ASSESSING THE CULTURAL POTENTIAL OF ECOLOGICAL SANITATION IN IMPROVING WASTE MANAGEMENT AND FOOD SECURITY IN THE TAITA HILLS, KENYA Matias Andersson 2014 Supervisor: Senior Lecturer Paola Minoia, Ph.D UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI DEPARTMENT OF GEOSCIENCES AND GEOGRAPHY DIVISION OF GEOGRAPHY P.O. Box 64 (Gustaf Hällströmin katu 2) FI-00014 University of Helsinki Finland HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO – HELSINGFORS UNIVERSITET – UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI Tiedekunta/Osasto – Fakultet/Sektion – Faculty/Section Laitos – Institution – Department Tekijä – Författare – Author Työn nimi – Arbetets titel – Title Oppiaine – Läroämne – Subject Työn laji – Arbetets art – Level Aika – Datum – Month and year Sivumäärä – Sidoantal – Number of pages Tiivistelmä – Referat – Abstract Avainsanat – Nyckelord – Keywords Säilytyspaikka – Förvaringställe – Where deposited Muita tietoja – Övriga uppgifter – Additional information HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO – HELSINGFORS UNIVERSITET – UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI Tiedekunta/Osasto – Fakultet/Sektion – Faculty/Section Laitos – Institution – Department Tekijä – Författare – Author Työn nimi – Arbetets titel – Title Oppiaine – Läroämne – Subject Työn laji – Arbetets art – Level Aika – Datum – Month and year Sivumäärä – Sidoantal – Number of pages Tiivistelmä – Referat – Abstract Avainsanat – Nyckelord – Keywords Säilytyspaikka – Förvaringställe – Where deposited Muita tietoja – Övriga uppgifter – Additional information Contents Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ iii List of figures ........................................................................................................................ iv List of tables ........................................................................................................................... v 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Background ............................................................................................................. 2 1.2. Context, study area and scope of the study ............................................................. 4 1.2.1. Scope of the study ............................................................................................ 6 1.3. Research questions and aims of the study ............................................................... 8 2. Theroretical framework: Literature review and key concepts ...................................... 10 2.1. Ecological sanitation ............................................................................................. 10 2.2. The sanitation crisis and ecological sanitation ...................................................... 13 2.2.1. Ecological sanitation in industrial countries .................................................. 15 2.3. Social and psychological aspects of sanitation ..................................................... 17 2.3.1. Societal sanitation approach and its system structure .................................... 22 2.4. Dimensions of the study within geographical research ......................................... 29 2.5. Ecological sanitation in Kenya .............................................................................. 33 3. Methodology ................................................................................................................. 35 3.1. Data gathering ....................................................................................................... 36 3.1.1. Stakeholder interviews ................................................................................... 36 3.1.2. Expert interviews and groups discussions ..................................................... 44 3.1.3. Participatory ranking exercise ....................................................................... 49 3.2. Data analysis ......................................................................................................... 55 3.2.1. Qualitative content analysis ........................................................................... 55 3.2.2. Statistical description ..................................................................................... 58 4. Results .......................................................................................................................... 59 4.1. Characterization of livelihoods ............................................................................. 59 4.1.1. Rural livelihoods ............................................................................................ 59 4.1.2. Water availabilty ............................................................................................ 62 4.2. Current habits, sanitation and waste management solutions ................................. 63 4.3. Preferences, potential for ecological sanitation .................................................... 70 4.4. Results of the participatory ranking exercise .................................................... 79 i 4.5. Participation and introducing local knowledge to the analysis ............................. 83 5. Conclusions and proposals ........................................................................................... 84 6. Discussion and ethical considerations .......................................................................... 88 6.1. Methodological discussion .................................................................................... 89 6.2. Reflection on literature .......................................................................................... 90 6.3. Literature issues ..................................................................................................... 91 6.4. Ethical considerations............................................................................................ 92 6.5. Additional comments ............................................................................................ 93 Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. 96 References ............................................................................................................................ 98 Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 103 Appendix 1: Stakeholder interview template ................................................................. 103 Appendix 2: Expert interview and groups discussion template ..................................... 105 Appendix 3: Complete coding frame ............................................................................. 106 Stakeholder interviews ................................................................................................ 106 Expert interviews and group discussions .................................................................... 115 ii Abbreviations Amref African Medical and Research Foundation ATC Agricultural Training Centre BGT BioGas Taita CLTS Community-Led Total Sanitation DfID UK Department for International Development GIS Geographical Information Systems GPS Global Positioning System MDGs Millennium Development Goals MoH Ministry of Health NEMA National Environmental Management Authority PHO Public Health Office QCA Qualitative Content Analysis SDGs Sustainable Development Goals TEI Taita Environment Initiative WASRAG Water and Sanitation Rotarian Action Group WVI World Vision International iii List of figures Figure 1. The location of the Taita-Taveta county in southern Kenya. The study area is located close to the town of Voi, north of the road leading towards Taveta and the Tanzanian border. All data from WRI (2014). ....................................................................................................................... 4 Kuva 2. The Taita Hills seen from the west. ...................................................................................... 4 Figure 3. The study area and its three sub-areas. ................................................................................ 5 Figure 4. The societal sanitation approach (Avvannavar & Mani 2008). ......................................... 23 Figure 5. Outline of the methodology employed in this thesis. ........................................................ 35 Figure 6. The composting toilet. ....................................................................................................... 52 Figure 7. The UDDT toilet. .............................................................................................................. 53 Figure 8. The biogas reactor. ............................................................................................................ 54 Figure 9. The fossa alterna. .............................................................................................................. 54 Figure 10. The arborloo. ................................................................................................................... 55 Figure 11. A pit latrine in rural Upper Mwatate. .............................................................................. 64 Figure 12. A VIP Latrine in rural Wundanyi. ................................................................................... 64 Figure 13. Reasons for choosing pit latrines as the household sanitation solution and the benefits and harms of this solution, as perceived