Spuhler 2020

Journal of Environmental Management 271 (2020) 111004
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman
Research article
Developing sanitation planning options: A tool for systematic consideration

of novel technologies and systems
Dorothee Spuhler a, b, *, Verena Germann c, Kinfe Kassa d, Atekelt Abebe Ketema e,
Anjali Manandhar Sherpa f, Mingma Gyalzen Sherpa f, Max Maurer a, b, Christoph Lüthi b,
Guenter Langergraber c
a
Eawag: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600, Dübendorf, Switzerland
b
ETH Zürich, Institute of Environmental Engineering, 8093, Zürich, Switzerland
c
BOKU Vienna, Institute of Sanitary Engineering and Water Pollution Control, Vienna, Austria
d
Arba Minch University, Faculty of Water Supply and Environmental Engineering, Arba Minch, Ethiopia
e
Bahir Dar University, Faculty of Civil and Water Resources Engineering, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
f
Five Hundred B solutions Pvt. Ltd. (500B), Kathmandu, Nepal
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: To provide access to sustainable sanitation for the entire world population, novel technologies and systems have
Strategic sanitation planning been developed. These options are often independent of sewers, water, and energy and therefore promise to be
Appropriate technologies more appropriate for fast-growing urban areas. They also allow for resource recovery and and are adaptable to
Sustainable sanitation
changing environmental and demographic conditions what makes them more sustainable. More options, how
Structured decision making
Citywide inclusive sanitation
ever, also enhance planning complexity. Structured decision making (SDM) can help balance opposing interests.
Yet, most of the current research focuses on the selection of a preferred option, assuming that a set of appropriate
options is available. There is a lack of reproducible methods for the identification of sanitation system planning
options that can consider the growing number of available technology and the many possible system configu
rations. Additionally, there is a lack of data, particularly for novel options, to evaluate the various sustainability
criteria for sanitation.To overcome this limitation, we present a novel software supported approach: the SANi
tation sysTem Alternative GeneratOr (Santiago). To be optimally effective, Santiago is required to be integrated
into an SDM approach. In this paper, we present all the elements that such an integration requires and illustrate
these methods at the case of Arba Minch, a fast growing town in Ethiopia. Based on this example and experiences
from other cases, we discuss the lessons learnt and present the advantages potentially brought by Santiago for
sanitation planning The integration requires four elements: a set of technologies to be looked at, decision ob
jectives for sustainable sanitation, screening criteria to evalute technology appropriateness, and about the
technologies and the casea. The main output is a set of sanitation system options that is locally appropriate,
diverse in order to reveal trade-offs, and of a manageable size. To support the definition of decision objectives,
we developed a generic objective hierarchy for sustainable sanitation. Because one of the main challenges lies in
the quantification of screening criteria, we established the data for 27 criteria and 41 technologies in a library.
The case studies showed, that if the integration is successful, then Santiago can provide substantial benefits: (i) it
is systematic and reproducible; (ii) it opens up the decision space with novel and potentially more appropriate
solutions; (iii) it makes international data accessible for more empirical decision making; (iv) it enables decisions
based on strategic objectives in line with the sustainable development goals; (v) it allows to prioritise appropriate
and resource efficient systems right from the beginning (vi) and it contributes to a more citywide inclusive
approach by birding strategic objectives with an area-based appropriateness assessment. The here presented
approach enables the prioritisation of appropriate and resource efficient sanitation technologies and systems in
strategic planning. Thereby this approach contributes to SDG 6.2, 6.3, and 11, sustainable sanitation for all.
* Corresponding author. Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Überlandstrasse 133, 8600, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Spuhler).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111004
Received 22 March 2020; Received in revised form 18 June 2020; Accepted 21 June 2020
Available online 17 July 2020
0301-4797/© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
D. Spuhler et al. Journal of Environmental Management 271 (2020) 111004
1. Introduction 1.1. A more strategic sanitation planning approach
In fast growing urban areas of developing countries, challenges of

sanitation provisions are exasperated by the high population and
Terms and abbreviations building density, a high degree of informality, and a lack of adminis
trative and financial capacities for planning, implementing, and oper
Application case profile Characterisation of the application ating safe sanitation (Dodman et al., 2017; Isunju et al., 2011; Tremolet
case consisting in data for all screening criteria et al., 2010; UN HABITAT, 2012). Conventional sanitation systems,
CLUES Community-Led Urban Environmental Sanitation which consist of a flush toilet, a sewer system, and hopefully a treatment
CWIS Citywide Inclusive Sanitation plant at the end, are often not viable because sewer networks are very
FG Functional group. There exist five functional groups costly and require large quantities of water, stable institutions, and
within a sanitation system:U: User interface; S: long-term planning horizons (Larsen et al., 2016). If facilities exist, they
Collection and storage. C: Conveyance; T: Treatment; are limited to simple onsite infrastructure, such as basic latrines or septic
and D: Reuse or Disposal tanks, without collection and treatment of generated waste products
H2O Water, one resource quantified by the substance flow downstream (WSP, 2014). 80% of sludge and wastewater are currently
model being discharged globally without appropriate treatment (WWAP,
MCDA Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 2017).
Products Sanitation products are materials that are generated Already in the 1970ies in the World Bank’s low-cost sanitation
either directly by humans (e.g. urine, faeces, research project (1976-78) it was recognized that a top-down sewerage
greywater),the urban environment (e.g. stormwater), or master plan approach will not help to solve the sanitation crisis in the
by a sanitation technology (e.g. sludge, blackwater, global South. The project advocated for a more strategic sanitation
biogas) approach (SSA), which plans for incremental improvement and engages
Sanitation system Sanitation systems are defined as a set of with multiple actors in order to identifying technologies that are locally
compatible sanitation technologies which in appropriate (Kalbermatten, 1982; Kalbermatten and Middleton, 1999;
combination manage all sanitation product from the Middleton and Kalbermatten, 1990; Tayler et al., 2003; Wright, 1997).
point of generation to a final point of reuse or disposal An appropriate technology is one that provides a socially and environ
SAS System Appropriateness Score mentally acceptable level of service, at affordable cost (Iwugo, 1979).
Screening criteria Non-negotiable decision objectives and This can be translated into technical, physical and demographic,
corresponding evaluation criteria that allows to screen socio-cultural, capacity and managerial, legal, as well as financial
for locally appropriate technologies criteria (Spuhler et al., 2018).
SDG Sustainable Development Goal Several strategic planning were in the following developed and
SDM Structured Decision Making tested but were never scaled up due to the technical and financial sup
SSA Strategic Sanitation Approach port required (Wright, 1997). As an answer to the Household-Centred
ST System Template Environmental Sanitation (HCES) approach (Eawag, 2005; Scherten
TAS Technology Appropriateness Score leib, 2005) was formulated and piloted (Lüthi et al., 2009) but this
Technology A technology is defined as any process, approach did not achieve the scope of citywide sanitation.
infrastructure, method or service that is designed to
contain, transform or transport sanitation products 1.2. Sustainable sanitation
Technology profile Characterisation of the technology
requirements consisting in data for all screening criteria At the same time in 2008, the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance put
for the given technology forward its vision, defining sustainable sanitation systems as those that
TN Total Nitrogen, quantified by the substance flow model not only provide appropriate technologies that protect human health
TP Total Phosphorus and the environment but are also economically viable, socially accept
TS Total Solids able, and institutionally applicable (SuSanA, 2008). This definition and
the five criteria for sustainable sanitation (health, protection of the
environment and natural resources, economic viability, technological
and institutional appropriateness, socio-culturally acceptance) opened
Lack of sanitation is linked to reduced health and environmental
the door for the integration of multi-criteria decision making into the
degradation, and undermines social and economic development (Hutton
planning approach (Kvarnstro €m et al., 2004; Spuhler et al., 2018).
and Varughese, 2016). The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
Moreover, it challenged the sector to shift the focus from end-of-pipe
confirm the critical importance of water and sanitation for sustainable
treatment towards closing cycles in order to protect people down
development, with explicit reference to management downstream,
stream and for the recovery and reuse of resources. SuSanA also pushed
resource efficiency and participation of local communities (UN, 2014).
a systems approach to enforce the management of sanitation products
Despite these efforts, 55% of the global population did not use safely
downstream and to highlight the need for a combination of compatible
managed sanitation services in 2017 (UN, 2019), half of which was in
technologies from the point of generation to a final point of reuse or
cities (WHO and UNICEF, 2019).
disposal (Maurer et al., 2012; Spuhler et al., 2018; Tilley et al., 2014).
One of the reasons for this is that the unprecedented growth, in
The sanitation system is often also referred to as the “sanitation service
informal settlements and small towns of the developing world, far ex
chain” or “sanitation value chain” that is a systemized representation
ceeds the capacities of administrations (Lüthi et al., 2010; UN-HABITAT,
including “containment - emptying - conveyance/transport - treatment -
2003). 70% of the world population is projected to live in urban areas by
re-use/disposal” and allows visualization not only of the technological
2050 (Birch et al., 2012), and over 90% of urban growth will take place
aspects but also of the services and business model required for safe
in developing countries, mainly in informal settlements and slums
operation.
(UNFPA, 2007).
1.3. Citywide inclusive sanitation
With the SDGs, in particular SDG 11, the demand for sustainable
2
sanitation was extended with a call for a more ‘inclusive’ approach (UN, lack of knowledge of new approaches leads to the propagation of
2014). This new urban sanitation agenda is laid out in the Manila outdated solutions which are locally inappropriate (Kennedy-Walker
Principles of Citywide Inclusive Sanitation CWIS, (BMGF, 2017; Gam et al., 2014; Lüthi and Kraemer, 2012; McConville, 2010). To facilitate
brill et al., 2019). The CWIS principles advocate an approach to urban the adoption of SDM frameworks, recent research has focused on the
sanitation where all members of the city have equitable access to development of tools to operationalize the different planning steps
adequate and affordable improved sanitation services through appro (Spuhler and Lüthi, 2020). Yet, most of the research focuses on the
priate systems of all scales, without any contamination to the environ understanding of the problem (step 1 and 2 of SDM) (Peal et al., 2014;
ment along the entire sanitation service chain (Narayan and Lüthi, Robb et al., 2017; Strande et al., 2018), or the selection of a preferred
2019). The term ‘inclusive’ encompasses informal and peri-urban, sewer option (step 5 of SDM), (Schütze et al., 2019), assuming that a set of
and non-sewer technologies, the entire value chain, all stakeholders, options is already available. Yet, every decision support approach is only
larger urban goals, and all groups of society, without marginalisation as good as the alternatives presented. Typically, the creation of sanita
based on gender, disability, or low-income (Narayan and Lüthi, 2019). tion decision options (step 3 of SDM) is left over to engineers who lack
data and systematic reproducible evaluation methods for considering
1.4. Technology and system innovation the entire spectrum of currently available technologies and sustain
ability criteria (Spuhler and Lüthi, 2020). This introduces a whole range
The increasing recognition of a need for more strategic, appropriate, of shortcomings, such as insufficient knowledge and data leading to bias,
sustainable, and inclusive solutions has triggered massive investments in opaque pre-selection processes based on experts’ personal preferences
the development of novel technologies (e.g. urine diversion dry toilets) and little local ownership.
and innovative system configurations (e.g. container-based sanitation).
Being independent from energy, water and sewer networks, these novel
technologies and system innovations are more appropriate for devel 1.6. Aim of this publication
oping urban areas. They also have the potential to enhance sustain
ability and resilience by reducing water requirements, being more The lack of suitable methods for the systematic generation of locally
adaptable for socio-demographic and environmental changes, and appropriate sanitation systems is one of the biggest weaknesses in
allowing recovery of nutrient, energy, and water resources (Diener et al., strategic urban sanitation planning (Gregory et al., 2012; Hajkowicz and
2014; Larsen et al., 2016; Tilmans et al., 2015; Tobias et al., 2017). They Collins, 2007). Another shortcoming is the lack of quantification
also expand opportunities for private sector involvement in the collec methods for important decision objectives such as resource recovery
tion and safe reuse of resources (Evans et al., 2013; Murray and Ray, potential. In Spuhler et al. (2018) and Spuhler et al. (2020) we present
2010; Schertenleib, 2005). This “Reinvent The Toilet Challenge”1 has four algorithms that in combination can overcome these shortcomings.
significantly influenced the sanitation sector and the potential of novel Santiago (SANitation sysTem Alternative GeneratOr) is a software that
sanitation has also been recognized in high-income countries, where the combines these algorithms and corresponding technology data to
focus is on optimising aging infrastructure. Today, there is global generate a diverse but manageable set of appropriate sanitation system
consensus that sanitation technology and system innovations need to configurations for a given case and that quantifies resource recovery
find their way into practice. potentials as an input into the detailed evaluation of the options. The
main novelty of Santiago is that it is systematic and thus reproducible, it
1.5. Structured decision making (SDM) is generic and automated to deal with a large and diverse range of
technologies and systems including novel options, and it accounts for
While sanitation innovations potentially enhance sustainability and uncertainty in order to be applicable at an early planning also for novel
inclusiveness, they also enhance planning complexity. From a decision- options.
making viewpoint, selecting a locally appropriate and sustainable To utilise the full strength of Santiago, it should be integrated into a
sanitation system and its corresponding technologies is a complex multi- facilitated and participatory process such as SDM. The aim of this pub
criteria decision-making problem (Bracken et al., 2005; Kvarnstr€ om and lication is to present a full method description of how Santiago can be
Petersens, 2004; Zurbrügg et al., 2009). Structured decision making applied integrated into an SDM planning process and to discuss potential
(SDM) helps tackle such problems by systematically comparing several advantages brought along with this application. Santiago and the inte
decision options regarding the defined decision objectives in order to gration procedure including the needed interaction with stakeholders
reveal trade-offs and balance for opposing interests using Multi-Criteria are presented in the methods sections. In the results section we illustrate
Decision Analysis (MCDA). This leads to more strategic but also more in detail the application of these methods at the example of Arba Minch,
informed and thus more accepted decisions. The facilitated participatory a rapidly growing town of roughly 1000 000 inhabitants in the South of
framework covers at least six steps generic to any decision making Ethiopia. We also briefly summarise the experiences from other appli
process (Gregory et al., 2012): (1) understanding the decision context; cation cases in order to discuss the lessons learnt that are generalisable
(2) defining decision objectives and criteria; (3) identifying decision for any future application of Santiago and to present the advantages
options/alternatives; (4) evaluating consequences of the options for potentially brought by Santiago for sanitation planning in the future.
decision objectives; (5) discussing the trade-offs and selecting for the
preferred options; and (6) implementing and monitoring. 2. Methods and application case
Different SDM approaches for strategic sanitation planning have
been developed including Community-Led Urban Environmental Sani 2.1. Santiago
tation (CLUES), (Lüthi et al., 2011a), Sanitation 21 (Parkinson et al.,
2014), or City Sanitation Planning (CSP), (GoI, 2008; MOUD, 2008). Santiago (SANitation sysTem Alternative GeneratOr) is a software
Despite the continuous development of these theoretical foundations, that combines algorithms and corresponding technology data that are
there is a lack of putting them into practice (Kennedy-Walker et al., described in detail in Spuhler et al. (2018), Spuhler et al. (2020) and in
2014; Ramo ^a et al., 2018; Starkl et al., 2013). Missing leadership and supplementary information SI-A. Here we present a very condensed
summary of the essential characteristics of Santiago. Santiago integrates
four algorithms (also depicted in Fig. 1 on the left side):
1)
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2018/11
/Bill-Gates-Launches-Reinvented-Toilet-Expo-Showcasing-New-Pathogen-Kill 1) For the identification of all appropriate sanitation technologies from
ing-Sanitation-Products. Access: 29.05.2019. a set of potential ones based on list of criteria which are independent
3
Fig. 1. Integration of the SANitation sysTem Alternative GeneratOr (Santiago) and the Structured Decision Making (SDM) approach which happens at two stages.
First, the decision objectives are used to derive screening criteria which allows assessment of the appropriateness of potential sanitation technologies for the given
application case. The potential technologies are characterized in the technology library. Then, Santiago generates all possible system configurations, calculates their
appropriateness scores, and identifies the most appropriate system from each template to be handed over to the decision-making process. Optionally, it can also
quantify resource recovery potentials and environmental emissions as inputs into further evaluations.
from stakeholder preferences and thus non-negotiable and therefore 4) For the modelling of substance mass flows along entire systems in
can be used for screening of appropriate technologies. order to quantify resource recovery potentials and environmental
2) For the generation of all possible and valid sanitation system con emissions for nutrients, organics, energy, and water.
figurations (typically more than 1000 000) using the appropriate
technologies. A valid sanitation system is defined as a set of The diverse set of locally appropriate sanitation system options is the
compatible technologies which, in combination, ensure that all main output of Santiago, which is passed over to the SDM process for
sanitation products (e.g. excreta, sludge, blackwater) are either further evaluation, discussion of trade-offs, and selection of the
transferred, transformed, or end up in a sink. preferred options using any kind of facilitated MCDA method (steps 5
3) For the selection of the desired number of appropriate system con and 6 of SDM). Resource recovery and loss potentials provide some of
figurations from all generated options. The selection covers the full the relevant performance indicators for this further evaluation. The
diversity of the sanitation system options space defined by 19 system options cover the technological aspect of the system only; aspects
templates grouped into simple onsite, urine diversion, biofuel, or related to management and service delivery are to some extend
blackwater systems. considered in the appropriateness assessment.
The appropriateness assessment explicitly accounts for uncertainties
4
related to the technologies or the local context and quantifies the for sustainable sanitation planning are obtained in two steps:
appropriateness in a score between 0 and 100% expressing the confi
dence in how appropriate a technology is given the available data and 1. Decision objectives: the objective hierarchy and the corresponding
information. The uncertainties of transfer coefficients (e.g. due to evaluation criteria for the given context are established by
technology implementation or different qualities and quantities of combining locally-defined objectives with a generic objective hier
inflow products) are also considered and represented in the standard archy for sustainable sanitation as shown in Fig. 2 and further
deviations of the results from the substance flow modelling. detailed in SI–C.
The algorithm for the technology appropriateness assessment (is 2. Screening criteria: the evaluation criteria are sorted into negotiable
implemented in R (R Development Core Team, 2018) and is accessible at and non-negotiable criteria. The criteria useful for screening are the
https://github.com/Eawag-SWW/TechAppA (v1.0). The algorithms for ones which are non-negotiable criteria (exogenously defined, inde
system generation, system selection, and substance flow modelling are pendent from stakeholder preferences) and for which enough infor
implemented in Julia (Bezanson et al., 2017) and are accessible at mation and data are available at the structuring phase (see SI-D,
https://github.com/Eawag-SWW/SanitationSystemMassFlow.jl (v1.0). Figs. 11 and 12). Negotiable evaluation criteria serve as a basis for
A copy of all four algorithm, along with the input and output data from the MCDA in a later step of SDM. A master list of screening criteria is
the application case are available in the associated data package at ERIC: provided to make sure that no relevant criteria are omitted.
https://doi.org/10.25678/0001QJ ([dataset] Spuhler, 2020).
Santiago also comes with a technology library which covers 41 The generic objective hierarchy and master list of screening criteria
technologies which can be combined to more than 1000 000 valid system are available in Fig. 2, SI-C, and SI-D. These are based on a broad
configurations. The 41 technologies are based on Spuhler et al. (2018) literature review (e.g. Balkema et al., 2002; Bracken et al., 2005; Dun
and Tilley et al. (2014) and are complemented with a few promising made, 2002; Kvarnstro €m et al., 2004; Kvarnstro €m et al., 2011; Mont
novel options: e.g. ‘vermi-composting’ as used by the Biofil toilet gomery et al., 2009; Muga and Mihelcic, 2008; Palme et al., 2005;
(Amoah et al., 2016; Lalander et al., 2015), ‘struvite precipitation’, and Sahely et al., 2005; SuSanA, 2008; van Buuren, 2010; Willetts et al.,
‘struvite application’ (Dalecha et al., 2012), liquid urine fertilizer 2013) and completed with expert interviews. The aim of these resources
(‘Aurin’) production and application (Etter et al., 2015), ‘briquetting’ is to use international expertise in order to produce a more empirical
(based on the process implemented by Sanivation in Naivasha (Jones, outcome (Bond et al., 2008). These lists are not intended to be taken
2017), and ‘Latrine Dehydration and Pasteurization’, LaDePa, (Septien without discussion and should be adopted from local stakeholders and
et al., 2018). For each of the technologies, the library also provides in adapted to their specific needs. In the case studies we organised one or
ternational literature and expert data for 27 screening criteria to be used two multi-stakeholder workshops to obtain the locally contextualise
for the appropriateness assessment and transfer coefficients for four decision objectives and screening criteria. Stakeholders included inter
substances (total phosphorus, total nitrogen, water, and total solids) to ested citizens from the community, experts (consultants, academia),
be used for substance flow quantification. Internationally valid inflow government representatives, and local and international
masses for the four substances (per person and year) are also made non-governmental organizations. The composition of the group of
available. But these inflow values could be adapted if local data is stakeholders determines how much the decision objectives are sup
available. The technology library is available as a descriptive document ported by actors from different levels (e.g. community, municipality,
that also contains all literature references as well as in an editable table region). We suggest a workshop procedure of six steps to obtain suitable
that can be directly read by the algorithms. Any new technology can be inputs for Santiago (based on Gregory et al. (2012) and Bond et al.
added to the table following the instructions provided in the descriptive (2008):
document. The resources are available in the data package associated
with Spuhler et al. (2020): [dataset] Spuhler and Roller, 2020 at ERIC: 1. Brainstorming decision objectives for sustainable sanitation (facili
https://doi.org/10.25678/0000ss. tated using e.g. coloured cards and a flip chart).
2. Structuring objectives and comparing with the generic objective hi
2.2. Integration of Santiago into a structured decision making process erarchy. This can be done by e.g. clustering similar objectives and
providing them with cluster names similar to the generic objective
The integration of Santiago into a regular SDM planning process hierarchy. The moderator might also suggest adding objectives from
happens at steps 2, 3 and 4 (see Fig. 1). In SI–B, we provide an overview the generic hierarchy which were previously omitted.
of all SDM steps. Here we describe the three elements that are needed to 3. Brainstorming non-negotiable and negotiable criteria and attributes
apply Santiago: (in smaller groups, ideally with a moderator). Groups might be split
according to the highest-level objectives (e.g. health, environment,
1. A list of screening criteria that can be used to identify technologies technology, governance, finance).
appropriate for the given context. Screening criteria are derived from 4. Testing non-negotiable criteria for the fulfilment of the basic re
the overall decision objectives and cover criteria that are non- quirements for screening: data is available at the structuring phase,
negotiable, meaning they are objective, fixed, and typically exoge exogenously defined, independent from stakeholder preferences
nously defined. Non-negotiable criteria are often environmental (also done in groups).
factors (e.g. groundwater table, water availability), socio- 5. Comparing the resulting list of screening criteria with the master list
demographic factors (e.g. population density), as well as capacity- (all together).
related factors (e.g. availability of spare parts). 6. Establishing a merged list of screening criteria (can be done with a
2. Evaluation data to characterise the application case and technology smaller task force after the workshop).
profile for the screening attributes.
3. The number of sanitation system decision options that can be The workshop outcomes strongly depend on good orientation of the
managed. This number lies somewhere between three to 50 options participants at the beginning and skilled moderation. One way to start
and depends on the model complexity of methods used in steps 4 and off the brainstorming is to look at the main problems identified in an
5 of the SDM process to deal with more or fewer options. earlier SDM step and to test different objectives that describe these
problems as deficits in regards to the current state and the state to which
people would aspire (Reichert et al., 2015). Means-ends analysis and
2.2.1. Screening criteria and decision objectives cognitive mapping can support this process.
The screening criteria as a subset of the overall decision objectives After the workshops we went through the list once again with a few
5
Fig. 2. Objective hierarchy for sustainable sanitation based on the five sustainability criteria of the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance (SuSanA, 2008) and a broad
literature review (Spuhler et al., 2018). The list of corresponding evaluation criteria is available in SI–C. For the application of Santiago, the objectives and cor
responding criteria are classified into non-negotiable and negotiable criteria. The non-negotiable criteria can be used for the screening of appropriate sanitation
technology and systems. Negotiable criteria are the basis for the detailed evaluation in a later step of the decision-making process.
key stakeholders in order to check whether the criteria were really non- between objectives in order to develop composite criteria or to decide
negotiable and independent from preferences, and if data was available. which to delete (e.g. operation and maintenance skills and operation
At the end, the list of screening criteria was reduced to the 20 most and maintenance frequency). To structure the screening criteria, we
important criteria. More criteria would have reduced the robustness of used five categories which are legal, technical, physical, demographic,
the screening outcome, as we use the geometric mean for aggregation social and and capacity and management-related (Goldhoff, 1976;
(Grabisch et al., 2011; Spuhler et al., 2018). We checked overlap Iwugo, 1979; Kalbermatten et al., 1980), see also SI-D Figs. 11 and 12
6
(based on Spuhler et al., 2018).

It is also worth mentioning that some screening criteria include both,
non-negotiable as well as negotiable aspects. For example, to be
appropriate, a potential technology should not have water needs that
exceed water availability. Additionally, among the appropriate tech
nologies, those having lower water use, in a context where water is
scarce, are potentially more sustainable, information that would be
relevant for the detailed evaluation of the options in step 4 of SDM.
2.2.2. Evaluation data: technology profiles and application case profiles

Each screening criterion consists of a pair of “technology attribute”
and “application case attribute”. The appropriateness of a technology for
a given screening criterion is evaluated by matching the two attributes
(e.g. the performance of a technology given a certain water availability
is compared to local water availability). To account for the different
areas within a city (e.g. centre, informal dense, peri-urban), different
case profiles are established. To account for uncertainties related to the
context or the technology, probability functions are used to quantify the
attributes. By aggregating all criteria scores for a given technology and
application case, the technology appropriateness score (TAS) is ob
tained. In principle, any uncertainty model could be used but it should
fit the data (Spuhler et al., 2018). We recommend using rather simple
models including triangular, trapezoid, uniform, and categorical distri
butions (Spuhler et al., 2018). For instance if we know that a technology
has a performance of 100% from 5 � C to 35 � C and 0% below and above
Fig. 3. To characterise the diversity of the sanitation system option space we
we use an uniform distribution with a minimum at 5 � C and a maximum
used nine binary conditions in order to define 19 different system templates
at 35 � C. The triangular function and the trapezoidal function works that characterise systems according to different paradigms (onsite simple, urine
similarly but use additional data points. The categorical function is best diversion, biofuel, blackwater) and their degree of centralization. Note that
applied when the data is not continuous and can be aggregated into modular systems integrating semi-centralized management of some products
different categories: e.g. 30% of the population has ‘low’ access to water, are considered as centralized.
50% has ‘moderate’ access, and 20% has ‘high’ access.
The technology library ([dataset] Spuhler and Roller, 2020) provides 2.3. Application case Arba Minch town (Ethiopia)
the profiles of 41 technologies and 27 screening criteria. The 27
screening criteria broadly cover the master list provided in SI-D. The To illustrate in detail the methods of Santiago and its integration we
library also provides sufficient information to add any additional present the results and experiences of the application case Arba Minch,
screening criteria. It also includes guiding questions to establish the which are representative for many of the experiences made in total six
application case profiles based on the data available from step 1 of the case studies.
SDM process (baseline assessment). This data can be completed with
reports from previous projects, statistics, field visits, and key informant 2.3.1. Background
interviews. More sophisticated data collection methods, such as house The example is based on the application of Santiago that was
hold surveys, should not be required for the application of Santiago. implemented by the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and
Technology (Eawag) in collaboration with BOKU University Vienna,
2.2.3. Number of decision options and system templates Arba Minch University (AMU) and Arba Minch Town Municipality
From 41 potential sanitation technologies, more than 1000 000 valid (AMTM). Arba Minch, Ethiopia was selected because of the success of
can be generated. Many of them might be appropriate. At the other hand previous joint projects (Langergraber et al., 2010, 2014) which intro
the number of systems that can be managed by the SDM process strongly duced novel technologies for resource recovery. These project payed
depends on the evaluation methods used in steps 4 and 5 of SDM. In the little attention to the evaluation of the scalability for citywide services
case of a more sophisticated MCDA (e.g. using multiple attribute value and ownership at AMTM. Therefore, in 2015, AMU involved key persons
theory, MAVT), this number might be as high as 50. Whereas in a simple from AMTM in the preparation of a Strategic Sanitation and Waste Plan
context, as described in CLUES, using a simple scoring method (Lüthi (SSWP). With this, AMU laid the basis for the for a more strategic
et al., 2011b), three to eight options are the most that can be dealt with approach to sanitation planning, with the full commitment of the AMTM
(Gregory et al., 2012). Thus, the question remains, which of the administration. The aim of applying Santiago in this context was to test
appropriate systems should be pre-selected. Because the performance of how Santiago performs in terms of option generation and how it can
the systems regarding the main decision objectives is expected to be contribute to the planning process.
highly variable (e.g. resource recovery, costs) the selected set of options
needs to be diverse in order not to impact the final decision and to reveal 2.3.2. Geography
mayor trade-offs between the main decision objectives. To characterise Arba Minch is located in the southern part of Ethiopia and, in 2017,
the diversity of the sanitation system option space, we use the 19 system had a population of 114,570 inhabitants. With an annual growth rate of
templates shown in Fig. 3. The system templates use 9 binary conditions 4.5%, it is one of the fastest growing cities of Ethiopia (CSA, 2007). The
to assign each system to one of the templates (Spuhler et al., 2020). By area is large (56 km2), with a low average density (approx. 2000 in
selecting the most appropriate option from each template a set of locally habitants per km2). But most of the population is concentrated in the
appropriate sanitation systems which is of manageable size and diverse residential areas around the university. AMTM is part of the Great Rift
can be obtained. Valley, and is bordered by the Abaya and Chamo lakes in the East, and
by a mountain escarpment in the West. The topography is very diverse
and combines both steep and undulating terrain of the upper town area
7
and flat areas in the valley. It is divided into four sub-cities, which have SSWP, challenges related to the high technical personnel turn-over at the
been restructured into eleven administrative “kebeles” (smallest municipality, ownership, and lack of political will and financial re
administrative zone). sources persist. To implement the SSWP, strategic sanitation planning
needs to be institutionalized through the allocation of responsibilities
2.3.3. Sanitation situation and resources.
The majority of households in Arba Minch have simple pit latrines
with wooden floors. In the peripheral areas, open defecation is still 3. Results from the practical application
practised; however it has decreased in recent years (Kassa et al., 2015;
Teklemariam et al., 2007). Additionally, sanitation technologies like 3.1. Santiago inputs
Fossa alterna, UDDTs, Arborloo, and co-composting were introduced in
the previous research projects. The central part of Arba Minch is not 3.1.1. Decision objectives
serviced by a sewer network. Hotels, hospitals, university campuses A first workshop to identify decision objectives was conducted with
often build and manage their own decentralized sewer-based treatment 32 participants representing the major stakeholders in Arba Minch
facilities. For instance, the main campus of AMU has its own sewer town. Participants were grouped to work on different topics in a World
system combined with a set of waste stabilization ponds for treatment. In caf�e format (30 min each): decision objectives, stakeholder analysis,
condominium houses (housing with three or four storey buildings), steps of SDM, and enabling environment. The decision objectives were
flushing toilets with septic tanks are common; however, most of them then organised in a hierarchy with six upper level objectives with
are not connected to any leach field or soak pit and are not emptied different weights defined using pocket voting: protection of health & the
regularly and are therefore overflowing onto other housing areas. environment (21.5%), ensuring ownership (19%), ensuring sustain
Currently private hotel owners selectively provide desludging services ability (19%), capacity development (17%), monitoring and evaluation
for the public because they have the equipment and see a business op (14%), cross-sectional approach and responsibility (9.5%) (see also
portunity. Currently, a sludge drying bed is near completion at the Table 8 in SI-E).
southern part of the city, but insufficient budget allocation delay its
completion. Manual emptying is very common and an important 3.1.2. Screening criteria
informal business, especially for poorly constructed pit latrines. Water is Screening criteria were defined in a separate workshop using the
generally available from springs and three wells and distribution is workshop methodology described in the methods. During the workshop,
mostly via yard or in-house connections. 59 criteria were defined and organised in five groups: (1) financial, (2)
The main challenges for improving the sanitation situation are rapid technical and physical, (3) socio-cultural and demographic, (4) envi
population growth due to migration from nearby rural villages, unfav ronmental, legal and institutional and (5) capacity and management, see
ourable soil conditions (primarily either loose black cotton or rocky details in SI-E. There were no major differences with the master list
soils), frequent flooding, lack of awareness of the importance of sani provided by Santiago, but some aspects were mentioned in much more
tation, and lack of operational and maintenance resources, including detail. In the following weeks, we met with a number of key stakeholders
insufficient availability of desludging services (SMEC, 2018). individually to merge the workshop list with the master list and to
reduce the number of criteria to become more practical and meaningful.
2.3.4. Key sanitation stakeholders The list of the resulting 19 criteria and an example of how they can be
AMTM department of Sanitation, Beautification and Greenery and quantified is provided in Table 1.
the health office are responsible for the regulation of onsite and non-
sewer sanitation. Arba Minch Water Supply and Sewerage Enterprises 3.1.3. Potential technologies
(AWSSE) is responsible for the operation and management of the water 38 technologies were selected from the technology library to test
supply, the sewer network, and centralized treatment plants (once they Santiago in Arba Minch (see Fig. 4).The selection was made based on the
exist). Households without sewer connections (the majority of the town) results from previous research projects in Arba Minch while ensuring
are themselves responsible for constructing and operating pit latrines or that onsite and offsite, natural and intensive, and conventional and
septic tanks, and their emptying. The kebeles, together with the health novel options are covered.
offices, are responsible for health promotion campaigns, that are
implemented by health extension workers and a number of community- 3.1.4. Application case profiles for three kebeles
based organizations. Other important stakeholders include the service Santiago was applied to three different kebeles: Woze, located in the
providers (pit emptier, solid waste collectors, masons) and farmers north of the town, a low-income residential area with ample space
(users of compost). The agricultural offices provide composting and availability and medium population (15,250 inhabitants, 5000 m3
biogas training. Federal and regional ministries for water resources and monthly water consumption); Chamo, situated in the higher parts of
the ministry of health are responsible for legal and financial issues. AMU Arba Minch, a medium-to high-income area with many hotels and
is involved in various international sanitation research projects, is governmental institutions (10,374 inhabitants, 14,000 m3month 1
responsible for the education of future water and sanitation engineers, water consumption); and Mehal Ketema, in the centre of the town, with
and played a key role in the development of the SSWP. commercial centres, residential buildings, hotels, a hospital and other
institutions (6634 inhabitants, 18,000 m3month 1 water consumption).
2.3.5. Strategic sanitation planning For these three kebeles, baseline reports of previous projects, academic
Traditionally, strategic sanitation planning did not exist in Arba reports, as well as semi-structured interviews with various stakeholders
Minch, mainly due to the lack of clearly allocated responsibilities and were used to establish the application case profiles (see example in
resources. Sewerage, which would fall under the responsibility of Table 1). The inflow masses were estimated based on the international
AWSSE, is not feasible. The AMTM sanitation department which is values provided in the technology library and adapted to the local
responsible for onsite sanitation is understaffed and underfunded and context for nitrogen and water. Details are provided in SI–F. For phos
limits itself to regulation. Households have to take care of construction phorus, nitrogen and total solids, the inflows were the same for all toilet
and emptying. Recently, AWSSE organized itself to take over the sludge sources (0.454, 2.866, and 31.317 kg 1year 1person 1 respectively).
drying bed and sludge truck management which promises an improve The water inflows were estimated to be 14 162.0, 3029.5, and 474.5
ment of the emptying services in the future. The first citywide strategic kg 1year 1person 1 for the cistern flush, pour flush, and dry toilet
planning attempt was the SSWP which addresses all of the SDM steps sources respectively.
(see Table 7 in SI-E). Despite the contributions brought about by the
8
Table 1
Example of input data required by Santiago. The screening criteria are translated in to questions in order to define for each criteria a technology and a case attribute and
a corresponding uncertainty function making up the technology and case profiles. Only the examples of the case of Chamo (a kebele of Arba Minch) and vermi-
composting (a technology from the functional group S) are shown. The use of ‘d-’ at the beginning of the function name refers to the density function, ‘p-’ refers
to the conditional probability, ‘cat’ stands for a categorical function, ‘triangle’ refers to a triangular distribution, ‘range’ refers to a uniform distribution, and ‘trapez’
refers to a trapezoidal distribution. The technology is additionally characterised by its input and output products used to build entire systems and the transfer co
efficients used for the substance flow modelling.
Application case question Case profile (Chamo) Technology question Technology profile (vermi-
composting)
Screening criteria and attribute functions
Water supply Which water supply options are available? dcat, c(house ¼ 0.1, What is the performance under the pcat, c(house ¼ 1, yard ¼ 1,
(house, yard, public, none on site) yard ¼ 0.9, public ¼ 0, given water supply options? (house, public ¼ 1, none ¼ 1)
none ¼ 0) yard, public, none)
Energy supply Is energy supply available in the application dcat, c(energy ¼ 0.8, no What is the performance of the NA
case? energy ¼ 0.2) technology under the specific energy
supply conditions?
Frequency of operation Which level of O&M can be expected (also dcat, c(regular ¼ 0.4, What is the performance of the pcat, c(regular ¼ 1, irregular
and maintenance consider previous projects)? (regular, irregular ¼ 0.6) technology in case of regular and ¼ 0.4)
(O&M) irregular) irregular O&M? (regular, irregular)
Temperature range What is the min., mean, max. average monthly dtriangle, a ¼ 12, b ¼ In which temperature range is the ptriangle, (a ¼ 0, b ¼ 30, c ¼
temperatures? 35, c ¼ 24 technology able to perform well to what 20)
extent?
Flooding What is the flooding risk for the area? dcat, c(flooding ¼ 0.75, What is the performance of the pcat, c(flooding ¼ 0.8, no
no flooding ¼ 0.25) technology under these conditions? flooding ¼ 1)
Vehicular access How accessible are the plots? (no access, dcat, c(no access ¼ 0, What is the performance under the pcat, c(no access ¼ 0.2,
narrow, full) narrow ¼ 0.3, full ¼ various categories of accessibility (no narrow ¼ 1, full ¼ 1)
0.7) access, narrow, full)?
Slope What is the slope range of the area? drange, c(lower ¼ 0, What is the performance at a certain ptrapez, (a ¼ 0, b ¼ 0, c ¼ 5, d
upper ¼ 10) slope range? ¼ 25)
Soil type/hydraulic What is the soil type in the area? dcat, c(clay ¼ 0.1, silt What is the performance of a pcat, c(clay ¼ 1, silt ¼ 1, sand
conductivity ¼ 0.2, sand ¼ 0.7, technology under each category of soil ¼ 1, gravel ¼ 1)
gravel ¼ 0) type (concerning permeability)?
Groundwater depth What is the depth of the groundwater table in drange, c(lower ¼ 20, What depth of the groundwater table is prange, lower ¼ 0, upper ¼
the area? upper ¼ 200) tolerated? þInf
Excavation Is excavation easy or hard in the area? (easy, dcat, c(easy ¼ 1, hard What is the performance under the
hard) ¼ 0) given category? (easy, hard)
Population density What is the population density? drange, c(lower ¼ What is the performance at a certain prange, lower ¼ 0,upper ¼
4200, upper ¼ 6500) population density? 30000
Construction skills To what extent are the skill levels locally pcat, c(low ¼ 1, Which level of skills are required for dcat, c(low ¼ 0, moderate ¼ 1,
available? moderate ¼ 1, high ¼ 1) construction? high ¼ 0)
Design skills To what extent are the skill levels locally pcat, c(low ¼ 1, Which level of skills are required for dcat, c(low ¼ 0, moderate ¼ 1,
available? moderate ¼ 1, high ¼ design? high ¼ 0)
0.9)
O&M skills To what extent are the skill levels locally pcat, c(low ¼ 1, Which level of skills are required for dcat, c(low ¼ 0.5, moderate ¼
available? moderate ¼ 1, high ¼ O&M? 0.5, high ¼ 0)
0.7)
Religious constraints Which anal cleansing methods are used by the dcat, c(water ¼ 0.7, What is the performance of a pcat, c(water ¼ 1, soft ¼ 1,
population? soft ¼ 0.1, hard ¼ 0.2) technology with the use of different hard ¼ 1)
anal cleansing methods?
Cultural constraints Is it culturally okay to have contact with pcat, c(contact ¼ 0.5, What is the probability of having dcat, c(contact ¼ 0.5, no
faeces? (contact, no contact) no contact ¼ 1) contact with faeces? (contact, no contact ¼ 0.5)
contact)
Drinking water Are there drinking water sources (e.g. dcat, c(closer ¼ 0, not Is the technology appropriate if pcat, c(closer ¼ 1, not closer
exposure (drinkexp) groundwater well) closer than 30 m from closer ¼ 1) drinking water sources are closer than ¼ 1)
point of infiltration? (percentage of houses) 30 m?
Chemical Are chemicals locally available? (chemicals, dcat, c(chemicals ¼ 0.2, What is the performance of a pcat, c(chemicals ¼ 1, no
no chemicals) no chemicals ¼ 0.8) technology for any category of chemical chemicals ¼ 1)
availability?
Odour What is the sensitivity to the levels of odour pcat, c(low ¼ 0.95, What is the level of odour emissions? dcat, c(low ¼ 1, moderate ¼ 0,
emissions? moderate ¼ 0.67, high high ¼ 0)
¼ 0.33)
Input and output sanitation products faeces, excreta, blackwater,
organics - > compost, effluent
Transfer coefficients
Total phosphorus (TP) compost ¼ 1, effluent ¼ 0, air
loss ¼ 0, soil loss ¼ 0, water
loss ¼ 0
Total nitrogen (TN) compost ¼ 0.68, effluent ¼ 0,
air loss ¼ 0.32, soil loss ¼ 0,
water loss ¼ 0
total solids (TS) compost ¼ 0.52, effluent ¼ 0,
water loss ¼ 0
Water (H2O) compost ¼ 0.53, effluent ¼ 0,
water loss ¼ 0
9
Fig. 4. Potential technologies tested with Santiago in Arba Minch. Each box represented a technologies and the arrow indicate the input and output products used to
check their compatibility. A detailed description for each technology is provided in the technology library at ERIC: https://doi.org/10.25678/0000ss.
3.1.5. Number of decision options and 14). Although for many technologies the scores were similar in all
The number of options was set to 36. This relatively high number three cases, the source and storage technologies showed quite high
allowed a high diversity of the options, illustrating also that within one variation with some technologies being only appropriate in some cases.
template, very different systems with similar appropriateness can be For instance, the ‘cistern flush toilet’ and the ‘conventional sewers’ were
found. fully inappropriate in the case of Woze because continuous in-house
water supply is not available in this kebele. But these were the only
technologies with a TAS ¼ 0. High appropriateness scores were achieved
3.2. Santiago outputs e.g. by the technologies pour flush toilet, composting chamber, urine
bank and co-composting. One important observation was, that for all
3.2.1. Technology appropriateness technologies and cases, some criteria showed to be more relevant for the
The technology appropriateness assessment provided for or each of appropriateness. These are water and energy supply, operation and
the three application cases Woze, Chamo, and Mehal Ketema and each maintenance frequency, vehicular access, flooding, slope, and social and
technology a technology appropriateness scores (TAS), (SI-G, Figs. 13
10
cultural constraints. show clearly lower median system appropriateness scores (SAS), while
others show generally higher scores (ST3, ST6 and ST13).
3.2.2. System generation and system appropriateness
From the 38 potential technologies we could build 67 470 valid 3.2.3. Option selection
sanitation system configurations. The highest number of systems by far, The selected systems were similar, but not the same for the three
were generated with the source urine diversion dry toilet (UDDT, 65 cases. In Fig. 6 we show some of the 36 selected systems for Chamo.
482) because this source has two output streams (versus one) leading to From these examples we can learn four things:
more possible permutations (see SI-G, Fig. 15). The two wet sources,
cistern flush and pour flush toilets, lead to the same number of options � The set of options is diverse in terms of sources (all except cistern
(660) because they have the same output product (even though in flush), system lengths (e.g. ID-66218 and ID-53874), and system
different quantities) and the dry toilet led to 308 mostly onsite options. templates (including onsite, decentralized, centralized, systems as
The system appropriateness scores (SAS) generated for Chamo and well as systems including onsite and off-site elements such as ID-
Mehal Ketema were very similar and relatively high (see SI-G, Fig. 16). 59113 and ID-66716).
For Woze, there are many systems with a low SAS because of the lower � Moreover, the set of options contains also novel options such as
appropriateness of all the four toilet sources. vermi-composting (ID-66218), Fossa alterna (ID-65859), and solids-
To describe the diversity of the options, we used the 19 system free sewers (ID-66216). The vermi-composting system is particularly
templates as described in Fig. 3 and shown for the case of Chamo in promising as it is not only the shortest system but also among the
Fig. 5. The figure shows, that for all templates, both systems with low most appropriate in all kebeles and also shows very high recovery
and high appropriateness can be found. This shows, that templates are potentials (see next section).
not a good indicator for system appropriateness and that therefore, an � Long systems (systems with more technologies) show lower recovery
automated approach that quantifies the SAS for all systems is required. because of more losses (e.g. ID-59113, see SI-G, Fig. 17).
Nevertheless, some system templates (e.g. ST1, ST2, ST17, and ST19)
Fig. 5. System appropriateness scores (SAS) in % (1.00 ¼ 100%) for the case Chamo. Each dot represents one of the 67 470 systems. The colours blue, green and
yellow indicate the toilet sources. The systems are organised according to the 19 system templates shown in Fig. 3. The larger numbered dots indicate the selected
systems (two or three per template). The middle line of the boxplot represents the median of all scores. The lower and upper hinges correspond to the first and third
quartiles (the 25th and 75th percentiles). Outliers are shown as grey dots. Some systems show clearly higher medians, but within each templates, there are systems
with low and with high appropriateness showing that the templates are not a good indicator for appropriateness. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
11
Fig. 6. Flowcharts of some selected systems for the case of Chamo in Arba Minch town. Each box represents a technology and the arrows represent the product flows.
This selection shows that the set of selected sanitation systems is diverse (including different system technological characteristic), and contains also novel options
which one might not have thought of and which are very promising. Furthermore, the set of options also highlights the importance of a system level evaluation and
reveals that technology-level analysis alone is insufficient for finding the best options. b: Continued: flowcharts of some selected systems for the case of Chamo in
Arba Minch town.
12
Fig. 6. (continued).
� Furthermore, the set of options highlights the importance of a system 3.2.4. Resource recovery and losses
level evaluation as it reveals that technology-level analysis alone is Similarly, as for the appropriateness, we found recovery potentials
insufficient for finding the best options. For instance, System ID- that range from almost nothing to almost 100% within a same template
53874 contains technologies with low TAS (struvite production (see SI-G, Fig. 18). Thus again, templates are not sufficient indicators for
and single pit) but still achieves a SAS in the mean range. Similarly, recovery. In Fig. 7 we show the resource recovery of all 67 470 systems
ID-67140 integrates a number of technologies with relatively high (y-axis) compared to the system appropriateness scores (x-axis).
TAS (e.g. waste stabilization pond, application of stabilized sludge), The selected systems are highlighted by colours according to their
but due to two technologies with low TAS (cistern flush toilet, con template. As expected, some selected systems have high appropriateness
ventional sewer) it has the lowest system appropriateness (SAS) of all and high recovery rates (e.g. ID-66218, see also Fig. 6), others have low
systems for Chamo kebele. appropriateness and high recovery (e.g. ID - 66716) or high appropri
ateness and low recovery potentials (e.g. ID-69113, a long system based
13
Fig. 7. System recovery potentials for the four substances phosphorus, nitrogen, total solids, and water versus appropriateness scores (SAS) for Chamo kebele (1.00
¼ 100%). Each grey dot represents one of the 67 470 systems. The larger numbered dots indicate the selected systems coloured by template. This figure shows that
the selected systems are as expected very diverse in terms of appropriateness and recovery potentials and that there is no single best solution but that appropriateness
and different recoveries involve trade-offs.
on motorized collection, or ID-6639, a centralized sewer system). The appropriateness assessment).

system with very high recovery potential and also highest appropriate
ness (for Chamo) is an onsite composting system (ID-66356). The 3.2.5. Next step: evaluation of trade-offs
absolutely highest recovery in Chamo, which could be achieved with a In our application case, we were not involved in the next steps of the
cistern flush system linked to biogas, was not selected due to low SDM process. However, to illustrate how the Santiago outputs could be
appropriateness (ID - 67374 in Fig. 6). This shows that there is no single used and how one could deal with trade-offs, for instance among
best solution, but that different indicators such as resource recovery and different types of reuse (e.g. nutrients against energy), we produced a
appropriateness involve trade-offs and that therefore a model that can hypothetical example based on CLUES Tool D17.1 (Lüthi et al., 2011b)
quantify these indicators at an early planning phase and for all options is for four systems in Table 2. According to this simplified example where
required. all types of recoveries are weighted the same (and not considering other
Knowing the resource recovery potentials of all systems already at important indicators such as costs), system ID-66356 is the preferred
the planning phase, would also allow to use this additional information system for Chamo which includes a septic tank and co-composting of
for the preselection in case that all decision makers agree on the sludge.
importance of resource recovery and there is no a need to discuss related
trade-offs (as for the non-negotiable screening criteria used for the
Table 2
Hypothetical example of how the selected systems can be further evaluated using scoring and ranking in order to deal with trade-offs among different performance
indicators (here different recovery potentials) The numbers indicate the rank and the numbers in bracket show the result obtained by Santiago for the recovery
potential ratio in percentages (0.82 ¼ 82%). ID: system identification number, TP: total phosphorus recovery potential, TN: total nitrogen recovery potential, TS: total
solids recovery potential, H2O: water recovery potential.
Option Ranking according to the recovery potential (ratio) Summarized score Ranking
System template System ID TP TN TS H2O
ST4 53874 1 (0.82) 3 (0.81) 3 (0.89) 2 (0.78) 9 2

ST14 66216 3 (0.98) 2 (0.67) 1 (0.52) 1 (0.52) 7 4
ST15 66356 4 (0.99) 4 (0.89) 4 (0.98) 3 (0.88) 15 1 (preferred)
ST18 66716 2 (0.93) 1 (0.37) 2 (0.85) 4 (0.96) 9 2
14
3.3. Other application cases vehicular access, flooding, design skills, and religious or cultural re
quirements. These were more or less the same in all cases and therefore
The integration of Santiago into SDM has been field tested so far in need special attention in future technology development and during the
six cases and four countries (two in Nepal, two in Ethiopia, one in Peru, creation of the local enabling environment.
and one in South Africa). In 2016/2017 for instance, we tested Santiago Need to look at entire systems: We observed that both the appro
in an emerging small town in South-Western Nepal (approx. 4000 in priateness of sanitation systems as well as their resource recovery and
habitants). From 40 technologies, we generated more than 1000 000 emission potentials are significantly influenced by technology in
possible systems. 17 sanitation systems were then selected for further teractions within the system. Therefore, these aspect have to be evalu
investigation. This set included well-established systems (e.g. double pit ated at system level. This is illustrated in the case of Arba Minch for
latrines and pour flush toilets with biogas production) and novel options SanSys 67140 (Fig. 6) which integrates a number of technologies with
that could be more appropriate, such as urine diversion latrines with relatively high appropriateness in the case of Chamo. But because the
vermi-composting of faeces. In 2019/2020 we applied Santiago for the system also contains two technologies with particularly low appropri
case of a small Komani San settlement in South Africa (approx. 500 ateness, the appropriateness of the entire system is the lowest of all
people) and identified two different sets of options, for two scenarios systems.
(community-based implementation versus government-driven imple No optimal solutions: To organize the large number of systems
mentation). Even though the scale as well as the partners were different generated, we used 19 system templates as previously introduced
for all application cases, the lessons learnt regarding both the applica (Spuhler et al., 2018, 2020; Tilley et al., 2010, 2014). The results from
bility of Santiago and its integration into the SDM process were very Arba Minch and other cases showed that these templates are efficient to
similar. describe technical diversity but are neither indicators for appropriate
ness nor for recovery (Spuhler et al., 2018, 2020). This shows that there
4. Discussion is no single best solution and further highlights the need for an auto
mated approach that allows to quantify different indicators such as
In this publication we presented Santiago and how to apply this tool appropriateness and resource recovery potentials already at a
integrated in into any SDM planning process. We demonstrated the pre-planning phase and for the entire systems options space.
entire process to obtain inputs and its outputs for Arba Minch Town Prioritisation of more appropriate and resource efficient sys
Municipality in Ethiopia and shortly summarized the results from in tems: The quantification of appropriateness and resource recovery po
total six application cases. In the following we briefly summarise the tentials enabled stakeholder to prioritise more appropriate and also
experiences from other application cases in order to discuss the lessons more resource efficient systems already at an early planning phase.
learnt that are generalisable for any future application of Santiago, and Follow-up steps in the SDM: The example application show that
to present the contributions and advantages potentially brought by there is most often a trade-off between different types of recoveries (e.g.
Santiago for sanitation planning in the future. nutrients versus energy) and appropriateness. It is important to be aware
that once Santiago has been applied, the planning process is not finished
4.1. Lessons learned yet. According to SDM, the next steps consist of the detailed evaluation
(step 4 of SDM) so that stakeholders are can be made aware of the
Decision objectives: We observed that the workshop provided a relevant trade-offs, can discuss them and can then make an informed
useful platform for stakeholders to meet and to clarify expectations and selection of the preferred option (step 5 of SDM). Thereby it is important
responsibilities. This is particularly helpful in the situation were a lack of to consider different stakeholder preferences (e.g. nutrient recovery
ownership and political will persist as illustrated in the case of Arba versus energy recovery) but also additional performance indicators,
Minch. In this case, it was particularly encouraging to see how the such as costs, health and hygiene aspects, and operation and mainte
definition of a local objective hierarchy allowed also to agree on a joint nance requirements. For the costs, we are currently developing an
vision, creating momentum and triggering ownership and leadership. extension of Santiago (Spuhler and Germann, 2019). In the absence of
Screening criteria: We observed that to identify screening criteria quantitative information on additional performance indicators, the
was not such a challenge and the list of screening criteria obtained in the evaluation can be based on “best guesses”. We provide a method to deal
workshops were always very similar to the masterlist. However, it was with trade-offs using a simple method such as manual scoring (see sec
important to rework the list after the workshop in order not to be overly tion 3.2.5) based on CLUES tool D17.1, (Lüthi et al., 2011b; Sherpa et al.,
comprehensive (max 20 criteria). With more criteria, the appropriate 2012). Such simple methods have the advantage that they are easily
ness scores become almost indistinguishable as we use the geometric understood and directly applicable by decision makers in a workshop
mean for aggregation. The master list that we provided for adaption by setting. But the disadvantage is that the scales are not well defined: e.g.
stakeholders, turned out to be a strong method for developing a robust is it a relative or an absolute scale? (Belton and Stewart, 2002). If more
set of criteria as suggested also by Haag et al. (2019). accuracy is needed, more rigorous MCDA models could be used (e.g.
Providing international data: While naming the criteria was not Mustajoki and Marttunen, 2017; Schütze et al., 2019) which also implies
such a challenge for the local partners, they were overwhelmed by the that more information and data are required.
task of quantifying those especially for novel technologies and in the Iteration: Analysis of the deficits of the selected options regarding
absence of data. The technology library provided by Santiago fills in this the main decision options (e.g. resource recovery, costs) can help
gap. But the experts require guidance on how to choose a suitable un generate additional (and for the decision, optimized) options (Reichert
certainty model for the characterisation of the application case profile. et al., 2015). As Santiago allows to quantify resource recovery potentials
This is relevant as the choice of uncertainty model can significantly for all systems this information could be used already at the
impact ranking of the technologies, although the effect is smaller when pre-selection phase. For instance, a minimal phosphorus recovery po
looking at entire systems. The most important recommendation here is tential threshold could be introduced in the appropriateness assessment.
to use the simplest compatible model, such as uniform or triangular Interaction with stakeholders: We estimate that two workshops
functions (Spuhler et al., 2018) and to use simple best guesses in the are sufficient for integrating Santiago into an SDM process. Such
absence of any data. workshops provide an opportunity for learning about SDM in general,
Key factors for technology appropriateness: The analysis of the different technology options, and concepts such as sustainable sanita
different results from the technology appropriateness assessment also tion, technology appropriateness, and citywide inclusive approaches.
allowed us to identify the most relevant screening criteria: water and However, to implement the overall SDM process, more facilitation and
energy requirements, operation and maintenance frequency and skills, interaction is obviously required where knowledge and understanding
15
are sequentially built upon, in order to create local momentum, develop 4.3. Relevance for planning practice
capacities, and encourage ownership by all relevant actors.
The two main advantages that Santiago bring over simple expert
4.2. Novelty of the method evaluation are:
Based on the above lessons learnt, we identified the two main sci 1. The set of decision options contains novel options, which an expert
entific contributions of Santiago: might does not know or would not have thought of based on expe
rience and knowledge alone; and
1. Any (future) technology option can systematically be considered 2. Santiago streamlines the process allowing to prioritise more appro
when generating sanitation system options; and priate and resource efficient systems right from the beginning.
2. Resource recovery potentials can automatically and ex-ante be
quantified for a large and diverse set of systems enabling the These advantages are supported by the integration of international
consideration of this performance indicators when making strategic knowledge and data that can be matched and contextualized for the
planning decisions. given case a hand. The provided knowledge includes: (1) a generic
objective hierarchy for sustainable sanitation; (2) a master list of
Existing methods for sanitation option generation cannot deal with screening criteria; (3) and the technology library which also allow more
the growing diversity of currently available technologies and the huge strategic and empirical decision making. The definition of decision ob
number of possible system configurations. They are either (Spuhler and jectives is critical for strategic decisions based on fundamental
Lüthi, 2020): values rather than short term personal and often biased preferences
(Keeney, 1996). For instance, a flush toilet might be comfortable, but
a) comprehensive (entire systems), but not systematic (do not provide would not provide the required services if no water is available. The
transparent criteria for pre-selection): e.g. Compendium (Tilley generic decision objective hierarchy for sustainable sanitation support
et al., 2014), WSP guide (WSP, 2007), CMS (LeJall�e et al., 2012). the definition of strategic objectives and help to align those with inter
b) systematic, but not comprehensive: e.g. decision trees (Kalbermat nationally recognized definition of sustainable sanitation and the SDG
ten, 1982), SANEX (Loetscher and Keller, 2002), TAF (Olschewski, 6.2 (UN, 2014)SuSanA, 2008 #190}. The master list of screening criteria
2013), SANCHIS (van Buuren, 2010); or provides the suitable evaluation metrics for strategic objectivise that
c) systematic and comprehensive, but not flexible for novel technolo allows to evaluate those contextualized for each application case. The
gies and automated for comprehensive system generation: e.g. technology library provides the data for 27 screening criteria and 41
CLARA (Ketema and Langergraber, 2014). technologies based on international literature and expert knowledge for
more empirical decision making. The field experiences showed, that
Santiago is comprehensive, systematic, and flexible: this technology library is an important value proposition for the local
experts, because lack of data and knowledge is one of their mayor
� Santiago enforces the consideration of entire systems by ensuring challenge.
that all products are either transferred, treated, or safely disposed. One mayor challenge given by the framework of SDM was to provide
This is relevant because both the appropriateness of sanitation sys a method for preselection, while avoiding impacting the final deci
tems as well as their resource recovery and emission potentials are sion (Siebert and Keeney, 2015) by eliminating options too early or by
significantly influenced by technology interactions within the system prioritising the wrong options. A diverse set of options increases the
and therefore have to be evaluated at system level. chance that all important trade-offs among decision objectives are
� Cause-effect analysis, creativity-based techniques, decision matrices highlighted and can be discussed during the follow-up steps of SDM and
and strategy tables are useful methods for option generation result that a balanced decision can be made, eventually by reinterring the
ing in a manageable number of options (Eisenführ et al., 2010; pre-selection based on learnings from the discussions. Santiago com
Keeney, 1996; Larsen et al., 2010; McConville et al., 2014; Tilley bines system templates to describe technological diversity with a sys
et al., 2014). But they strongly rely upon available expertise and are tematic appropriateness assessment to provide a set of sanitation
therefore somewhat arbitrary. Santiago is more systematic, as it systems that is appropriate, of manageable size, but still diverse in
enables the consideration of the entire option space while using a order not to impact the final decision.
reproducible method to focus on the locally most appropriate
options.
� Santiago includes a technology library with 41 potential technology 4.4. Contributions to planning culture
options that may or may not be included in the assessment and which
is flexible to add any (future) technology. The field experiences also indicated potential contributions to the
local planning culture and towards a more strategic approach:
A mayor strength of Santiago is also that it is generic and auto
mated and therefore can be applied to any almost thinkable (future) � Balancing decisions: SDM and Santiago allow to combine engi
technology or application case and for a very large and diverse set of neering science with methods from MCDA. This also to comparably
sanitation options simultaneously. Moreover, uncertainties related to scale very different criteria, as required for evaluating sustainability
the technologies, their implementation, and the local context are (Guest et al., 2009). This would be impossible with alternative
explicitly considered. For the technology appropriateness score this methods such as Cost-Benefit Analysis or Life-cycle Analysis.
uncertainty is expressed as the confidence between 0 and 100%. For the � Structuring participation: Santiago clearly defines inputs of
substance flow model, the uncertainty is expressed as the standard de stakeholders and how those are to be used. Thereby, it efficiently
viation of the resource recovery or loss potentials that can be used to combines technical know-how with stakeholder preferences and
evaluate the robustness of the results. The consideration of uncertainties avoids some of the adverse effects of participation (e.g. endless dis
makes the methods applicable ex-ante also for novel technologies cussions without any action).
which have never been tested at scale. � Developing capacities: The workshops, as well as collaboration
between internal and external actors, contribute to the exchange of
knowledge and skills and capacity development for both technical
and planning aspects at the individual and organisational levels.
16
� Bridging citywide objectives with area-based appropriateness a local ‘planning culture’ (Tayler and Parkinson, 2005) in order to
assessment for more inclusivity: A major strength of SDM is that move away from occasional donor-driven interventions. Conse
the discussion of the problems and possible solutions, and the defi quently, the experts applying Santiago and moderating the interac
nition of decision objectives can (if adequately moderated and tion with the SDM process have to avoid helping things along by
attended) lead to the creation of a joint vision for sanitation planning taking over planning responsibilities. The planning process needs to
shared by all stakeholders. A joint vision is the basis for more remain a learning experience without predetermining what the
ownership. Santiago supports this process through the integration outcome will be, and the roles and responsibilities need to be defined
workshops but then also allows to bridge these citywide decision from the start and independent of external actors (Byrns and
objectives with an area-based appropriateness assessment (see SI-G Madryga, 2018). Roles and responsibilities then need to be institu
Fig. 19). This help to account for the different socio-demographic tionalized. A formal document summarizing the results of the San
conditions but also stakeholder preferences as suggested by Mara tiago application can enhance uptake.
(2018) or Reymond et al. (2016). Santiago then provides a set of
appropriate, and thus feasible options, for each and every zone
4.6. Future developments
within a given city, thereby contributing to more Citywide Inclusive
Sanitation (CWIS), (BMGF, 2017).
Online user interface: To make this tool available for practice, an
accessible user interface and a centralized data management system are
4.5. Limitations and remaining challenges
required. We imagine a Santiago web-based tool that is complemented
with a hardcopy guidance document summarizing the procedure for the
There are several aspects related to the Santiago application that can
integration of Santiago and SDM. The web-based tool would be inter
have a significant impact on the output and which we therefore briefly
active, and guide users through the collection of data and analysis of the
summarise here (see also Spuhler et al., 2018; Spuhler et al., 2020).
results both analytically and visually in real time (e.g. during a
workshop).
� Potential technologies: The technology library provides a large and
Integration in an adaptive strategic planning frameworks for
diverse range of potential technologies but is not comprehensive and
CWIS: Santiago complements other currently developed tools (e.g. Shit
therefore should continuously be extended following instructions in
Flow Diagrams. SFDs, Prognosis for Change, etc., Scott et al., 2019).
the introduction ([dataset] Spuhler and Roller, 2020)
Together with them, Santiago provides a starting point for the devel
� Decision objectives: Problems are often quite easily formulated.
opment of an adaptive strategic planning frameworks for CWIS. Within
However, SDM requires that objectives are defined and based on
this more holistic framework, Santiago would provide a set of appro
fundamental values which might be not represented by the most
priate and thus feasible options for all different urban zones (e.g.
pressing problems. Translating problems into decision objectives and
city-centre, dense informal, peri-urban), offering a basis for consider
values requires careful facilitation. While objectives which are rather
ation of the entire city, along with the required performance indicators
superficial might be agreed upon, it might not be feasible to fully
for selecting the most resource efficient system for each zone. Santiago
clarify values in a multi-stakeholder workshop. At the other hand, it
could also be applied for testing hybrid systems, e.g. combining systems
is crucial for a robust outcome that the decision objectives remain
for different zones, such as treatment of faecal sludge (from on-site
concise (Haag et al., 2019; Marttunen et al., 2019). The workshop
sanitation) with centralized blackwater treatment.
procedure and the generic decision objective hierarchy provided by
Expansion: A required and exciting future activity also consists of
Santiago can help focus the discussion and structure the process. But
the expansion of the technology library with upcoming innovations.
this support also bears the risk of becoming a vehicle for imposing
Additional products (e.g. organic waste, stormwater) can be added in
foreign values, negatively impacting ownership.
order to integrate other sectors into the assessment. Moreover, both the
� Screening criteria: The set of screening criteria must accurately
technology library and the algorithms could be integrated as building
represent the case requirements, in order to reflect appropriateness.
blocks into other tools, such as the emergency sanitation compendium
Moreover, the chosen uncertainty models have to be looked at
(Gensch et al., 2018), SamPSon (Schütze et al., 2019), or UrbanBEATS
carefully especially for killer criteria (e.g. the energy supply may
(Bach et al., 2014).
improve in the near future..
Adaptation to industrialized countries: Many of the methods
� Plausibility: In some circumstances compatible sanitation system
presented here are equally applicable to industrialized countries such as
configurations might not be very efficient from an engineering
Switzerland. With the progressive deterioration of urban infrastructure
perspective (e.g. treating dried faeces in a biogas digester). There
and high costs of replacement, there is an increasing potential for many
fore, the set of sanitation system options needs to be checked for
of the technology innovations to enhance sustainability (e.g. augmented
plausibility before it is handed over to the SDM process.
capacity, enhanced control of micropollutants, enhanced resource effi
� Completeness of the generated options: The sanitation system
ciency and recovery, and more flexibility and resilience). Moreover, the
options need to be complemented with non-technical aspects related
calls for circular cities, and closed water and material cycles with urban
to the business model (e.g. service models, financing mechanisms, or
metabolism, have gained increasing attention (Kisser et al., 2020; Oral
institutional arrangements). The quantified resource recovery and
et al., 2020). A first step would consist of testing and adjusting the
emission potentials also need to be complemented with other in
objective hierarchy, screening criteria, and data contained in the tech
dicators relevant for the decision-making process (e.g. costs).
nology library for such a context.
� Real impact: In reality, planning is often not as structured or as
rational as suggested in the literature, but is rather a political process
and therefore always depends on local leadership. The integration of 4.7. Other possible applications of Santiago
Santiago is flexible for different layouts of the SDM process as long as
the interfaces can be managed. However, the uptake of Santiago � Santiago could be used to develop context-specific catalogues of
results is difficult to control. Our field experiences show, that lack of appropriate technologies and systems for different settings (e.g.
political will and public support and lack of clearly allocated re small town, metropolitan, emerging) and cases (e.g. centre, low-
sponsibilities and resources are the most important bottlenecks for income dense, peri-urban) as low-level planning support.
structured sanitation planning, see also (Evans, 2005; Kennedy- � It could be used to identify setting-specific factors for technology
Walker et al., 2014; Tayler and Parkinson, 2005). The hope is that appropriateness, which could then be used to guide technology
Santiago will at least contribute to establishing a joint vision, but also development.
17
� The procedure for the integration of Santiago could be standardized � Santiago was designed as a support for step 3 of SDM and targeted to
for regional or national planning procedures. engineering consultants, local and regional governments, policy
� The resource recovery and loss potentials could be used to promote makers, development agencies and NGOs. But the tool is generic
the value of sanitation products and their potential contribution to enough to be used for the development of standardized catalogues
sustainable and circular cities (Oral et al., 2020). and procedures for different urban contexts and typologies (e.g.
small town, metropolitan, emerging) and areas (e.g. centre, low-
5. Conclusions income dense, peri-urban). Other possible applications include the
identification of area-specific factors for technology appropriateness
� The Santiago tool (software together with the integration procedure) or resource recovery to guide future technology development.
supports strategic sanitation planning by generating a set of sanita � A logical next step would be to develop an interactive web-interface
tion systems that are appropriate for different urban zones. for Santiago. As Santiago becomes more widely used, the technology
Compared to past methods, Santiago enables the consideration of a library could be extended for novel technologies or additional
diverse and large range of conventional and novel technology and products (e.g. organic waste). Ideally, Santiago could also be adapted
system options. Furthermore, it makes a large body of international for other sectors such as solid waste or integrated as a building block
literature, data and expert knowledge available for the local planning in other tools such as the emergency compendium or SFDs (excreta
process and systematically compares this to local preferences and flow diagrams).
conditions. It re-evaluates technologies again, in each case providing � To reach the SDG 6, water and sanitation for all, huge numbers of city
solutions appropriate to the specific situation at hand. The technol sanitation plans are required. The tool presented here can be applied
ogy library is versatile, and therefore able to accommodate any for the development for a large share of these plans. Thereby it would
future innovations. Uncertainties are explicitly considered, making it enable the consider novel technology options in order to provide
applicable at the structuring phase. Santiago also ensures the more appropriate and feasible solutions for a variety of urban con
consideration of entire systems. This is relevant because both the texts (e.g. city-centre, dense informal, peri-urban). It would also
appropriateness, as well as the resource recovery and emission po allow to prioritise options with high resource recovery for more
tentials of sanitation systems, are greatly dependent on technology circular cities. Thereby, this tool may become essential in planning
interactions. for more appropriate and sustainable sanitation system options and
� Experiences from six case studies in Nepal, Ethiopia, Peru, and South for achieving citywide inclusive and sustainable sanitation
Africa showed that Santiago can be applied with minimal available worldwide.
data and stakeholder interaction. However, to utilise the full strength
of Santiago, it should be integrated into a facilitated and participa Author contributions
tory process such as SDM.
� Elements required for integration include a set of potential tech D.S., M.M., C.L., and G.L. conceptualized this publication together.
nologies (given by the technology library), decision objectives and D.S. V.G. were responsible for data curation, formal analysis, and visu
screening criteria (obtained in a participatory workshop supported alisations. D.S., M.M., and V.G. were responsible for funding acquisition.
by a generic objective hierarchy and a master list of screening criteria The methodology was developed by D.S. with contributions from A.K.
for sustainable sanitation), evaluation data for the application case M.S. and A.S.. D.S. administered the project and developed the under
profiles (collected by the expert), and the number of options lying software. The original draft was written by D.S. with contributions
manageable in the follow-up steps of the SDM process (number from G.L., C.L., V.G., K.K., and M.S. G.L., CL., and M.M. supervised the
varies with each case). The technology library covers 41 well- process.
established and novel technologies and data for 27 screening
criteria from the master list and for four substances (phosphorus, Data packages
nitrogen, total solids, water).
� The main challenges for integration lie in appropriate moderation A copy of the algorithm along with the input and output data from
and the facilitation skills of the expert in charge. If these hurdles are the application case are available in the associated data package at ERIC:
well managed, Santiago can provide substantial benefits. It provides https://doi.org/10.25678/0001QJ ([dataset] Spuhler, 2020).
a set of options that integrate novel and potentially more appropriate
options. Because the set is diverse, relevant trade-offs can be Declaration of competing interest
revealed and discussed (e.g. appropriateness versus resource recov
ery). International literature and expert knowledge are made The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
accessible for the local planning process so that knowledge biases are interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
avoided and more empirical decisions are made. Inappropriate op the work reported in this paper.
tions are eliminated at the beginning, streamlining the process. Op
tions are based on systematic evaluation of strategic objectives and Acknowledgements
not on expert judgement, thus enhancing reproducibility and
transparency. This work is funded by the Sawiris Foundation for Social Develop
� The application case in Arba Minch indicated that the activities that ment through the Engineering for Development (E4D) programme of the
come with the integration of Santiago can positively influence the Swiss Federal Institute for Technology (ETH) Zurich. The authors are
local planning culture by (i) supporting the definition of a joint vision very grateful to the inhabitants of Arba Minch, and Teshale Dalecha and
shared by all stakeholders; (ii) bridging citywide objectives with Zemed Menberu from Arba Minch University, for enabling field testing
area-based appropriateness assessment; (iii) structuring stakeholder in Ethiopia. The authors are also very grateful to the inhabitants of
participation, and enhancing ownership while avoiding confusion Thimi Municipality and Katarniya, Nepal, as well as Agnes Montangero
and endless discussion; and (iv) contributing to organizational and from the Swiss Water and Sanitation Consortium, for field validation in
individual capacity development. However, as also shown in the Nepal. In addition, they also gratefully acknowledge the contributions of
example of Arba Minch, the adoption of the Santiago results and the Mosisa Teferi for the facilitation of local interactions in Arba Minch and
follow-up of the SDM process rely heavily on local leadership. This for the invaluable comments on the manuscript.
can be enhanced by defining responsibilities as early as possible and
independently of external consultants.
18
Appendix A. Supplementary data Gregory, R., Failing, L., Harstone, M., Long, G., McDaniels, T., Ohlson, D., 2012.
Structured Decision Making: a Practical Guide to Environmental Management
Choices. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444398557.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. Guest, J.S., Skerlos, S.J., Barnard, J.L., Beck, M.B., Daigger, G.T., Hilger, H., Jackson, S.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111004. J., Karvazy, K., Kelly, L., Macpherson, L., Mihelcic, J.R., Pramanik, A., Raskin, L.,
Van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., Yeh, D., Love, N.G., 2009. A new planning and design
paradigm to achieve sustainable resource recovery from wastewater. Environ. Sci.
References Technol. 43, 6126–6130. https://doi.org/10.1021/es9010515.
Haag, F., Zürcher, S., Lienert, J., 2019. Enhancing the elicitation of diverse decision
Amoah, P., Gbenatey Nartey, E., Schrecongost, A., 2016. Performance evaluation of biofil objectives for public planning. European Journal of Operational Research. https://
toilet waste digester technologies in Ghana: the efficacy of effluent treatment doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.06.002.
options. Environ. Technol. 37, 3002–3013. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Hajkowicz, S., Collins, K., 2007. A review of multiple criteria analysis for water resource
09593330.2016.1173116. planning and management. Water Resour. Manag. 21, 1553–1566. https://doi.org/
Bach, P.M., Rauch, W., Mikkelsen, P.S., McCarthy, D.T., Deletic, A., 2014. A critical 10.1007/s11269-006-9112-5.
review of integrated urban water modelling – urban drainage and beyond. Environ. Hutton, G., Varughese, M., 2016. The costs of meeting the 2030 sustainable development
Model. Software 54, 88–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.12.018. goal targets on drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene. In: International Bank for
Balkema, A.J., Preisig, H.A., Otterpohl, R., Lambert, F.J., 2002. Indicators for the Reconstruction and Development/World Bank, Water and Sanitation Program
sustainability assessment of wastewater treatment systems. Urban Water 4, 153–161. (WSP). http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/water/publication/the-costs-o
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1462-0758(02)00014-6. f-meeting-the-2030-sustainable-development-goal-targets-on-drinking-wat
Belton, V., Stewart, T.J., 2002. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: an Integrated er-sanitation-and-hygiene.
Approach. In: [Second print] (Ed.), Boston. Kluwer. Isunju, J.B., Schwartz, K., Schouten, M.A., Johnson, W.P., van Dijk, M.P., 2011. Socio-
Bezanson, J., Edelman, A., Karpinski, S., Shah, V.B., 2017. Julia: a fresh approach to economic aspects of improved sanitation in slums: a review. Publ. Health 125,
numerical computing. SIAM Rev. 59, 65–98. https://doi.org/10.1137/141000671. 368–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2011.03.008.
Birch, E.L., Meleis, A., Wachter, S., 2012. The urban water transition. Why we must Iwugo, K.O., 1979. Appropriate sanitation technology planning and implementation in
address the new reality of urbanization, women, water, and sanitation in sustainable Africa. Environmental Pollution Management 9, 100–102.
development. WH20: The Journal of Gender and Water 1, 6–7. Jones, J., 2017. Closing the poop loop. Chem. Eng. Lond. https://doi.org/10.2134/
BMGF, 2017. Citywide inclusive sanitation - a call for action. Bill and melinda gates jeq1980.00472425000900020016x.
foundation (BMGF) and the World Bank. www.citywideinclusivesanitation.com/ Kalbermatten, J.M., 1982. Appropriate Sanitation Alternatives. Johns Hopkins University
resources. Press, London a planning and design manual. http://documents.worldbank.org/
Bond, S.D., Carlson, K.A., Keeney, R.L., 2008. Generating objectives: can decision makers curated/en/701511468740361506/Appropriate-sanitation-alternatives-a-plannin
articulate what they want? Manag. Sci. 54, 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1287/ g-and-design-manual.
mnsc.1070.0754. Kalbermatten, J.M., Middleton, R.N., 1999. The need for innovation. Water Supply 17,
Bracken, P., Kvarnstr€om, E., Ysunza, A., K€arrman, E., Finnson, A., Saywell, D., 2005. 389–395.
Making sustainable choices–the development and use of sustainability oriented Kalbermatten, J.M., Julius, D.S., Gunnerson, C.G., Mundial, B., 1980. Appropriate
criteria in sanitary decision making. In: 3rd International Conference on Ecological Technology for Water Supply and Sanitation: a Summary of Technical and Economic
Sanitation, pp. 23–26. Options. World Bank, Washington. http://documents.worldbank.
Byrns, S., Madryga, C., July 2018. 2018. Systems mapping for sustainability: a case study org/curated/en/1980/12/438077/appropriate-tech
of shifting the focus of NGO action in Malawi, Transformation towards sustainable nology-water-supply-sanitation-summary-technical-economic-options#.
and resilient WASH services: proceedings of the 41st WEDC International Kassa, K., Woldemedhin, A., Olto, E., Gelaye, B., 2015. Arba minch town municipality
Conference. Water, Engineering and Development Centre (WEDC), Nakuru. Kenya (AMTM), Arba minch town water services (ARB). Baseline Study on Water and
9–13. https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/Systems_mapping_for_sustainability_a_ Sanitation of Arba Minch Town. Arba Minch University, AMU.
case_study_of_shifting_the_focus_of_NGO_action_in_Malawi/9592928. Keeney, R.L., 1996. Value-focused thinking: identifying decision opportunities and
CSA, 2007. Central statistical authority, housing and population census report. https:// creating alternatives. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 92, 537–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-
www.statsethiopia.gov.et/census-2007-2/. 2217(96)00004-5.
Dalecha, T., Assefa, E., Krasteva, K., Langergraber, G., 2012. Experiments on struvite Kennedy-Walker, R., Evans, B., Amezaga, J., Paterson, C., 2014. Challenges for the future
precipitation, application and economic analysis in Arba minch, ethopia, second of urban sanitation planning: critical analysis of John Kalbermatten’s influence.
international faecal sludge management conference (FSM2), durban, South Africa. J. Water, Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 4, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2013.164.
Diener, S., Semiyaga, S., Niwagaba, C.B., Muspratt, A.M., Gning, J.B., Mb�egu� er�
e, M., Ketema, A.A., Langergraber, G., 2014. Sensitivity analysis of CLARA simplifying
Ennin, J.E., Zurbrugg, C., Strande, L., 2014. A value proposition: resource recovery planning tool using the morris screening method. Water Sci. Technol. 71, 234–244.
from faecal sludge—can it be the driver for improved sanitation? Resources,. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2014.497.
Conserv. Recycl. 88, 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.04.005. Kisser, J., Wirth, M., De Gusseme, B., Van Eekert, M., Zeeman, G., Schoenborn, A.,
Dodman, D., Leck, H., Rusca, M., Colenbrander, S., 2017. African urbanisation and Vinnerås, B., Finger, D.C., Kolbl Repinc, S., Bulc, T.G., Bani, A., Pavlova, D.,
urbanism: implications for risk accumulation and reduction. International Journal of Staicu, L.C., Atasoy, M., Cetecioglu, Z., Kokko, M., Haznedaroglu, B.Z., Hansen, J.,
Disaster Risk Reduction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.06.029. Isteni�c, D., Canga, E., Malamis, S., Camilleri-Fenech, M., Beesley, L., 2020. A review
Dunmade, I., 2002. Indicators of sustainability: assessing the suitability of a foreign of nature-based solutions for resource recovery in cities. Blue-Green Systems.
technology for a developing economy. Technol. Soc. 24, 461–471. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.2166/bgs.2020.930.
10.1016/S0160-791X(02)00036-2. Kvarnstr€ om, E., Petersens, E.a, 2004. Open planning of sanitation systems. EcoSanRes
Eawag, 2005. Household-centred environmental sanitation - implementing the bellagio Programme. http://www.ecosanres.org/pdf_files/ESR_Publications_2004/ESR3web.
principles in urban environmental sanitation - provisional guideline for decision pdf.
makers. Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag). Kvarnstr€ om, E., Bracken, P., Ysunza, A., K€ arrman, E., Finnson, A., Saywell, D., 2004.
Dübendorf. Sustainability criteria in sanitation planning, people-centred approaches to water
Eisenführ, F., Weber, M., Langer, T., 2010. Rational Decision Making. Springer. and environmental sanitation: proceedings of the 30th WEDC conference, pp.
Etter, B., Udert, K.M., Gounden, T., 2015. Valorisation of urine nutrients, final project 104–107. https://wedc-knowledge.lboro.ac.uk/resources/conference/30/Kvarns
report 2015. Eawag, duebendorf. Switzerland https://www.dora.lib4ri.ch/eawag trom.pdf.
/islandora/object/eawag:14803. . Kvarnstr€ om, E., McConville, J., Bracken, P., Johansson, M., Fogde, M., 2011. The
Evans, B., 2005. The compelling case to address the crisis, stockholm international water sanitation ladder – a need for a revamp? J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 1, 3. https://doi.
Institute, with world health organisation and Norwegian agency for development org/10.2166/washdev.2011.014.
cooperation. Securing Sanitation. Lalander, C.H., Komakech, A.J., Vinnerås, B., 2015. Vermicomposting as manure
Evans, A., Otoo, M., Drechsel, P., Danso, G., 2013. Developing typologies for resource management strategy for urban small-holder animal farms - kampala case study.
recovery businesses. Urban Agriculture magazine 26, 24–30. https://hdl.handle. Waste Manag. 39, 96–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.02.009.
net/10568/40220. Langergraber, G., Lechner, M., Müllegger, E., 2010. The ROSA project. Sustainable
Gambrill, M., Gilsdorf, R., Kotwal, N., 2019. Citywide Inclusive Sanitation - business as Sanitation Practice 4 (36). http://www.ecosan.at/ssp.
unusual: shifting the paradigm by shifting minds. Frontiers in Environmental Langergraber, G., Lechner, M., Müllegger, E., 2014. The CLARA project. Sustainable
Science. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00201. Sanitation Practice 19 (72). http://www.ecosan.at/ssp.
Gensch, R., Jennings, A., Renggli, S., Reymond, P., 2018. Compendium of Sanitation Larsen, T.A., Maurer, M., Eggen, R.I., Pronk, W., Lienert, J., 2010. Decision support in
Technologies in Emergencies. German WASH Network (GWN), Swiss Federal urban water management based on generic scenarios: the example of NoMix
Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag), Global WASH Cluster (GWC) technology. J. Environ. Manag. 91, 2676–2687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
and Sustainable Sanitation Alliance (SuSanA). Germany, Berlin. jenvman.2010.07.032.
GoI, 2008. National urban sanitation policy (NUSP): manual on preparation of city Larsen, T.A., Hoffmann, S., Lüthi, C., Truffer, B., Maurer, M., 2016. Emerging solutions to
sanitation plans (CSPs). Government of India (GoI). the water challenges of an urbanizing world. Science 352, 928–933. https://doi.org/
Goldhoff, R.M., 1976. An approach to satisfying the technical needs of developing 10.1126/science.aad8641.
countries. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Appropriate technology. LeJall�e, C., Baehrel, C., Ngnikam, E., D�esille, D., Ily, J.-M., 2012. How to develop a
Grabisch, M., Marichal, J.-L., Mesiar, R., Pap, E., 2011. Aggregation functions: means. concerted municipal strategy for water and sanitation in large towns in Africa.
Inf. Sci. 181, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2010.08.043. Concerted Municipal Strategies (CMS), a program coordinated by the Municipal
Development Partnership (MDP) and programme Solidarité Eau (pS-Eau).
19
Loetscher, T., Keller, J., 2002. A decision support system for selecting sanitation systems Robb, K., Null, C., Teunis, P., Yakubu, H., Armah, G., Moe, C.L., 2017. Assessment of
in developing countries. Soc. Econ. Plann. Sci. 36, 267–290. https://doi.org/ fecal exposure pathways in low-income urban neighborhoods in accra, Ghana:
10.1016/S0038-0121(02)00007-1. rationale, design, methods, and key findings of the SaniPath study. Am. J. Trop. Med.
Lüthi, C., Kraemer, S., 2012. User perceptions of participatory planning in urban Hyg. 97, 1020–1032. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.16-0508.
environmental sanitation. J. Water, Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 2, 157–167. https://doi.org/ Sahely, H.R., Kennedy, C.A., Adams, B.J., 2005. Developing sustainability criteria for
10.2166/washdev.2012.077. urban infrastructure systems. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 32, 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1139/
Lüthi, C., Morel, A., Kohler, P., Tilley, E., 2009. People’s Choice First, A 4-Country l04-072.
Comparative Validation of the HCES Planning Approach for Environmental Schertenleib, R., 2005. From conventional to advanced environmental sanitation. Water
Sanitation. Switzerland, NCCR North-South dialogue, Bern. http://www.north-south Sci. Technol. 51, 7–14. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2005.0345.
.unibe.ch/content.php/publication/id/2478s. Schütze, M., Wriege-Bechtold, A., Zinati, T., Sobke, H., Wissmann, I., Schulz, M.,
Lüthi, C., McConville, J., Kvarnstr€ om, E., 2010. Community-based approaches for Veser, S., Londong, J., Barjenbruch, M., Alex, J., 2019. Simulation and visualization
addressing the urban sanitation challenges. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 1, 49–63. of material flows in sanitation systems for streamlined sustainability assessment.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463131003654764. Water Sci. Technol. 79, 1966–1976. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2019.199.
Lüthi, C., Morel, A., Tilley, E., Ulrich, L., 2011. Community-Led Urban Environmental Scott, R.E., Ross, I., Hawkins, P., Blackett, I., Smith, M.D., 2019. Diagnostics for assessing
Sanitation Planning (CLUES). Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and city-wide sanitation services. Journal of Water. Sanitation and Hygiene for
Technology (Eawag), Dubendorf. http://www.eawag.ch/forschung/sandec/gruppe Development 9, 111–118. https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2018.113.
n/sesp/clues/index_EN. Septien, S., Singh, A., Mirara, S.W., Teba, L., Velkushanova, K., Buckley, C.A., 2018.
Lüthi, C., Morel, A., Tilley, E., Ulrich, L., 2011b. D17.1 procedure for the pre-selection of ’LaDePa’ process for the drying and pasteurization of faecal sludge from VIP latrines
sanitation systems (CLUES tool 17.1). Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and using infrared radiation. S. Afr. J. Chem. Eng. 25, 147–158. https://doi.org/
Technology. Düberndorf, Switzerland. http://www.eawag.ch/forschung/sandec/ 10.1016/j.sajce.2018.04.005.
gruppen/sesp/clues/index_EN. Sherpa, M.G., Lüthi, C., Koottatep, T., 2012. Applying the household-centered
Mara, D., 2018. ‘Top-down’ planning for scalable sustainable sanitation in high-density environmental sanitation planning approach: a case study from Nepal. J. Water,
low-income urban areas: is it more appropriate than ‘bottom-up’ planning? J. Water, Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 2, 124–132. https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2012.021.
Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 8, 165–175. https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2018.101. Siebert, J., Keeney, R.L., 2015. Creating more and better alternatives for decisions using
Marttunen, M., Haag, F., Belton, V., Mustajoki, J., Lienert, J., 2019. Methods to inform objectives. Oper. Res. 63, 1144–1158. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2015.1411.
the development of concise objectives hierarchies in multi-criteria decision analysis. SMEC, 2018. Strategic sanitation and waste management plan for Arba Minch Town
Eur. J. Oper. Res. 277, 604–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.02.039. (SSWP). In: Kinfe, K. (Ed.). SMEC. www.smec.com. Arba Minch.
Maurer, M., Bufardi, A., Tilley, E., Zurbrügg, C., Truffer, B., 2012. A compatibility-based Spuhler, D., 2020. Data for: Developing sanitation planning options: a tool for systematic
procedure designed to generate potential sanitation system alternatives. J. Environ. consideration of novel technologies and systems. In: Technology, Eawag: Swiss
Manag. 104, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.03.023. Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.25678/
McConville, J., 2010. Comparing theory and practice. Department of Architecture. 0001QJ.
Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden. Unpacking Sanitation Spuhler, D., Germann, V., 2019. Ex-ante cost estimations for sanitation systems based on
Planning. http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/131065.pdf. mass flows. Sandec News 20, 19.
McConville, J.R., Künzle, R., Messmer, U., Udert, K.M., Larsen, T.A., 2014. Decision Spuhler, D., Lüthi, C., 2020. Review of frameworks and tools for urban strategic
support for redesigning wastewater treatment technologies. Environ. Sci. Technol. sanitation planning: a structured decision-making perspective. Submitted to Journal
48, 12238–12246. https://doi.org/10.1021/es501854x. of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development. https://www.dropbox.
Middleton, R.N., Kalbermatten, J.M., 1990. Strategic sanitation planning, supplying com/s/1kkje1bw46rujg9/Spuhler_Luethi_20200316-preprint.pdf?dl¼0.
water and saving the environment for six billion people. 1990 annual civil Spuhler, D., Roller, L., 2020. Sanitation technology library: details and data sources for
engineering convention and exposition, pp. 64–72. San Francisco, CA, USA. appropriateness profiles and transfer coefficients. Supplementary material for.
Montgomery, M.A., Bartram, J., Elimelech, M., 2009. Increasing functional sustainability https://doi.org/10.25678/0000ss. Spuhler et al 2020 Ex-ante quantification of
of water and sanitation supplies in rural sub-Saharan Africa. Environ. Eng. Sci. 26, nutrient, total solids, and water flows in sanitation systems dataset.
1017–1023. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2008.0388. Spuhler, D., Scheidegger, A., Maurer, M., 2018. Generation of sanitation system options
MOUD, 2008. National urban sanitation policy. Ministry of Urban Development. for urban planning considering novel technologies. Water Res. 145, 259–278.
Government of India, New Delhi, India (MOUD). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.08.021.
Muga, H.E., Mihelcic, J.R., 2008. Sustainability of wastewater treatment technologies. Spuhler, D., Scheidegger, A., Maurer, M., 2020. Ex-ante quantification of nutrient, total
J. Environ. Manag. 88, 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.03.008. solids, and water flows in sanitation systems. Submitted to Water Research. Preprint
Murray, A., Ray, I., 2010. Back-end users: the unrecognized stakeholders in demand- available in the associated datapackage. https://doi.org/10.25678/0000HH.
driven sanitation. J. Plann. Educ. Res. 30, 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Starkl, M., Brunner, N., Stenstr€ om, T.-A., 2013. Why do water and sanitation systems for
0739456x10369800. the poor still fail? Policy analysis in economically advanced developing countries.
Mustajoki, J., Marttunen, M., 2017. Comparison of multi-criteria decision analytical Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 6102–6110. https://doi.org/10.1021/es3048416.
software for supporting environmental planning processes. Environ. Model. Software Strande, L., Schoebitz, L., Bischoff, F., Ddiba, D., Okello, F., Englund, M., Ward, B.J.,
93, 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.02.026. Niwagaba, C.B., 2018. Methods to reliably estimate faecal sludge quantities and
Narayan, A.S., Lüthi, C., 2019. Citywide inclusive sanitation - old wine in new bottle? qualities for the design of treatment technologies and management solutions.
Sandec News 20, 21–22. https://www.eawag.ch/en/department/sandec/publica J. Environ. Manag. 223, 898–907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.06.100.
tions/sandec-news/. SuSanA, 2008. Towards more sustainable sanitation solutions - SuSanA Vision document.
Olschewski, A., 2013. Technology applicability framework (TAF) manual. WASHTech Sustainable Sanitation alliance (SuSanA). http://www.susana.org/lang-en/library/
project, st. Gallen. rm-susana-publications?view¼ccbktypeitem&type¼2&id¼267.
Oral, H.V., Carvalho, P., Gajewska, M., Ursino, N., Masi, F., Hullebusch, E.D.v., Kazak, J. Tayler, K., Parkinson, J., 2005. Strategic planning for urban sanitation—a 21st century
K., Exposito, A., Cipolletta, G., Andersen, T.R., Finger, D.C., Simperler, L., development priority? Water Pol. 7, 569–580. https://doi.org/10.2166/
Regelsberger, M., Rous, V., Radinja, M., Buttiglieri, G., Krzeminski, P., Rizzo, A., wp.2005.0034.
Dehghanian, K., Nikolova, M., Zimmermann, M., 2020. A review of nature-based Tayler, K., Colin, J., Parkinson, J., 2003. Urban sanitation: a guide to strategic planning.
solutions for urban water management in European circular cities: a critical IT Publications, London, UK.
assessment based on case studies and literature. Blue-Green Systems. https://doi. Teklemariam, A., Kassa, K., Shibru, S., Ayele, W., Esatu, E., Tesfaye, B., Assefa, F., 2007.
org/10.2166/bgs.2020.932. Baseline study report of Arba minch town. In: Ayana, M., A A, Teckle, N. (Eds.),
Palme, U., Lundin, M., Tillman, A.-M., Molander, S., 2005. Sustainable development EthiopiaResource-Oriented Sanitation Concepts for Periurban Areas in Africa
indicators for wastewater systems – researchers and indicator users in a co-operative (ROSA). Arba Minch University, AMU. Arba Minch.
case study. Resources. Conserv. Recycl. 43, 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Tilley, E., Zurbrügg, C., Lüthi, C., 2010. A flowstream approach for sustainable sanitation
resconrec.2004.06.006. systems, Social Perspectives on the Sanitation Challenge, pp. 69–86. https://doi.org/
Parkinson, J., Lüthi, C., Walther, D., 2014. Sanitation 21. A Planning Framework for 10.1007/978-90-481-3721-3_5.
Improving City-wide Sanitation Service. International Water Association (IWA), Tilley, E., Ulrich, L., Lüthi, C., Reymond, P., Zurbrügg, C., 2014. Compendium of
London. sanitation systems and technologies - 2nd revised edition. Swiss Federal Institute of
Peal, A., Evans, B., Blackett, I., Hawkins, P., Heymans, C., 2014. Fecal sludge Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG). Duebendorf, Switzerland. http://www.
management (FSM): a comparative analysis of 12 cities. Journal of Water. J. Water eawag.ch/forschung/sandec/publikationen/compendium_e/index_EN.
Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 4, 564–575. Tilmans, S., Russel, K., Sklar, R., Page, L., Kramer, S., Davis, J., 2015. Container-based
R Development Core Team, 2018. R: a language and environment for statistical sanitation: assessing costs and effectiveness of excreta management in Cap Haitien,
computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Austria, Vienna. https://www. Haiti. Environ. Urbanization 27, 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/
R-project.org/. 0956247815572746.
Ram^oa, A.R., McConville, J., Lüthi, C., Matos, J.S., 2018. Use of process guides for Tobias, R., O’Keefe, M., Künzle, R., Gebauer, H., Gründl, H., Morgenroth, E., Pronk, W.,
comprehensive urban sanitation technology decision-making: practice versus theory. Larsen, T.A., 2017. Early testing of new sanitation technology for urban slums: the
Water Pol. 20, 158–174. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2017.117. case of the Blue Diversion Toilet. Sci. Total Environ. 576, 264–272. https://doi.org/
Reichert, P., Langhans, S.D., Lienert, J., Schuwirth, N., 2015. The conceptual foundation 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.057.
of environmental decision support. J. Environ. Manag. 154, 316–332. https://doi. Tremolet, S., Kolsky, P., Perez, E., 2010. Financing On-Site Sanitation for the Poor. A Six
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.01.053. Country Comparative Review and Analysis. http://documents.worldbank.org/cur
Reymond, P., Renggli, S., Lüthi, C., 2016. Towards sustainable sanitation in an ated/en/165231468341112439/Financing-on-site-sanitation-for-the-poor-a-six-co
urbanising world. https://doi.org/10.5772/63726. untry-comparative-review-and-analysis.
20
UN, 2014. Outcome Document - Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Willetts, J., Willetts, M., Paddon, N.D.G., Nam, N., Trung, N., Carrard, 2013.
Goals. United Nations. http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/focussdgs.html. Sustainability assessment of sanitation options in Vietnam: planning with the future
UN, 2019. The Sustainable Development Goals Report. United Nations. N.Y. https://uns in mind. Journal of Water. Sanitation and Hygiene For Development 3, 262. https://
tats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/. doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2013.045.
UN-HABITAT, 2003. Water and Sanitation in the World’s Cities: Local Action for Global Wright, A.M., 1997. Toward a strategic sanitation approach: improving the sustainability
Goals. London, UK. http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicati of urban sanitation in developing countries. Water and Sanitation Programme
onID¼1150. (WSP), World Bank Group, Washington D.C.
UN-Habitat, 2012. State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013: Prosperity of Cities. Routledge, WSP, 2007. Philippines Sanitation Sourcebook and Decision Aid. In: Philippines, D.o.E.a.
Nairobi. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page¼view&type¼400 N.R.o.t. (Ed.). Water and Sanitation Program (WSP), Washington. http://documents.
&nr¼745&menu¼1515. worldbank.org/curated/en/791641468146718337/Philippines-Sanitation-sourc
UNFPA, 2007. Unleashing the potential of urban growth. United Nations Population ebook-and-decision-aid.
Fund (UNFPA). In: State of World Population 2007: Unleashing the Potential of WSP, 2014. The missing link in sanitation service delivery. A Review of Fecal Sludge
Urban GrowthState of World Population 2007. A, Marshall. Martine, G. http://www. Management in 12 Cities. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/
unfpa.org/webdav/site/global/shared/documents/publications/2007/695_filename The World Bank.
_sowp2007_eng.pdf. WWAP, 2017. The united nations world water development report 2017: wastewater, the
van Buuren, J., 2010. SANitation CHoice Involving Stakeholders - A Participatory Multi- untapped resource. United Nations World Water Assessment Programme. UNESCO,
Criteria Method for Drainage and Sanitation System Selection in Developing Cities Paris (WWAP). http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment
Applied in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, SENSE - Research School for Scoio-Economic /water/wwap/wwdr/2017-wastewater-the-untapped-resource/.
and Natural Sciences of the Environment. Wageningen University, p. 440. Zurbrügg, C., Bufardi, A., Tilley, E., Maurer, M., Truffer, B., 2009. Decision-making for
WHO UNICEF, 2019. World health organization (WHO) and united nations children’s sanitation systems. Sandec News 10, 20–21. https://www.eawag.ch/en/departmen
fund (UNICEF). Progress on Household Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene t/sandec/publications/sandec-news/.
2010-2017: Special Focus on Inequalities. Switzerland, Geneva.
21

Spuhler 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spuhler 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Environmental Management 271 (2020) 111004

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

Developing sanitation planning options: A tool for systematic consideration

1. Introduction 1.1. A more strategic sanitation planning approach

In fast growing urban areas of developing countries, challenges of

1.3. Citywide inclusive sanitation

(based on Spuhler et al., 2018).

2.2.2. Evaluation data: technology profiles and application case profiles

on motorized collection, or ID-6639, a centralized sewer system). The appropriateness assessment).

System template System ID TP TN TS H2O

ST4 53874 1 (0.82) 3 (0.81) 3 (0.89) 2 (0.78) 9 2

You might also like