Hi Elisabeth

Thanks for the further questions!

I do not have a link where all the novel technologies are listed as I am yet in the progress of preparing a easily accessible user interface for the tool. I could share the link to a few publications where one or the other technology was included in the case study. But I hope soon the publication process on my current technology database will be done and then I will definitively share the link.
However, important is not the list of the technologies that are included, but that I am to produce a online version of the Compendium where novel options can be more easily added. From a methodological point of view, this means that the generic definitions and attributes used by the new Compendium are flexible and can be defined by the user. AND, that is what I mentioned in my previous thread: the uncertainty regarding those data especially for novel technologies can be considered. From a practical point of view, I still need to sort out how exactely to tag novel technologies to distinguish them from the others from the Compendium (you may remember that the Compendium facthsheets went through a very long and intensive reviewing process with a broad sounding board… not sure if this will be possible for each new technology added).
To be more specific:

• For the technology appropriateness assessment I consider the uncertainty of the the different attributes (e.g. water requirements) using probability functions. However, the overall technology score is a number between 0 and 100% (without standard deviation) expressing the confidence we have in the technology to be appropriate.
• For the mass flow quantification I consider the uncertainties related to the transfer coefficients resulting in a standard deviation for the quantified resource recovery and losses potentials (phosphorus, nitrogen, total solids, water). This is particularly important for novel technologies, but also for conventional technologies, transfer coefficients ARE uncertain (imagine the variability you have of the fraction of phosphorus entering the sludge and the effluent in a septic tank….). To quantify the uncertainty, I used the variability of data from different literature resources, the technology readiness level (TRL), and the confidence in the substance (e.g. phosphorus being conservative and nitrogen not).
• My cost module is really only a prototype and I paused working on it as I want to see what comes out of the World Bank costing tool and other initiatives e.g. lead by Leeds. I used cost functions of the CLARA tool and previous Eawag work and only considered uncertainty (better said “variability” ) regarding the number of users per unit (e.g. do you have one, two, or three, FSM treatment plants within a settlement).
• Aurin production: this is the process currently implemented by VUNA mainly here in Switzerland and surroundings – check it out (it is now also allowed for edible crops !!!): www.vuna.ch/aurin/index_en.html .

I also would like to specifically react on this:

“I think it's been a shortcoming for a long time that novel options are not included in many decision-making processes. On the other hand, I can also understand why that might be so. It's about risk of failure and who would be willing to shoulder the risks of implementing a little-known technology on a larger scale...”

You already state one answer to the problem, often provided by decision analysis theory: by quantifying the risk associated to different performance indicators used to compare options, we can consider this risk and thus also compare options with very different risks in the decision-making process! It is then to the decision-makers providing a value function describing how risk adverse he is…
Considering various uncertainties is one attempt to do this and the models I developed are the first step to consider novel options alongside with conventional ones. It provides however not the final solutions, but a set of options to be further evaluated regarding different criteria, maybe weighted differently by different stakeholders. One or several risk proxies as part of the criteria would allow to consider the fear of decision-makers of failure of novel technologies (and quantifying those systematically may reveals that given the local environmental factors, the actual risk of novel options are not higher than for conventional ones: e.g. imagine a very robust but strongly water dependent technology compared to a highly novel waterless option in a water scarce area…).

I am extremely happy that we have this discussion, Elisabeth! I think these aspects have not been enough discussed on the forum although they are so crucial to bring the many innovations into practice!

Kind regards,
Dorothee

Dear all

We (me, my colleagues from 500B Nepal, Arba Minch Ethiopia, and Eawag Switzerland) finally managed to get out the results of the method we developped during my PhD, it is available here :
Developing sanitation planning options: A tool for systematic consideration of novel technologies and systems
Dorothee Spuhler, Verena Germann, Kinfe Kassa, Atekelt Abebe Ketema, Anjali Manandhar Sherpa, Mingma Gyalzen Scherpa, Max Maurer, Christoph Lüthi, Günter Langergraber

The approach enables the prioritisation of appropriate and  resource efficient sanitation technologies and systems in strategic planning . It contributes to a more citywide inclusive approach by bridging strategic citywide objectives with an area-based appropriateness assessment.

Abstract
To provide access to sustainable sanitation for the entire world population, novel technologies and systems have been developed. These options are often independent of sewers, water, and energy and therefore promise to be more appropriate for fast-growing urban areas. They also allow for resource recovery and and are adaptable to changing environmental and demographic conditions what makes them more sustainable.
More options, however, 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 configurations. 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 SANitation 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 anintegration 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 objectives 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 bridging 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.

Dear all

A new open source paper  from my PhD is out:
Comparative analysis of sanitation systems for resource recovery: Influence of configurations and single technology components
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116281

The paper comes with a data package compiling international literature and expert information on 41 technologies, their appropriateness profiles for different context, and transfer coefficients for phosphorus, nitrogen, total solids, and water. This package can be directly accessed here: https://opendata.eawag.ch/dataset/sanitation-technology-library
Please come back to me with your feedback and questions!

Abstract
Resource recovery and emissions from sanitation systems are critical sustainability indicators for strategic urban sanitation planning. In this context, sanitation systems are the most often structured using technology-driven templates rather than performance-based sustainability indicators. In this work, we answer two questions: Firstly, can we estimate generic resource recovery and loss potentials and their uncertainties for a diverse and large set of sanitation systems? And secondly, can we identify technological aspects of sanitation systems that indicate a better overall resource recovery performance? The aim is to obtain information that can be used as an input into any strategic planning process and to help shape technology development and system design for resource recovery in the future. Starting from 41 technologies, which include novel and conventional options, we build 101,548 valid sanitation system configurations. For each system configuration we quantify phosphorus, nitrogen, total solids, and water flows and use that to calculate recovery potentials and losses to the environment, i.e. the soil, air, or surface water. The four substances cover different properties and serve as a proxy for nutrient, organics, energy, and water resources. For modelling the flows ex-ante, we use a novel approach to consider a large range of international literature and expert data considering uncertainties. Thus all results are generic and can therefore be used as input into any strategic planning process or to help guide future technology development. A detailed analysis of the results allows us to identify factors that influence recovery and losses. These factors include the type of source, the length of systems, and the level of containment in storage and treatment. The factors influencing recovery are related to interactions of different technologies in a system which shows the relevance of a modelling approach that allows to look at all possible system configurations systematically. Based on our analysis, we developed five recommendations for the optimization of resource recovery: (i) prioritize short systems that close the loop at the lowest possible level; (ii) separate waste streams as much as possible, because this allows for higher recovery potentials; (iii) use storage and treatment technologies that contain the products as much as possible, avoid leaching technologies (e.g. single pits) and technologies with high risk of volatilization (e.g. drying beds); (iv) design sinks to optimise recovery and avoid disposal sinks; and (v) combine various reuse options for different side streams (e.g. urine diversion systems that combine reuse of urine and production of biofuel from faeces).

Dear all
For some reasons, the article was behind a paywall. The problem has now been resolved and you can access the article directly here:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116281
I would be more than happy if you have questions or feedback
Dorothee

Thanks, Dorothee. It's great how you are sharing all this information from your PhD work. I am looking at it and am trying to get my head around how this could be utilised in a more practical sense for knowledge sharing. It comes across as rather abstract and theoretical but that's normal for a PhD!

Some thoughts:
1) Is there anything in there that could be inserted into relevant Wikipedia articles? Which Wikipedia articles would be the most relevant? Maybe the ones on sustainable sanitation or reuse of excreta ?

2) I still find it a pity that vermifiltration is not included as one of the technologies (but vermicomposting is) - we talked about that earlier in this thread (see above). Was vermifiltration a technology that "almost" made it in or not by a long shot? Which are the "novel technologies" that you think are closest to being included in a future version (or by future users themselves)? See also here on the forum. 

3) Hajo and Heiner have recently been discussing with Alison and Adrian their perhaps pessimistic conclusion of their paper "A Review of the Financial Value of Faecal Sludge Reuse in Low-Income Countries". See here . Can your work shed any light on that issue? Or can your tool be used to investigate the financial value of faecal sludge reuse?

Regards,
Elisabeth 

Dear Elisabeth
 
Thank you for your questions.
Let me take it bottom-up
 
3) Financial values: Without looking in detail into the named publication and discussion, which is certainly interesting and valuable, my first quick answer would be:
I strongly believe in the multi-dimensionality of sustainable development as well as in value-based society rather than a money-based economy. Therefore, I have my doubts regarding conclusions that are drawn from solely financial assessment. However, I provide the amounts (volumes or masses) of phosphorus, nitrogen, total solids, and water that can be recovered at a city level. Taking some estimates of local market prices, these  amounts can quite easy be translated to financial value…
 
2) Inclusion/exclusion of technologies: The set of technologies which were considered are NOT meant to be comprehensive nor to provide some sort of expert selection of “good options”. The set of technologies was chosen regarding the two main criteria: do they help to illustrate the diversity of the option space (from a technology and system design point of view) and is data available. The first criteria was based on the fact, that we wanted to illustrate the method and what it can do. I would have loved to include more technologies but in the time I had, this was not possible. HOWEVER the model which I used is flexible to consider and technology and I am currently preparing an open source version of the algorithm as well as a editable technology library to adapt for one’s own purposes. It is still under development and the purpose of this raw models is really to be used by experts (a simplified web-application for capacity development is also under development) but you can always access it here:
github.com/santiago-sanitation-systems/Santiago.jl
github.com/santiago-sanitation-systems/S...n-technology-library
 
1) Wikipedia: This one could go into either one or the other Wikipedia article. I have a slight preference for the one on “sustainable sanitation” but this is probably already quite packed…. “reuse of excreta” for me is to narrow, I do look also on wet and centralized systems :
“Based on our analysis, we developed five recommendations for the optimization of resource recovery: (i) prioritize short systems that close the loop at the lowest possible level; (ii) separate waste streams as much as possible, because this allows for higher recovery potentials; (iii) use storage and treatment technologies that contain the products as much as possible, avoid leaching technologies (e.g. single pits) and technologies with high risk of volatilization (e.g. drying beds); (iv) design sinks to optimise recovery and avoid disposal sinks; and (v) combine various reuse options for different side streams (e.g. urine diversion systems that combine reuse of urine and production of biofuel from faeces).” Spuhler et al. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116281
 
By the way, my thesis is now also online (and open source):

Generation and evaluation of sanitation options for urban planning: systematic consideration of
technology innovations and sustainability criteria, Dorothee Spuhler, 2020
https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000444234

To make urban water management more sustainable, many novel sanitation technologies and system configurations have been developed recently. Many of these innovations allow for resource recovery and reuse and are independent from energy, water, and sewer networks. This makes them more resilient to changing environmental and socio-demographic conditions and thus more appropriate for developing urban areas. But while novel technologies and systems potentially enhance sustainability, they also increase planning complexity: how can the different technologies be assembled into entire systems? How appropriate are the resulting systems for a given application case? And how can relevant sustainability indicators such as resource recovery and losses be quantified?
This thesis contributes with a theoretical description, implementation, and practical applications of methods for: (1) the generation of all valid system configurations from a set of potential technologies considering innovations; (2) the identification of a set of locally appropriate systems as an input into strategic planning using a structured decision-making approach; and (3) the ex-ante quantification of resource recovery potentials of entire systems consider.
The methods are generic to be applied to any case or (future) technology, flexible to fit into any international established planning procedures; automated to consider a diverse and large set of potential options; systematic to enhance transparency; and explicitly consider uncertainty related to technology implementation or the local context. Because one of the main challenges in practice is the lack of knowledge and data, especially for novel technologies, the methods are complemented with a technology library providing international data and expert knowledge to be matched to the local conditions. The practical experiences from six case studies showed that the approach allows the prioritisation of more appropriate and more resource efficient systems when strategically planning for sanitation improvements. As more technology and sanitation system options are
added to the already large portfolio, the methods presented in this thesis may become an essential tool for the putting SDG 6.2, 6.3 and SDG 11 into practice.
 
 
Thank you for your interest!
Dorothee

Dear Dorothee,
thanks very much for sharing your work and information!! To me (not a real expert, I must admit..) it sounds like a very helpful tool for our efforts to improve things on the way to close the loop. More and more people at least understand the importance of CE and your work hopefully contributes to it.
I startet to read your thesis and if lucky will finish it in 2021.... If questions come up I let you know
I am very happy you have a focus on nitrogen, the most important nutrient we have to look after. And if we do not look after the biggest polluter for environmental damage. Relating to the question of Elisabeth and you answer I very much agree this is very difficult to monetarise but there is no time left to ignore.
I would have asked too...what about vermitechnology as is practised in lots of places and obviously a rising thing in in India. But you gave your answer.
Working for ETH you are not far away from FiBL.  Do you have any contact to them? And are they in a way interested in your work? I would appreciate very much cause their is a sort of arrogance in the organic scenery not to close the loop.  And I think we have to push from all sides.....
Last first question: what losses do you expect if the material of this dry toilet (faeces an sawdust or fine wood chips) is heated up to 70 degrees Celsius for one week?
  finizio.de/pilotanlage/   

Much success or you,

Heiner

Heiner
Regarding the link   finizio.de/pilotanlage/   . Wow! 
Thanks
Harry

Hi Dorothee,

Thanks for your reply from 11 November. And thank you for picking out some statements to be included in Wikipedia. I have now gone ahead and included two paragraphs from your journal paper into the Wikipedia article on sustainable sanitation:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_sanita...of_resource_recovery

Happily, because your journal article has the licence CC-BY, I was allowed to simply do a copy & paste with attribution. Otherwise I would have had to paraphrase in order not to breach copyright.

And the Wikipedia article on sustainable sanitation is actually still rather weak and bland, so it could do with more beefing up. It also currently has low view rates (only about 20 views per day). This can be due to not enough other Wikipedia articles linking to it; and content being a bit weak and references not up to date (it's currently only using older references, apart from yours now).

So if anyone wants to help improve it, please speak up.

By the way, the World Toilet Day theme for 2020 was "sustainable sanitation and climate change" - interesting that this year they chose the term "sustainable sanitation" whereas in other years they just used sanitation. See also here:  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Toilet_Day

Regards,
Elisabeth

Hi Dorothee,

I was looking at a forum post from a couple of weeks ago and I am asking myself: Does your tool also help people who are researching this question:
" Between the extremes of centralised and decentralised systems. What should be the most important criteria for grouping cities and connecting them to a common wastewater treatment plant? "
See this post . 

I notice your tool talks about "urban setting". From that I am guessing you have not included factors related to population density and distances between dwellings? I.e. when considering if one or several wastewater treatment plants are better, then questions such as distance, topography, pumping requirements and so forth come into play. That probably requires a different tool than the one you have developed? If so, could you point Sara to the right tools or publications?

Thanks,
Elisabeth

Dear Elisabeth
Thank you for your post!
The tool uses a very large and diverse range of sanitation technologies to generate all valid system configuraitons including onsite, decentralized, centralized, and hybrid solutions. The idea behind is that there exist not one single best solutions, but that the appropriateness and sustainability of system depends always on the local context.
The way I most often used the tool was to take a number of non-negotiable pre-selection criteria (technical, social, enviornmental, instutional) to pre-select a set of locally appropriate systems which is diverse in order to reveal trade-offs regarding the negotiable criteria (those that depend on stakeholders' preferences). Sometimes, this set only included onsite, and decentralized solutions, but the most often it covered the full band width. Only sometimes the conventional sewer systems were filtered out because of water requirements, lack of capactiy for building and maintaining it, or lack of electricity for centralized treatment plant. But there exist also dry centralized systems such as for instance container-based sanitation. So I would need to understand your definition of "centralized" and "decentralized" to give you a better answer about "the most important criteria".
A colleague of mine estimated that we have a potential of 10% of decentralization in Switzerland and this is mainly in the rural areas. However, he looked at it from a purely financial point of view and used SBRs to model any decentralized solutions: www.researchgate.net/publication/3113127...al_economic_analysis
In a current project I am looking at in Geneva we do a multi-criteria sustainability evaluation of two scenarios, one onsite (urine seperation, vermi-composting) and one conventional.  There we see, that for different criteria, different scenarios are more performant. Criteria we look at are costs, but also resource recovery and emissions, storm-water management, amenity, heat island mitigation, and reconnecting citizens to their local environment. In many of these not-directly-monetary sustainability criteria, there is a reason to move towards decentralisation,
So my answer would be: The most important criteria to select between decentralized and centralized depends on the local conditions and the stakeholder preferences. What is important and what want people to look at. Then, I can give you a list of criteria that I found to have a impact on the higher appropriateness of either decentralized or centralized systems:
- Human capacity and resources for design, and operation and maintenance (monitoring)
- Frequency of operation and maintenance
- Water availability
- Fuel/electricity availability
- Space onsite/offsite
- End-user engagement

Another remark: when it comes to resource recovery: the most important factors to consider are source separation. Only then comes decentralization. What is important to avoid many treatment steps (with losses and degradation) being it onsite or offsite. But from a environmental impact point of view, if you manage to minimize emissions (including green house gases) onsite, it is better to also avoid transportation of any kind (piped or un-piped...)

Interested to read what you think about all that!
Dorothee

Hi Dorothee,

Thanks for your response which I am sure will be very useful for Sara's research in the other thread . I'll post there shortly to alert her to this one.

Just a small clarification question: It's still not clear to me if your tool includes population density, distances between dwellings, topography and elevation, i.e. the more GIS type information that will affect hydraulics and the infrastructure required for transport of wastewater by gravity.
I get the feeling that the tool focuses mainly on choosing the best treatment and reuse options but not so much on transport. Is that correct?

Regards,
Elisabeth