduct. This study cannot decide how big this problem is, but what can be said is that the collaboration between these factors affect the EcoSan systems long-term functionality and sustainability since it cannot be considered technically appropriate (Anderson et al., 2016).

70

Methodologically, the discussion concerning the second research question (identifying barriers) will mainly address the frequency analysis and the selection of barriers.

The frequency analysis used a joint quantitative and qualitative approach since it included both counting the times specific terms were mentioned in the open-ended questions and included a review of the context in which those terms were expressed (Ruel et al., 2016). However, all responses were not reviewed verbatim due to time limitations one term was searched for and the context in a sample of 5-10 answers were reviewed verbatim. This led to a less qualitative approach, which subsequently might have meant that important themes in the data were missed (Ruel et al., 2016). Initially the idea was to do a thematic analysis of all responses, but since all responses were written in non-academic and sometimes misspelled French, lead to a risk of losing words a word frequency analysis was therefore performed. Note, the quality of the field agents’ translation from Mòoré (the language of the interviewee) to French (official language in Burkina Faso) cannot be guaranteed to be 100% correct at all times or that the right terms always were used or correct spelled. There is of course also a risk of misunderstanding, especially if field agents were not native speaking or fluent in Mòoré or the other way around. All these things can of course have an impact on the reliability but there are so many answers (522) that it can be assumed to be leveled out or that the message still comes out. Along with the other analysis of words as well as the verbatim read sentences and in combination with the focus group interviews it is believed that no barriers were missed.

Concerning the selection of barriers, recall the definition used, where a barrier is “a … obstacle that prevents movement or access [to sanitized excreta in agriculture]” (page 27). However, the methodology used does not only rely on this definition, but mostly on what is presented in section 3.1.2. The final selection is subjective which enables bias and preconceptions affecting it, however this was dealt with using an approach called inter-rater reliability (Ruel et al., 2016), where the selection was performed individually within the project group and was then externally approved by the project supervisor Sarah Dickin.

The choice of not having exposed groups, especially men and women, interviewed separately was based on the questions to be answered. These were considered not to be particularly related to any gender or other group. Also, the coordinator, who is not a scientist, but after having gone through the questionnaire did not see any meaning in dividing the owners into different groups of men and women. It can of course never be guaranteed that everyone gets their voice heard because of hierarchies etc. and then affect the reliability of the answers. Furthermore, if the answers between groups would differ, it would not be good for the validity either. From the survey, however, older people and small children find it difficult to use or do not use the latrine because they cannot climb the stairs and that women, because of cultural and to some extent knowledge, do not use the latrine during menstruation. Finding out more about these issues is a question for further research and the lack of jerry cans would remain even if men and women had separate latrines.

71

How does initial training and behavior changing actions affect reuse practices?

This section begins with a short summary of the results followed by a discussion regarding these and then a discussion about the methodology.

As presented in the diagram on reuse classification (Figure 4.3), there is a notable difference between the reuse practices between the projects. The EU2 and EU3 had almost the same level of medium reuse, whereas LVIA had almost 10% more medium reuses. The beneficiaries within the high reuse class is 40% and 30%, respectively, in the EU2 and EU3, but just above 12% in LVIA. Here is an attempt at trying to find an explanation to this difference. The results are further discussed in the following five paragraphs. The sixth is a short reflection over learnings in relation being a teacher that has come from working with this study. The PHAST approach not only concerns implementing a new technology and conducting basic training concerning this. It is also supposed to give the beneficiaries a deeper knowledge and change their behavior in the long-term. This requires, among other things, follow-up sessions situated later after the project implementation (WHO, 1997). It can be compared to the time aspect of studied projects, where these are limited by time and money - hence this long-term behavior change might be hard to implement. As Dagerskog et al. (2015) state, aid projects are often not a good and reliable basis for long-term financing, since these types of commitments are time limited to a shorter period than the lifetime of the system. Further on, these projects have a pre-determined budget which has led to that some aspects of the implementation were not carried out. For example, the last part of training in project EU3 was not performed (Karim Savadogo, personal communication, April 12, 2017), equipment for the project in EU2 was never handed out (F2), and a user manual concerning dosage and application was never completed or handed out (concerning all projects) (Linus Dagerskog, personal communication, 2017). Another difference concerns the difference in project implementation time, where EU3 was implemented in only 22 month, compared to EU2 and LVIA which were implemented during 42 and 44 months, respectively (Dagerskog et al., 2015). In PHAST, there is a point regarding how the ones concerned with the problems also are the ones who come up with the best solutions, since they are experts on their own situation (WHO, 1997). Since the users were not involved in developing the infrastructural solutions for any of the projects (CLISS, 2012; ProConsult, 2011, LVIA, 2012) this point cannot be considered fulfilled, which might affect the social, institutional and technical acceptance of the technology (Andersson et al., 2016).

72

Another point in PHAST is the importance of self-determination, where users’ participation throughout the project increases the impact on the outcome and enhances sustainability, compared to if all decisions are externally made (WHO, 1997). Here a notable difference between the projects was found, while in EU2 and EU3, the beneficiaries could choose between a few different latrine models, but in LVIA beneficiaries could not choose and everyone received a latrine with anal cleansing (S. Dickin, personal communication, spring 2017). Since those who make own decisions will also be the ones most likely to follow through with them (WHO, 1997), this difference might affect the reuse practices of the beneficiaries within the different projects. The EU2 and EU3 beneficiaries were given training on the agricultural aspects of urine fertilization before introducing the latrines, while the LVIA beneficiaries got the latrine first and did not receive any training on urine in the beginning (Dagerskog & Bonzi, 2010). This difference can be compared to another PHAST- principle regarding how a technology should not be presented too early in the process of behavior change. Implementation should be preceded by five (out of six) steps: assessing the beneficiaries’ own knowledge base, investigating their own environment and situation, visualizing a future scenario, analyzing constraints to change and planning for change (WHO, 1997). Compared to this, how LVIA introduced the latrines before performing training on agricultural aspects might affect the long-term behavior change among the beneficiaries, since this induced a lack of investigation regarding their environmental situation. An additional difference between the LVIA and the EU projects is the focus on health aspects (for LVIA) and agricultural aspects (for EU2 and EU3) during implementation (Dickin et al., 2017). One benefit within the agricultural aspects is that producing fertilizers saves money from buying chemical fertilizer, where one family’s excreta corresponds to two bags of chemical fertilizer per year (Dagerskog & Bonzi, 2010). This aligns with possible economic incentives among beneficiaries. Another benefit is how the EcoSan provides beneficiaries with organic matter in addition to fertilizers which improves soil fertility and water retention and subsequently improves the yields (Tincani, 2012). This benefit aligns with agricultural incentives, and increasing food security among beneficiaries. Last agricultural benefit lifted here concerns how urine can be used to keep the compost “alive” during the dry season when many beneficiaries have water constraints (Tincani, 2012; Dickin et al., 2017). Concerning benefits of using the latrine for hygiene reasons, the main one concerns reducing the presence of diseases such as cholera and diarrhea, especially among children. The point here is that focusing on agricultural aspects provides several different benefits with the latrine to be highlighted, giving several different opportunities for different people to "want" to use the latrine. The connection between faeces and diseases might be difficult to grasp, and with this being the only argument given concerning hygiene aspects, it may be harder to give up on old behaviors. With a higher focus on the several benefits highlighted within the agricultural aspects, people might realize the benefits of the sanitized fertilizer which subsequently makes it more attractive to use the latrine.

73

5.1 Main points of discussion

This section will discuss the main findings for why and to what extent the EcoSan systems have not been used to their full extent regarding recovery of nutrients to local agriculture.

To summarize, the aim of this study was to investigate why and to what extent the EcoSan systems have not been used to their full extent regarding recovery of nutrients to local agriculture. The results show a total of fourteen barriers that affect the amount of recycled nutrients and as a result, over 98% of the theoretical urine volume is lost in practice. This loss occurs during the usage and collection processes of the urine sub-system, where the two main barriers are limited usage of the latrine for urinating and lack of availability of jerry cans. The mean number of jerry cans possessed by a household was five, which can be compared to the theoretical mean urine volume of over 9600 liters (Dagerskog & Bonzi, 2010), and the sowing practices where urine is only applied during a few month every year (Jönsson et al., 2004; Tincani, 2012). The conclusion is that this equation simply does not add up, and the EcoSan systems fail to meet one of the twin goals with the concept: the goal concerning reuse of sanitized urine in agriculture. The reason for this seems to be mostly lack of technical and institutional appropriation of the EcoSan system, since no bigger socio-cultural barriers were found.

The sub-system concerned with collection, storage and reuse of faeces is also affected by several barriers, but seems to fit the institutional settings better, where even though some usage losses and additional nutrient losses during storage occur, the total losses along the sanitation chain are smaller than for urine. In addition to fulfilling the EcoSan goal concerning reuse, this result also indicates that the goal of protecting and promoting human health is at least partially fulfilled (Dagerskog et al., 2015), since it is first and foremost the faeces that exposes users to health risks (Tilley et al., 2014).

Training, education and behavior change among the beneficiaries are additional main points, where this study cannot for sure establish if the difference in implementation concerning these aspects was the actual reason for the difference in reuse practices, or if there might be other explanations not yet investigated. However, by evaluating the projects’ implementation phases using theory based on the PHAST approach, an indication is given that training aspects at least contribute to the notable difference.

5.2 Suggested further research

To make the implementation even more efficient some suggestions on what can be further researched is taken up and what can be gained from doing so.

One of the main methodological biases in this study is the subjective choices of what should be considered as possible barriers and what aspects should be included in the reuse index. Both were handled using an inter-rater reliability approach, where some subjectivism and bias are excluded. However, this methodology can be further

74 developed in an improved version with expert consultation or according to principal components analysis (PCA), something that would have improved the reliability but was excluded in this study due to time limitations.

The fact that EcoSan systems are not used to their full extent was known before this study took place, but the results can now indicate some reasons why and to what extent the system fails. Nevertheless, the main external long term aim is to find a way to improve the technology and make it sustainable. Since the main problem seems to be the urine storage, a further investigation on what other possible ways there is to store the nutrients in urine would be of high interest. Also, the fact that it is far to travel with the jerry cans to the fields future investigations should take into consideration that no additional infrastructure should be included, but focus on storage possibilities within the immediate surroundings. Within the EU2-project additional storage solutions were included (using urine storage centers with poly tanks), but this option has not been used to its full extent (CLISS, 2012). Finding a socially, technically and institutionally appropriate way of storing the urine will be a challenge, due to the big volumes produced by each household (Dagerskog & Bonzi, 2010). Another problem is the distance to travel with the jerry cans to the fields and future implementations should take into consideration that no additional infrastructure should be included, but focus on storage possibilities within the immediate surroundings. One possible and promising area of research is storage of urine in soil or using it as additive in the compulsory constructed compost pits almost every household in rural Burkina Faso possess. This area has already been circled as of interest by SEI’s own Linus Dagerskog, who also took part as an assistant expert in several of the earlier EcoSan projects mentioned in this report.

Additionally, as this study focuses on getting the sanitized excreta to agriculture, it neglects one main point of the nutrient loop - what happens with the nutrients in excreta when applied in agriculture. Another agricultural point concerns how well the sanitized excreta actually fit the agricultural needs of the beneficiaries. If for instance, beneficial household do not see any benefits for reusing urine as liquid fertilizer, this could partly explain the big usage and collection loss. Agricultural aspects like these could be further investigated and additional barriers identified concerning the agricultural aspects of EcoSan systems sustainability.

The last part discussed here concerns how WHO (1997) believes that the more personal investments made, the bigger the likelihood that user will use the facility to a broader extent. In all the three projects analyzed in this study, the latrines and additional infrastructure were heavily subsidized, only the walls and the material for them were provided by the beneficial households (Dagerskog et al., 2015, Karim Savadogo and Sarah Dickin, personal communication, 2017). Now, within the new guidelines for aid that came with the SDGs (Andersson et al., 2016), the households themselves will be responsible for the cost of the entire latrine. What effects this change in approach will have on the long-term functionality of EcoSan systems should be further investigated, whereas own participation in decision making increases the incentives for behavior change according to PHAST (WHO, 1997). However, an approach without subsidy would perhaps lead to failure in achieving

75 sustainable sanitation in other aspects than were found here. This risk can further be compared to earlier research by Uddin et al. (2014) claiming that the biggest barrier for acceptance is how sanitation projects often rely on heavy subsidies for the infrastructure.

Drivers for change have not been a focus in this study; however, some drivers have occurred during investigations anyhow. For example, during focus group discussions it came up that users have seen a difference in the growth of the crops on which the fertilizer was used. Especially the urine was found very efficient. Another interesting point concerned how urine from the poly tanks had been stolen, a proof of that the liquid fertilizer at least is believed to have a positive effect on the crops. The poly tanks came with the implementation of the EU2 project and were meant for urine storage. Today most urine storage centers are abandoned but seemed to be in good condition.

A strong driver is usually money. Dagerskog and Bonzi (2010) have made estimation on how much use of chemical fertilizer can be reduced by producing fertilizer through the EcoSan system. They have also estimated to how much money that corresponds. Since there appears to be no cultural barriers (Result section 4.2.5), this suggests that there are business opportunities here. Given the other benefits of the solid fertilizer, such as organic matter, liquid and other minerals of which the soil is in great need to be fertile (Tincani, 2012), selling the surplus could increase the fertility of more people’s soil. In one of the world's poorest countries, the thought of both saving and making money should be tempting. A suggestion for future projects could be to better take this into consideration when implementing the EcoSan system, also since new users in the future will stand for all costs, a pay-back calculation should be made.

Lastly, on the topic “drivers”, focus group discussion participants talked about how some diseases had completely disappeared since introducing the latrines. From the results in 4.3.2, users in LVIA are less likely to use the latrine and from project reports that this project had more focus on health then the others (Dickin et al., 2017). The reason for bringing this up is because the western world might think that reduced diseases is a strong driving force. However, as project supervisor Iben Christiansen stated: transmission routes often are very complex to understand (I. Christiansen, personal communication, 2017). It may only be when seeing the effect that one understands that it works. Until then, there must be focus on other incentives, such as those mentioned above.

76

References

Andersson, K., Rosemarin, A., Lamizana, B., Kvarnström, E., McConville, J., Seidu, R., Dickin, S. and Trimmer, C. (2016). Sanitation, Wastewater Management and Sustainability: from Waste Disposal to Resource Recovery. Nairobi and Stockholm: United Nations Environment Programme and Stockholm Environment Institute. ISBN: 978-92-807-3488-1. From: https://www.sei-international.org/

Blom, G., Enger, J., Englund, G., Grandell, J., Holst, L. (2005). Sannolikhetsteori och statistikteori med tillämpningar. Lund: Studentlitteratur

Brunner, P.H., Rechberger, H. (2005). Practical Handbook of Material Flow Analysis (Edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library). Lewis Publishers. ISBN 0-203-59141-0

CILSS. (2012). Programme d’Amélioration de la Sécurité Alimentaire par la Fertilisation des Sols au Burkina Faso: Capitalisation des acquis des projets financés par l’Union Européenne de 2007 à 2012 [Program for improving food security through fertilizing the soil in Burkina Faso: Capitalization of the achievements of the projects financed by the from 2007 to 2012], (N° FOOD/2007/144), 145 p. European Union.

Dagerskog, L., Bonzi, M. (2010). Opening minds and closing loops: Productive sanitation initiatives in Burkina Faso and Niger. Sustainable Sanitation Practice, 3(1), 4-11. From: www.ecosan.at/SPP

Dagerskog, L., Savadogo, K., Hamadou, K., Vodounhessi, A. (2015). Productive sanitation in Burkina Faso and Niger: going beyond projects? 5th International Conference, Tampere, Finland, 19-22/8-2015. Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute.

Dickin, S., Dagerskog, L., Jiménez, A, Andresson, K., Savadogo, K. (2017). Understanding sustained use of ecological sanitation in rural Burkina Faso. Under review.

Felder, R.M., Rousseau, R.W. (2005). Elementary principles of chemical processes (Third edition). New York: R.R. Donnelly & Sons.

Hajra, G., Dutta, A. (2016). The gap between construction and usage of toilets: an under-identified problem. BMJ Journals, 1(1), University of Calcutta, doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2016-EPHPabstracts.52

Jönsson, H., Stinzing Richert, A., Vinnerås, B., Salomon, E. (2004). Guidelines on the use of urine and faeces in crop production. ISBN: 918 8714 92-4 From: www.ecosanres.org

77

LVIA. (2014). A chaque famille sa latrine: Une expérience d’assainissement écologique au Burkina Faso [Each family's latrine: An ecological sanitation experience in Burkina Faso]. Accessed on 1 of june 2017 from: http://www.lvia.it/sites/default/files/burkinafaso/Publication_Assainissement_Burki na.pdf

Mosler, H. (2012). A systematic approach to behaviour change interventions for the water and sanitation sector in developing countries: a conceptual model, a review and a guide line. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 1-19, doi:10.1080/09603123.2011.650156

PRO CONSULT. (2011). Évaluation finale du Projet de réduction de l’insécurité alimentaire par l’utilisation des excréta humains hygiénisés comme fertilisants dans les régions du Centre-est et du Centre-ouest du Burkina Faso [Final evaluation of the Food Insecurity Reduction Project through the use of sanitized human excreta as fertilizers in the Central East and Central West regions of Burkina Faso]

Ruel, E., Wagner, W.E., Gillespie, B.J. (2016). The practice of survey research: Theory and applications. Carlefornia: SAGE publications, Inc.

SAS. (2010). SAS/STAT(R) 9.22 User's Guide: Variance and Standard Error of the Mean. Accessed 20 of May, 2017, from SAS Institute Inc, https://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/statug/63347/HTML/default/vie wer.htm#statug_surveymeans_a0000000223.htm

Susana, 2017, Why focus on behavior change. Retrived on 4 of June, 2017 from: Sustainable Sanitation Aliance, http://www.susana.org/en/working- groups/behaviour-change

Tilley, E., Ulrich, L., Lüthi, C., Reymond, P. & Zurbrügg, C. (2014). Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies, 2nd revised edition, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG). From http://wsscc.org/resources- feed/compendium-of-sanitation-systems-and-technologies-2nd-edition/ (2017-06- 05)

Tincani, L.S. (2012). Resilient Livelihoods: Adaptation, Food Security and Wild Foods in Rural Burkina Faso. PhD-Thesis, University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies. From: http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/13609

Tittonell, P., Rufino, M.C., Janssen, B.H., Giller K.E. (2010). Carbon and nutrient losses during manure storage under traditional and improved practices in smallholder crop-livestock systems: evidence from Kenya. Plants and Soil, 328(1) 253–269. doi:10.1007/s11104-009-0107-x

Uddin, S.M.N., Muhandiki, V.S., Sakai, A., Al Mamun, A., Hridi S.M. (2014). Socio-cultural acceptance of : Identifying and prioritizing barriers for widespread use of the urine diversion toilets in rural Muslim

78 communities of Bangladesh. Technology in Society, 38(2014), 32-39. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.02.002

United Nations. (2016). Sustainable Development goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. Accessed: 14 of may, 2017, from United Nation Department of Economics and Social Affairs, Division for sustainable development (UN-DESA), https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg6

WHO. (1997). The PHAST initiative, Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation - A new approach to working with communities. Geneva: WHO.

WHO & UNICEF. (2016). Progress on sanitation and drinking water: 2015 update and MDG assessment. United States of America: UNICEF and World Health Organization. ISBN: 978 92 4 150914-5. From: https://www.wssinfo.org/

79

HOUSEHOLD'SURVEY( Study'on'sustainable'ECOSAN'projects'BURKINA'FASO'(EUDLVIA'/'EU2' /'EU3)( This!survey!aims!to!take!stock!of!productive!sanitation!projects!in!places!BURKINA!FASO!(EU6LVIA!/!EU62!/! EU63)!whose!implementation!was!completed!for!at!least!two!years.!Data!collection!will!involve!the!use!of! ECOSAN! latrines,! maintenance,! functionality,! durability,! and! their! social,! economic,! cultural! and! health.!The! study! covers! three! projects! in! three! areas! that! are! central! tray! (Ziniaré),! Central! West! (Koudougou6!Reo),!Central!East!(Koupéla).(

A SECTION 1 :'GENERAL'INFORMATION Q101 province : Q102 : Q103 Town: Project :

1. EUSLVIA( Q104 | _____ | 2. EU(2( 3. EU(3(

Q105 Name of(the(interviewer: Q106 Date of survey: / ___ / ___ / 2016 / Q107 Start time of interview: ____H____Min Q108 End of Time interview: ____H____Min Q109 Concession Code : SECTION 1 B:'Social'and'demogrpahic'CHARACTERISTICS'of'the' HOUSEHOLD Sex of the(respondent:

Q110 1. Male( | _____ | 2. Female(

Q111 Age : | _____ | What is your marital status ?

1. Single( Q112 | _____ | 2. Married( monogamous( 3. Married( polygamous( 4. Divorced((e)(/( Separated( 5. Widower(or( widow(

Number of people in the Q113 | _____ | household? Who(uses(the(EcoSan(the( latrine?

1. Household( Q114 members(only( | _____ | 2. All(of(the(( concession( 3. Other((specify)(

Number of households(in(the( Q115 |(_____(| concession: Total number of people in the |(_____(| Q116 concession : Children People> Pregnant handicap ed Number of people(vulnerable( 0-4 years 64 years women Q117 | ____ | ____ in(the(concession: | ___ | | ___ | | | a. Cattle(|(_____(|( b. Donkeys(/(Mules(|(_____(|(

Number of animals in the( c. Sheep(/(goats(|(_____(|( Q118 concession((estimate): d. Pork(|(_____(|( e. Other______( What is your level of education?

1. No(schooling/( Q119 not(literate( | _____ | 2. No(schooling(but( literate( 3. Primary( 4. Secondary( 5. PostSsecondary( What is your main livelihood activity?

1. Farmer(

2. Breeder( Q120 3. Trader( | _____ | 4. Official( 5. Artisan((masons,( painter,(cobbler(...)( 6. Other((specify)(

What is your ethnicity ?

1. Mossi( 2. Peul( Q121 | _____ | 3. Bissa( 4. Gourounsi( 5. Other((specify)(

What is your religion ?

1. Muslim( 2. Christian( Q122 | _____ | (Catholic(or(Protestant)( 3. traditional( 4. Other((specify)(

□ No(transportation □(cart((pulled(by(cattle)

Transportation of(household( □(Bike Q123 (check(all(that(are(present): □(Motorcycle □(Tricycle □(vehicle Building(materials(of(the(head( of(the(concession((indicator( of(wealth):

Q1 24 1. Banco((mud)( | _____ | 2. Concrete(

3. Other((specify)(

SECTION 1 C:'INFORMATION'ON'AGRICULTURAL'ACTIVITIES''OF'HOUSEHOLD What is the size of your fields Q12 5 | _____ | (ha) (estimate)? □ Minutes(walk(______□(Minutes(bike(______What is the time taken to travel Q126 from home to the nearest □(Minutes(in(moto______field (indicate(one(option)? □(Minutes(with( charrette______□(Do(not(know □ Mil □(Sorghum □(Corn What crops(were(grown(last( Q127 Beans year?((check(the(crops) □( □(Peanut □(Rice □(Other((specify)(______What is the area of(your(champ( Q128 de(case((nearby(household(field)( ______Ha (estimate)? a. Mango(|(_____(|( b. Papaya(|(_____(|( Do you have fruit trees planted( Q129 c. Banana(|(_____(|( close(to(the(house?((to(be(listed) d. other( ______( Are you engaged in market Q130 gardening activities in the dry | _____ | season ? 1. Yes( 2. No(

□ Minutes(walk(______□(Minutes(bike(______What is the distance to get to Q131 gardening site (indicate(one( □(Minutes(in(moto______option)? □(Minutes(with( charrette______□(Do(not(know What is the amount of(urea( (Birg(Pelaga)(used(last(year(by( Q132 ______sacs of 50kg the(household((total(for(cropping( and(vegetable(gardening)? What is the amount e(of(NPK( (Mélange,(sablga)(used(last(year( Q133 ______sacs of 50(kg by(the(household((total(for( wintering(+(gardening)? Do you have compost pit((Birg( Boko)? Q134 | _____ | 1. Yes( 2. No(

Do you use it?

Q135 1. Yes( | _____ | 2. No(

Are there problems with getting water for(the(compost(pit? Q136 | _____ | 1. Yes( 2. No(

□ 1S5 Estimate the number of carts of compost from the compost pit □(6S10 Q137 that you bring(to(your(fields( □(11S20 each(year((estimated(ok)? □(21S40 □(41S60 □(>(60 □(Can(not(estimate SECTION 2 A'INFORMATION'on'sanitation'system When did you get your ECOSAN Q201 |(_____(|(years(ago latrine? Do(you(have(a(system(for(collecting( |(_____(| urine(other(than(the(latrine((for(the( household)?( Q202 1. Yes( 2. No(

□(Interest(of(Ecosan( fertilizer(

□(Interest(in(health(

□(Convenient(to(have(a( Why did you decide(to(build(the( latrine( latrine(Ecosan(S(give(the(three(main( Q20 3 reasons(in(order(of(importance((1,(2,( □(To(take(advantage(of(the( 3) grant(

□(For(dignity((

□(To(have(a(clean(living( environment □(Other(______What type of latrine was(used( before(the(Ecosan(latrine?

1. None(

2. Traditional(latrine( Q204 | _____ | 3. Traditional(latrine(with( cement(slab(

4. VIP(latrine(

5. latrine(Sanplat( 6. Other(((specify)(

What latrine is(used(now?

1. Traditional(latrine(

2. Ecosan(latrine(

3. VIP(latrine( Q205 | _____ | 4. latrine(Sanplat( 5. Both(( 6. Do(not(use(latrine( 7. Other((specify)(

If the Ecosan latrine is not(used,( Q206 for(how(long(have(you(abandoned( | _____ | years ago the(Ecosan(latrine? What are the main reasons Q207 for abandoning(it? If the project was(to(continue,( what(are(your(recommendations(to( Q208 ensure(the(use(of(the(latrine(and( fertilizers(are(more(sustainable(over( time? SECTION 2B USE'OF'LATRINE □ Small(Children □(Pregnant(Women □(Women(menstruating Q209 Who doesn’t use the latrine ((check(one)? □(Disabled(Persons □(Older(People □(Everyone(uses □(Other(specify:(______To urinate(only,(what(do(most(members(of( the(concession(use?

Q210 1. The(shower( | _____ | 2. The(( 3. Outside(the(concession( 4. Ecosan(latrine( 5. Other((specify):( What do you do with the feces of small children ?

1. Small(children(also(use(the( latrine 2. Empty(stool(in(the(latrine Q211 |(_____(| 3. Throw(feces(outside(of(the( concession 4. Bury(the(feces 5. Leave(them(on(the(ground 6. Do(not(know 7. Other(((to(pr(é(specify) How(do(you(find(the(use(the(latrine((leave( |(_____(| open(at(first)?(

1. Very(easy(

Q212 2. Easy( 3. Way( 4. Difficult( 5. Very(difficult(

□ Often(the(urine(does(not(come(out □(Often(cleaning(water(does(not(come( out □(It(lacks(cinder/ash(often □(It(is(difficult(to(do(anal(cleansing □(The(urine(splashes What are the problems with(the(use(of( Q213 Often(it's(dirty the(latrine?((check(those(present) □( □(Often(there(are(bad(smells □(Often(there(are(flies □(The(door(does(not(close(properly □(When(a(pit(is(full(there(we(stop(using( it(while(waiting(to(empty(the(other(pit □(Difficult(to(access(due(to(stairs □(It(takes(time □(Other(specify(______□(No(problem(of(Use SECTION 2 C'CARE'AND'MAINTENANCE'OF'LATRINE □ Sweep(cabin □(Clean(the(slab(with(water What type of regular maintenance(is( done(to(ensure(continued(operation(of(the( □(Flushing(the(urine(tube Q214 latrine? □(Ensure(the(presence(of(ash (leave(open(initially() □(There(is(no(maintenance □(Other______Who maintains / maintenance of the latrine ?

1. Women(

Q215 2. Men( | _____ | 3. children( 4. Everybody( 5. Other((specify)(

□ Pipe(for(urine □(Anal(cleaning(pipe □(Ventilation(hose □(The(door(frame Have you had to(replace(parts(of(your( Q216 latrine?((leave(open(initially) □(The(door □(Wall(covering □(Replacing(walls □(No(nothing(has(been(replaced □(Other______Have you made improvements(in(your( latrine? Q217 | _____ | 1. Yes((please(specify)( 2. No(

Recommendations for(improving(the(latrine(for(ease(of(use(and(maintenance ______Q218 ______Additional questions for female respondents (If the respondent is a female) □ No,(I(always(use(it □(I(never(use(it □(During(menstruation Are there times when you do not use Q219 the(latrine(Ecosan?((check(those( □(When(it's(dirty applicable) □(Sometimes(the(toilet(is( not(functional □(Other:( ______Does the latrine allows you to |(_____(| manage(your(menstrual(periods?

1. Yes( Q220 2. No( 3. Other((specify)( ______(

If not S(why? Q221

SECTION 3 :'EMPTYING'/'STORAGE'of'ECOSAN'WASTE How often(do(you(change(the(can(of(urine?

1. Everyday( 2. Several(times(a(week( Q301 3. Every(week( | _____ | 4. Every(two(weeks( 5. Each(month( 6. Never( 7. Other((please(give(details)(

Who changes the container ?

1. Men(

2. Women( Q302 | _____ | 3. Children( 4. Everybody(

5. other((explain,(list,)( How do you find the job of changing and storing the container? (Leave open initially)

1. Very(easy( Q303 2. Easy( | _____ | 3. Way( 4. Difficult( 5. Very(difficult(

You have how(many(cans((jerry(cans)(in(total( Q304 | _____ | for(urine(storage? □ Verse(urine(in(manure(pit □(Pour(the(urine(box(field What do you do when all your containers (jerry cans) are full and it is not yet the □(poured(into(the(reservoir((Polytang) Q305 time for application to plants? (check □(We(stop(using(the(latrine those present) □(There(is(no(problem □(Other:(______Have you already(emptied(the(vaults(in(( the(latrine? Q306 | _____ | 1. Yes( 2. No(

□ The(latrine(is(not(yet(full If not, what are the reasons ? Q307 Lack(of(equipment (check(those(present)(? □( □(religious(constraints □(Lack(of(training □(Other(______How(often(you(empty(the(vault?

1. 1(time(every(2(years(

2. Annually( Q308 | _____ | 3. 1(time(every(6(months( 4. 1(once(every(3(months( 5. Other((specify)(

Who empties(the(vault(((compostSBiirg( koenga)?

1. The(head(of(the(household( Q30 9 2. The(other(inhabitants(of(the( | _____ | household( 3. We(call(someone( 4. Other((specify)(

□ Shovel Gloves What equipment(do(you(use(to(empty(the( □( Q310 vault? □(Mask (Check(those(present) □(Nothing □(Other((specify)(______How do you find the work to empty the ecosan vault ?((leave(open(initially)

1. Very(easy(

Q311 2. Easy( | _____ | 3. Way( 4. Difficult( 5. Very(difficult(

How many bags or'(carts(of(material(do(you( □ bags(of(50kg(______Q312 have(per(emptying? □(Carts:(______□(Do(not(know What is the appearance(of(the(waste( products?

1. Very(dry( Q31 3 | _____ | 2. A(bit(wet( 3. very(wet(

4. Other((specify)(

How do you store the(compost(material( from(the(latrine(while(waiting(to(use(it?

1. Outdoors( 2. In(a(pile(under(a(shelter( Q314 | _____ | 3. In(a(pit( 4. In(empty(bags( 5. Directly(in(the(fields( 6. Other((specify)(

□ Wheelbarrow

Which means of transport do you use □(Charrette Q315 to get(Ecosan(fertilizer(to(the(fields? □(Bike (check(those(u(tilisés) □(Motorbike(tricycle □(Other((specify)(______Recommendations or ideas to(facilitate(the(emptying(and(storage(of(ecosan(waste( products((compost(and(urine)? ______Q316 ______SECTION 4 :'ASSESSING'THE'REUSE'OF'ecosan'waste'PRODUCTS What kind of Ecosan fertilizer do you use: 1.(Urine(and(faeces Q401 2.(Urine(only | _____ | 3.(Faeces(only No(4 If only one product or no products are used,(why? ______Q40 2 ______□ In(the(compost(pit( (fosse(fumiere) □(smaller(household( field((champ(de(case) □(Larger(fields((further( away,(land(owned(by( head(of(household)( Q40 3 Places where fertilizer((is(used((check(those(present) (champ(de(brousse) □(On(vegetable( gardening((( maraichage) □(Fruit(trees □(Other((please( specify) What are the yields(obtained(from(the(use(of(Ecosan( fertilizer?

1. Low( Q404 | _____ | 2. Medium( 3. Good( 4. Very(good(

How do you find the application(of(sanitized(urine( (birgSkoom)?((leave(open(initially)

1. □(It(is(easy(

2. □(Health(concerns( Q405 | _____ | 3. □(No(suitable(equipment(available(

4. □(Do(not(know(the(dosage(

5. □(Too(heavy(to(apply( 6. □(Too(much(odor(from(the(urine(

7. □(Shame(from(other(producers(

8. □(Other(specify( ______(

How do you find the compost((feces)(application( Ecosan((birgSkoenga)?

1. □(It(is(easy(

2. □(Health(concerns(

3. □(No(suitable(equipment(available( Q406 | _____ | 4. □(Do(not(know(the(dosage(

5. □(Too(heavy(to(apply(

6. □(Shame(from(other(producers(

7. □(Other(specify( ______(

Recommendations or ideas from the household(to(facilitate(the(application( of(ecosan(products((compost(and(urine)? Q407 ______observation'checklist(

Apr Bachelor'visiting'the'latrine,'what'his't'functional'devices Yes No comment s The two pits are closed behind((outside( Q501 opening) Q502 The two pits are dry

Q503 Urine container present

Q504 Pipe for urine(connected(to(the(container

Q505 Good pipe-container connection

Q506 Pipe with anal(cleansing(water((not(broken)

Anal cleansing water re-used (e.g. tree Q507 grown) Q508 Ventilation(pipe((not(broken)(

Q509( Cover for the(defecation(hole(in(use(

Q510 Hole for(defecation(is(not(used(and(closed

Q511 Cement platform is not broken

Q512 Door present

Q513 Door functioning

Q514 Roof present

Q515 Built in mud

EstSce(que(la(latrine(située(dans(un(bafond(ou( Q516 relevé Q517 Acceptable stairs

Q518 Other

Condition'of'the'latrine'(Circle)( 0 1 2 Presence' Q insects'/' □ Many(insects( □ Some( □ No(bugs(/( 519 worms /(worms insects glasses Q520 Presence'flies □ Many(flies □ Some(flies □ No(flies □ A(little( Q521 Smell □ Many(odor □ No(smell odor □ insufficient( □ sufficient( Q522 Ash □ No(ashes Ash Ash Cleanliness of □ A(little( Q523 □ Very(dirty □ Clean the slab dirty Cleanliness of Q524 the' □ Presence(of( □ Traces(of( □ Lack(of( surroundings excreta excreta excreta □ Seems(to( □ Seems(to( Use (look in □ Does(not( Q525 be(used(a( be(used( the pit, etc). seem(to(be(used little regularly ' Cleaning'hands( 0 1 2 Water'to'clean'hands'is' near'the'latrine Q526 No Yes ((Check(if(a(container(or( device(for(hand(washing) Is there'soap,'detergent' Soap, Q527 or'anything'to'clean' No Ash detergent, hands? water soapy PS:(note(the(end(time(maintenance( (

( ( Appendix B - Focus group questionnaire

Province: ______Village: ______Project: ______Date: ______Approx. number of participants: ______Approx. diversity of participants (gender, age-range etc.):

Initial information to participants: Thank you for joining us today. This meeting is to better understand a household survey we conducted last year to understand the good and bad parts about ecosan latrines. We are not looking for ‘perfect’ answers, we really want to know your real problems and experiences. This is because we will use this to make recommendations for future projects. So we appreciate your honesty, even if it is negative feedback!! The responses will be ​ audio-recorded so we can make more notes later, is there any problems concerning this?

Topic Questions Question Notes type

1. Demo- 1.1. If not more than 12 persons, ask each one Open graphic their age? information 1.2. If not more than 12 persons, ask each one Raise hands their ethnicity: Mossi ______Peulh ______Bissa ______Gourounsi ______Autre ______

1.3. If not more than 12 persons, ask each one Raise hands their religion (What is your religion?) : Musulmane ______Chrétienne ______Traditionnelle ______

1.4. What are the main crops that your ménage Open grows?

2. Urinating 2.1 Let us start by discussing what is good with Open Initial practices the EcoSan latrine. Feel free to discuss questions whatever pops into your mind.

1(4) 2.2 Let us discuss what is bad with the EcoSan Open latrine? Please be honest.

2.3 Can you explain the arrangement in your Open concession, who gets to use the latrine? Who doesn’t like to use it, or has difficulty using it in your ménage? Why is it so?

2.4. Who uses the latrine the most? Open (e.g. Men, Women, Children, old people, handicapped, other)

2.5. We saw from the survey that not very Open Problems and much urine is collected, do you agree? barriers for Why do you think it is so? What are your usage ​ suggestions to collect more urine? After finished 2.6. Describe problems you have met Open discussion: concerning using the latrine for urinating? Bring small group to the Probing question if nothing comes up: latrine, ask - Give examples of problems: Odour, again. clogged urine pipe, hard to access, latrine too far away, dirty, etc.

2.7. What are your suggestions on solving these Open problems? (not more training)

2.8. What is most valuable for your ménage, Open liquid or solid fertilizer from the EcoSan? Why do you think that?

2.9 In a day, how often do you visit the EcoSan Open User-frequenc latrine? y and patterns of usage 2.10 When do you go to the latrine to reveal Raise hands yourself/pee? Objective: Morning (Jibeyogo)______When are they Mid-day (Moutou)______not using it Evening (Zabre) ______and why? Night-time (Yungo)______

2.11. Depending on answers: Why don’t you Open use the latrine in the (Morning/afternoon/…)?

2.12. Where do you go instead? Why? Open

2.13. When are you not using the latrine and

2(4) why?

3. Urine 3.1. What is good about the urine you get? And Open Objective: To storage, what is bad about the urine you get? What are find barriers transport and the problems with it? within the reuse sanitation 3.2. What problems have you met concerning Open chain the bidons?

3.3. What happens when the bidon is full? Open

3.4. Where do you reuse most of the liquid Raise hands fertilizer? And why? Champ de case ______Fosse fumière/tas d'ordures ______​ ​ Maraîchage ______Champs de brousse ______

3.5. Describe how do you get the urine to the fields and what you do with it there? What Open problems do you have with this?

3.6. Describe how you get the feces to your fields, what do you do with it there? What Open problems do you have with this?

3.7. What crops do you use the liquid fertilizer on, and why? Open

3.8. What crops do you use the solid fertilizer

on, and why? Open

4. 4.1. Describe what kind of training your Open Knowledge ménage received on the latrine use? Who in the among ménage got training? participants 4.2. How did the training teach you about the Open agricultural aspects of using the urine/feces?

4.3. How did you change your behaviour after Open getting the latrine? Why did you change it?

4.4. What kind of other information are you Open missing on how to use the ecosan products for agriculture?

3(4) Probing questions (if not mentioned): - Training (why more training) - Dosing of liquid/solid fertilizer

5. Locating We also need to make some measurements and ménages for take some samples of excreta which will be additional sent to a lab for analysing nutrient content. We data would like to know how well the excreta works collection as fertilizer. For this we search for ménages that fulfill the following requirements:

- Have liquid fertilizer stored in sealed bidons (lid on) for a month or more. - Have solid fertilizer stored in Sacs Vidés, or under a roof in a pile.

4(4) Appendix C - Values, Assumptions and Limitations

For MFA of excreta nutrients N, P and K

Firstly some shared assumptions and limitations are presented, then the values used for calculations and additional assumptions for each system (theoretical recovery, practical recovery divided into urine and faeces recovery).

Shared assumptions for theoretical and practical recovery: ● The survey data is trustworthy. ● If survey data is missing regarding number of users, the number per system is set to 10. ● The number of users is always rounded off to nearest integer.

Limitations: ● For theoretical recovery all households are included in calculations. ● For actual recovery only households that report that they use the EcoSan latrine, solely or partly are included (470 households out of 522). ● Households that have possessed an EcoSan latrine less than two years or have less than 10 users are excluded concerning actual faeces recovery to exclude potential systems that have not yet achieved sustainable function due to time limitations. (357 households left after this limitation)

Theoretical recovery calculations In table D.1. all values used for calculations are presented with corresponding scoring on data reliability, according to the prior-order presented in 3.2.1. Method used to calculate the ​ discrepancy between theoretical and practical recovery of nutrients in sanitized excreta (page 26). The table is followed by a list of additional assumptions concerning theoretical ​ recovery.

Table D.1. Values for calculating theoretical recovery Process Explanation Value Unit Origin Data in/out reliability

P1(out) Theoretical N = 2.8 [kg/person Dagerskog & 2 nutrient P = 0.4 and year] Bonzi, 2010 content in K = 1.3 human excreta

1(7) Distribution of N = 88/12 [%] Jönsson et al. 2 nutrients P = 75/25 2004 between urine K = 71/29 and faeces (u/f)

Theoretical nr Mean = 19 [Users per Household 1 of users (Std = 0.6) household] survey [520 observations]

P6(in) Application in Equals P1(out) agriculture

Assumptions for calculating the theoretical recovery: ● For theoretical recovery all group of users are included in calculations (for example children or elderly). Additionally, there are no losses due to partly usage assumed. ● ● Following overall assumptions are made to calculate the practical recovery: ● For actual recovery people belonging to vulnerable groups (such as children, elderly and menstruating women) are removed from the total amount of users in those cases when they are reported to not use the latrine using survey questions regarding this. ● If menstruating women are reported not to use the latrine during menstruation, 25% loss of the initial number of users is assumed. ● The nutrient content in excreta (urine and faeces) is assumed to be equal to the theoretical one (P1)out.

Practical recovery calculations for urine In table D.2. all values used for calculations are presented with corresponding scoring on data reliability, according to the prior-order presented in 3.2.1. Method used to calculate the ​ discrepancy between theoretical and practical recovery of nutrients in sanitized excreta (page 26). The table is followed by a list of additional assumptions concerning practical ​ recovery of urine.

Table D.2. Values for calculating practical recovery of urine Process Explanation Value Unit Origin Data (in/out) reliability

P1(out) Total nutrient N = 2.8 [kg/person Dagerskog & 2 content in P = 0.45 and year] Bonzi, 2010 human excreta K = 1.3

Concentration N = 6.0 [gram/ Dagerskog & 2 of nutrients in P = 0.8 liters] Bonzi, 2010 urine (Niger) K = 0.9

2(7) Number of Mean = 16 [Nr of Household survey 1 users per (Std = 0.55) users] [470 household observations]

P2(in) Equals P1(out)

P3(out) Volume urine Mean = 371 [Liters/ Household survey 1 based on bidon (Std =X ) year and (question on changing household bidon changing frequency ] frequency).

P4a(in) Equals P3(out)

P4a(out) Numbers of Mean = 5 [Number] Survey data 1 bidons á 20 (Std = X) liters per household

Additional Survey data 1 storage when all bidons are full: - Compost pit - On fields - In poly tanks - Buy new bidons - Stop usage - No problem

Urine loss if 0 [%] Assumption 5 additional storage is: Poly tanks or New bidons

Urine loss if 100 [%] Assumption 5 additional storage is: stop usage or no problem

Nitrogen (N) N = 37 [%] Jönsson et al., 2 loss during 2004 urine storage in soil (compost pit or on field)

Phosphorus (P) P = 0 [%] Assumption 5 and potassium K = 0 (K) loss during storage in soil (compost pit or

3(7) on field)

Compost is - - Assumption 5 returned to agriculture sooner or later.

P5a(in) Equals P4a(out) minus Urine volume stored in soil or compost pit

P5a(out) Zero transport Equals [liters] Assumption 5 loss P5a(in)

P6(in) Do you reuse Y/N - Survey data 1 urine in agriculture?

Assumptions for calculating the urine flow for practical recovery of nutrients: ● One bidon equals 20 liters of urine. ● The bidons are always full when they are changed. ● The user variable is not used when calculating urine flow P3(out), question regarding bidon changing frequency is used. ● If a household report changing the bidon with a frequency other than the predefined options, the volume is assumed to be 120 liter urine (6 bidons) produced per year based on a quick review of written answers specifying frequency. ● If a value on for example urine bidon changing frequency is missing in the survey data it is set to zero. ● The total amount of bidons each household possesses is applied in agriculture once a year if they report reusing sanitized urine, (for instance if a household have 3 bidons that equals 60 liter directly to agriculture). ● For the remaining of the urine outflow from collection (reported by changing frequency of the bidons) it can flow three different sub-storage processes: ○ If it is reported not to be a problem or if they report that they stop using the latrine 100% storage loss of the remaining urine is assumed. ○ If the rest of the urine is reported being stored in poly tanks or if they buy new bidons, then no additional storage losses are assumed. ○ If they report storing it in the soil or in the compost pit a 37% loss of N is assumed, while zero loss of the P and K is assumed. This is based on an experiment where urine nutrients were stored for 28 days in the soil, and where the loss of mineral N was found to be 37% during storage time (Sundin, 1999 in Jönsson et al., 2004). ● Transport losses are assumed to equal zero due to a relatively small volume of collected urine and survey data that all households except one have access to at least one type of transport vehicle.

4(7) ● Collections losses of nitrogen due to bad hose connections are neglected.

Practical recovery calculations for faeces In table D.3. all values used for calculations are presented with corresponding scoring on data reliability, according to the prior-order presented in 3.2.1. Method used to calculate the ​ discrepancy between theoretical and practical recovery of nutrients in sanitized excreta (page 26). The table is followed by a list of additional assumptions concerning practical ​ recovery of faeces.

Table D.3. Values for calculating practical recovery of faeces Process Explanation Value Unit Origin Data (in/out) reliability

P1(out) Nutrient content N = 33.6 [gram/kg Dagerskog & 2 in human faeces P = 11.3 ] Bonzi, 2010; K = 37.7 Jönsson et al, 2004

Concentration N = 18.4 [gram/kg Tittonell, Rufino, 2 of nutrients in P = 6.5 ] Janssen, Giller manure K = 10.4 (2010).

Number of Mean = 16 [People] Household survey 1 users per (Std = 0.55) [462 observations] household

P2(in) Equals P1(out)

P3(out) Ash content in 0 [%] Assumption 5 sanitized faeces

Water content 0 [%] Assumption 5 in sanitized faeces

Volume faeces Mean = 485 [liter] Own measurements 3 vault

Volume Mean = 432 [liter] Own measurements 3 charette

Emptying 4 = 1% [times Household survey 1 frequency, not 2 = 34% per (question on faeces yet emptied = 1 = 36% year] vault emptying 42 % 0.5 = 29% frequency).

5(7) Numbers of 50 Mean = 5 [quantity] Household survey 1 kg sacks gained Std = 0.4 (95 observations) when emptying

Numbers of Mean = 2 [quantity] Household survey 1 wheelbarrows Std = 0.1 (110 observations) gained when emptying

Mass dry matter 200 [kg] Estimation based 4 when emptying on nr of sacs á 50 kg

P4b(in) Equals P3b(out)

P4b(out) Additional [place] Survey data 1 storage

Nutrient loss for N = 0 [%] Assumption 5 storage in sacs P = 0 K = 0

Nutrient content N = 14.2 [g/kg] Tittonell et al. 2 after 182 days P = 4.7 (2010) storage in pile K = 8.1 under roof in Kenya

Nutrient content N = 5.7 [g/kg] Tittonell et al. 2 after 182 days P = 3.4 (2010) storage in dry K = 2.6 pit in Kenya (pit)

Nutrient content N = 11.2 [g/kg] Tittonell et al. 2 after 182 days P = 4.9 (2010) storage in pile K = 3.3 in Kenya (directly on field or outdoors)

P5b(in) Equals P4b(out)

P5b(out) Nutrient loss Zero [%] Assumption 5 during transport

P6(in) Do you reuse [Y/N] Survey data 1 faeces in agriculture?

Assumptions used when calculating the faeces flow for practical recovery of nutrients:

6(7) ● Only households that built the latrine more than 2 years ago and with more than 10 users are included. ● Vaults are always full when sealed. ● The excreta consists of 80% water, 20% dry matter (Jönsson et al., 2004). ● Vaults are always sealed for the entire treatment time (at least six month). ● All water has either vaporized or drained from the faeces after treatment time has passed. Based on survey data that the sanitized faeces in most cases (~93%) is very dry when vaults are emptied. ● One faeces vault has a minimum capacity of 250 kg (based on the fact that EcoSan is dimensioned for 10 users, that each user produces 50 kg faeces per year and the latrine has two vaults). ● The frequency of emptying is assumed to once every two years if the survey respondent reports another emptying frequency than one of the predefined options. The assumption is based on a short review of written answers concerning this. ● Ash content is ignored in calculations due to delayed lab results. ● Storage losses in sacs are assumed to equal zero, based on information found in Jönsson et al. (2004), if the moisture level is kept low, <20% during the whole storage, then the degradation is low and so are the losses of N and organics.

7(7)