https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=34708018&retmode=xml&tool=Litmetric&email=readroberts32@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09 347080182021112220211122
2296-256592021Frontiers in public healthFront Public HealthFecal Sludge Management in Low Income Settlements: Case Study of Nakuru, Kenya.75030975030975030910.3389/fpubh.2021.750309Introduction: In order to meet the sustainable development goals targets of sanitation, countries aim to increase access to safely managed sanitation services for its citizens. Safely managed sanitation services refers to improved sanitation technologies that are not shared with other households and where excreta is treated and disposed; or stored, transported and treated off-site. In most Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) countries, on-site sanitation facilities such as latrines and septic tanks are common, with low-income urban settlements mainly using pit latrines. However, little is documented about the management of sludge from these facilities, especially in low income settlements in secondary and emerging cities. This lack of data is a major hindrance to public health, development and planning efforts by governments and planning agencies. This study specifically assesses practices and challenges along the sanitation value chain related to containment, emptying, transportation, treatment and recycling of fecal sludge. Methods: The study was carried out in low income settlements in Nakuru, a secondary city in Kenya. Over half the population in Nakuru live in low income areas and majority of these residents use pit latrines. A case study design was selected for this study and data was collected using qualitative methods. Data was collected through In-depth interviews and Focus Group Discussions using in depth interview guide and focus group discussion guides that had questions on sanitation practices along the value chain, challenges, opportunities available, and recommendations for improvement. Analysis was done through content analysis by reading the transcripts multiple times to gain a sense of the flow of the discussion. Thereafter, coding was done by following emergent issues and thereafter categories were identified which formed the basis for providing a picture of FWM practices in the settlements. Results: On site sanitation facilities are dominant in the settlements, but they are few and are shared by several households. These facilities were unclean, and they filled up at a fast rate because of the high number of users. The latrines were emptied by manual emptiers who used mechanized equipment but complemented with manual emptying using buckets. Sludge was transported to a central collection point using large and small scale means of transportation, before transfer to the treatment site for final treatment and disposal. Various stakeholders are involved in capacity building of emptiers as well as in the transportation, treatment and disposal of fecal sludge in the settlements. Challenges along the stages of the value chain included negative community perceptions and attitudes toward fecal sludge management. Conclusion: The results highlight the need to address the challenges along the chain by involvement of state and non-state actors. Low income areas have high populations and thus contribute huge amounts of fecal sludge. Deliberate efforts to consolidate such data from low income areas will result in availability of data, and informed decision making for stakeholders at national and international levels.Copyright © 2021 Simiyu, Chumo and Mberu.SimiyuSheillahSUrbanization and Well-Being Unit, African Population and Health Research Center, Nairobi, Kenya.ChumoIvyIUrbanization and Well-Being Unit, African Population and Health Research Center, Nairobi, Kenya.MberuBlessingBUrbanization and Well-Being Unit, African Population and Health Research Center, Nairobi, Kenya.engJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't20211011
SwitzerlandFront Public Health1016165792296-25650SewageIMKenyaPovertySanitationSewageToilet FacilitiesNakurufecal sludge managementlow income settlementssafely managed sanitationsanitation value chainThe authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
2021730202199202110286422021102960202111236020211011epublish34708018PMC854277510.3389/fpubh.2021.750309UNICEF and WHO . Progress on Household Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene 2000-2017. Special Focus on inequalities. New York, NY: United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and World Health Organization; (2019).WHO and UNICEF . Progress on Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: 2017 Update and SDG Baselines. Geneva: WHO and UNICEF; (2017).Nakagiri A, Niwagaba CB, Nyenje PM, Kulabako RN, Tumuhairwe JB, Kansiime F. Are pit latrines in urban areas of Sub-Saharan Africa performing? A review of usage, filling, insects and odour nuisances. BMC Public Health. (2016) 16:1–16. 10.1186/s12889-016-2772-z10.1186/s12889-016-2772-zPMC474310226846125Pamoja Trust and Slum Dwellers International . An Inventory of the slums in Nairobi. Nairobi: Pamoja Trust, Urban Poor Fund International and Shack/Slum Dwellers International; (2008).Schouten MAC, Mathenge RW. Communal sanitation alternatives for slums: a case study of Kibera, Kenya. Phys Chem Earth Parts ABC. (2010) 35:815–22. 10.1016/j.pce.2010.07.00210.1016/j.pce.2010.07.002Katukiza AY, Ronteltap M, Niwagaba CB, Foppen JWA, Kansiime FPNL, Lens PNL. Sustainable sanitation technology options for urban slums. Biotechnol Adv. (2012) 30:964–78. 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2012.02.00710.1016/j.biotechadv.2012.02.00722361648Lagerkvist CJ, Kokko S, Karanja N. Health in perspective: framing motivational factors for personal sanitation in urban slums in Nairobi, Kenya, using anchored best–worst scaling. J Water Sanitation Hygiene Dev. (2014) 4:108. 10.2166/washdev.2013.06910.2166/washdev.2013.069Cherunya PC, Ahlborg H, Truffer B. Anchoring innovations in oscillating domestic spaces: why sanitation service offerings fail in informal settlements. Res Policy. (2020) 49:103841. 10.1016/j.respol.2019.10384110.1016/j.respol.2019.103841Mawioo PM, Hooijmans CM, Garcia HA, Brdjanovic D. Microwave treatment of faecal sludge from intensively used toilets in the slums of Nairobi, Kenya. J Environ Manage. (2016) 184:575–84. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.01910.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.019PMC510829227784577WASREB . A Performance Report of Kenya's Water Services Sector – 2017/18. Nairobi: WASREB; (2019).BMGF . Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: Strategy Review. Seattle: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; (2012).Kenya National Bureau of Statistics . 2019 Kenya Population and Housing Census, Volume 1: Population by County and Sub-County. Nairobi: KNBS; (2019).County Government of Nakuru . Nakuru County Integrated Development Plan (2018–2022). Nakuru County Government, Nakuru: (2018).Gudda FO, Moturi WN, Oduor OS, Muchiri EW, Ensink J. Pit latrine fill-up rates: variation determinants and public health implications in informal settlements, Nakuru-Kenya. BMC Public Health. (2019) 19:1–13. 10.1186/s12889-019-6403-310.1186/s12889-019-6403-3PMC633443330646871Daudey L. The cost of urban sanitation solutions: a literature review. J Water Sanitation Hygiene Dev. (2018) 8:176–95. 10.2166/washdev.2017.05810.2166/washdev.2017.058McConville JR, Kvarnström E, Maiteki JM, Niwagaba CB. Infrastructure investments and operating costs for fecal sludge and sewage treatment systems in Kampala, Uganda. Urban Water J. (2019) 16:584–93. 10.1080/1573062X.2019.170029010.1080/1573062X.2019.1700290Furlong C. SFD Report, Nakuru Kenya. Susana: SFD Promotion Initiative; (2015).Jenkins M, Cumming O, Cairncross S. Pit latrine emptying behavior and demand for sanitation services in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2015) 12:2588–611. 10.3390/ijerph12030258810.3390/ijerph120302588PMC437792025734790Burt Z, Sklar R, Murray A. Costs and willingness to pay for pit latrine emptying services in Kigali, Rwanda. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2019) 16:4738. 10.3390/ijerph1623473810.3390/ijerph16234738PMC692695431783524Thye YP, Templeton MR, Ali M. A critical review of technologies for pit latrine emptying in developing countries. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. (2011) 41:1793–819. 10.1080/10643389.2010.48159310.1080/10643389.2010.481593Kabange RS. A review of pit latrine emptying technologies for low-income densely-populated settlements of developing countries. Curr Trends Civil Struct Eng. (2019) 1:1–5. 10.33552/CTCSE.2019.01.00051010.33552/CTCSE.2019.01.000510Murungi C, Blokland MW. Benchmarking for the provision of water supply and sanitation services to the urban poor: an assessment framework. Int J Water. (2016) 10:155–74. 10.1504/IJW.2016.07556610.1504/IJW.2016.075566Simiyu S, Swilling M, Cairncross S, Rheingans R. Determinants of quality of shared sanitation facilities in informal settlements: case study of Kisumu, Kenya. BMC Public Health. (2017) 17:68. 10.1186/s12889-016-4009-610.1186/s12889-016-4009-6PMC522553628077103Semiyaga S, Okure MA, Niwagaba CB, Katukiza AY, Kansiime F. Decentralized options for faecal sludge management in urban slum areas of sub-saharan Africa: a review of technologies, practices and end-uses. Resour Conserv Recycl. (2015) 104:109–19. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.09.00110.1016/j.resconrec.2015.09.001Balasubramanya S, Evans B, Hardy R, Ahmed R, Habib A, Asad NSM, et al. . Towards sustainable sanitation management: Establishing the costs and willingness to pay for emptying and transporting sludge in rural districts with high rates of access to latrines. PLoS ONE. (2017) 12:e0171735. 10.1371/journal.pone.017173510.1371/journal.pone.0171735PMC536021228323885Niwagaba CB, Mbéguéré M, Strande L. Faecal Sludge Quantification, Characterisation and Treatment Objectives. Faecal Sludge Management: Systems Approach for Implementation and Operation. London: IWA publishing; (2014). p. 19–44.Peal A, Evans B, Blackett I, Hawkins P, Heymans C. Fecal sludge management (FSM): analytical tools for assessing FSM in cities. J Water Sanitation Hygiene Dev. (2014) 4:371–83. 10.2166/washdev.2014.13910.2166/washdev.2014.139Diener S, Semiyaga S, Niwagaba CB, Muspratt AM, Gning JB, Mbéguéré M, et al. . A value proposition: resource recovery from faecal sludge - Can it be the driver for improved sanitation? Resour Conserv Recycl. (2014) 88:32–8. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.04.00510.1016/j.resconrec.2014.04.005Rose C, Parker A, Jefferson B, Cartmell E. The characterization of feces and urine: a review of the literature to inform advanced treatment technology. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. (2015) 45:1827–79. 10.1080/10643389.2014.100076110.1080/10643389.2014.1000761PMC450099526246784Andriessen N, Ward BJ, Strande L. To char or not to char? Review of technologies to produce solid fuels for resource recovery from faecal sludge. J Water Sanitation Hygiene Dev. (2019) 9:210–24. 10.2166/washdev.2019.18410.2166/washdev.2019.184Andersson K, Dickin S, Rosemarin A. Towards “sustainable” sanitation : challenges and opportunities in urban areas. Sustainability. (2016) 8:1289. 10.3390/su812128910.3390/su8121289