Urban sanitation technology decision-making in developing countries: a critical analysis of process guides

A. Ramôa; C. Lüthi; J. McConville; J. Matos

doi:10.1080/19463138.2016.1186674

Urban sanitation technology decision-making in developing countries: a critical analysis of process guides

Ramôa, A.; Lüthi, C.; McConville, J.; Matos, J. 2016-07-02 00:00:00 International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 2016 Vol. 8, No. 2, 191–209, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2016.1186674 Urban sanitation technology decision-making in developing countries: a critical analysis of process guides a b c a A. Ramôa *, C. Lüthi , J. McConville and J. Matos a b Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal; Department of Sanitation, Water and Solid Waste for Development (Sandec), Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Eawag, Dübendorf, Switzerland; Department of Architecture, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden (Received 13 October 2015; accepted 3 May 2016) Planning for urban sanitation in developing contexts is one of the major development challenges of this century. Particularly, the relevance of a broad perspective in sanitation decision-making processes has been increasingly discussed. One possible contribution to achieve comprehensive decisions is through the use of planning guidelines, also called process guides. The present work ﬁrst identiﬁed categories of relevant decision elements, namely: (a) the multi-sectoral approach, (b) the multiplicity of sustainable dimensions, (c) the system analysis perspective and (d) the co-existence of planning scales. Then, for each category, a comparative analysis of urban sanitation process guides was conducted with a focus on technology decision-making. It was found that the importance of considering those categories is increasingly reﬂected in process guides, although not always in a detailed supportive way. Recommendations are provided to increase the added value of process guides regarding technology selection, as well as, to better integrate them into urban planning. Keywords: Decision-making; developing countries; planning; process guides; sanitation 1. Introduction challenges, insecure tenure (Okurut & Charles 2014), the marginalisation of peri-urban poor, Globally, approximately 2.4 billion people (around existing regulations and a general failure to take 32% of the total population) still do not have the local context into account (Hofmann 2011). access to improved sanitation facilities (WHO & Poor planning, and particularly the inability to UNICEF 2015), a situation which negatively take into account the above-mentioned factors, has impacts people’s health, social standing, liveli- also been implicated among the reasons for fail- hoods and ultimately economic development ures in sanitation services in developing countries (Törnqvist et al. 2008). In particular, the inade- (Barnes et al. 2011). This mirrors what happens in quate provision of sanitation services in urban urban planning in general, where the dominant areas of developing countries is one of the major form of planning, named rational or master plan- challenges of this century (Tayler 2008). Indeed, ning, has been criticised for rigidity towards urban lack of sanitation services, coupled to the unpre- dynamics, disregard of peri-urban areas and little cedented growth of unplanned urban settlements, local buy-in, among other aspects (Watson 2009). is a critical element to assuring sustainable urban Alternative approaches, such as communicative development (Keivani 2010). This appalling situa- and deliberative ones which imply more coopera- tion is rooted in many causes, namely low income tion and dialogue between stakeholders, have been and education levels, institutional and political *Corresponding author. Email: ana.ramoa@tecnico.ulisboa.pt © 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 192 A. Ramôa et al. suggested as more appropriate and have thus relevant ones to account for when planning sanita- gained popularity (Richardson 2005). Planning tion solutions. has also been increasingly seen as an iterative, In addition, one way to overcome difﬁculties ﬂexible and participatory process valuing other when planning with a broader view is to use forms of non-technical knowledge and the invol- process guides, which are documents describing vement of the community (Allen 2003). steps decision-makers need to undergo when Additionally, there has also been a trend towards selecting sanitation solutions. The possible contri- more broad view of thinking in urban planning, bution of process guides to support comprehensive e.g., considering complex issues like sustainabil- decisions results from their potential to raise rele- ity, a concept supported by the socio-ecological vant aspects and structure their consideration dur- idealism planning theory (Lawrence 2000). ing planning processes. Sanitation process guides Nevertheless, alternative approaches are rarely have been analysed through different perspectives, reﬂected in developing countries faced with weak namely planning theory, stakeholders’ participa- local government capacity and lack of coordina- tion and their implementation on the ground tion between organisations and resources for plan- (e.g., Palaniappan et al. 2008; Törnqvist et al. ning (Smith & Jenkins 2015). In addition, the 2008; Peal et al. 2010; Barnes et al. 2011; broad consideration of different aspects during McConville et al. 2011; Kennedy-Walker et al. planning processes may be very challenging, 2014). It is therefore important to further assess namely because interdependencies among decision such planning documents regarding the level of elements can create trade-offs, muddle decisions support they provide for the consideration of and undermine the successful implementation of potentially relevant elements when taking sanita- selected solutions. For example, the integration of tion decisions. Indeed, the way process guides are comprehensive assessment tools, such as environ- structured and the level of support provided for mental impact assessment (EIA), into planning has decision-making is believed to inﬂuence the ade- been hampered by power structures and the fragile quacy of selected solutions. Decision-making, here coalition of interests (Richardson 2005). referring speciﬁcally to the selection of sanitation Despite difﬁculties in shifting planning prac- technologies (i.e., dealing with wastewater and tices, some of these newer planning theories are excreta), receives particular attention owing to its starting to ﬁnd their way into the sanitation sector critical contribution to the success of the entire of developing countries. In fact, ideals of partici- planning process and ﬁnal implemented solutions. pation and communicative theory can already be Hence, this article aims to (a) identify which found in sanitation planners and practitioners’ sanitation decision elements are potentially rele- rhetoric (McConville et al. 2011). Sanitation plan- vant for urban areas of developing countries, (b) ning approaches have been evolving from a more evaluate the potential contribution and further engineering focus, often based on prescribed tech- improvements of process guides to support the nologies for presumed conditions that rarely exist consideration of such elements in decision-making (Lüthi & Parkinson 2011), to a wider multi-dis- and (c) integrate sanitation process guides into ciplinary focus (Kennedy-Walker et al. 2014). urban planning debates. As lack or inadequate However, although the international community access to sanitation signiﬁcantly impacts the living increasingly stresses the need to address sanitation conditions of urban communities, and because from a holistic perspective, practicalities on the analysed topics are very much aligned with ground often make decision elements difﬁcult to aspects of urban development, the present analysis consider in a comprehensive way (Tiberghien is also expected to contribute to the wider debate et al. 2011). Consequently, it is important to ﬁrst on how to bring about sustainable urban identify which decision elements are the most development. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 193 2. Methodology Table 1. Analysed urban sanitation process guides. From sanitation literature and discourses, groups Authors Year Title of decision elements potentially relevant to con- International Water 2006 Sanitation 21. Simple sider when planning sanitation services were iden- Association Approaches to tiﬁed. They are referred to in this article as (IWA) Complex Sanitation. ‘categories of comprehensiveness’, meaning that A Draft Framework each category comprises a broad group of related for Analysis decision elements. The term ‘comprehensiveness’ World Bank 2007 Principles of Town Water Supply and here means the broad consideration of decision Sanitation. Part 2: elements, not being associated with the traditional Sanitation rational comprehensive planning theory. Other Water and Sanitation 2008 Technology Options for cross-cutting issues, such as participation and Program (WSP) Urban Sanitation in urban upgrading, are also frequently mentioned India Swiss Federal 2011 Community-Led Urban with regards to sanitation planning (e.g., Gomez Institute of Environmental & Nakat 2002; Butala et al. 2010). However, these Aquatic Science Sanitation Planning: issues can be seen as strategies for achieving com- and Technology CLUES – Complete prehensiveness rather than speciﬁc categories of (Eawag-Sandec) Guidelines for comprehensiveness and, therefore, they were Decision-Makers with 30 Tools excluded from analysis. Program Solidarité 2012 Concerted Municipal Then, based on Palaniappan et al. (2008), Peal Eau (pS-Eau) and Strategy (CMS) – et al. (2010) and further web-based research, Municipal Methodological around 50 sanitation process guides for developing Development Guides (including countries were identiﬁed. Process guides were Partnership one guide on how to (MDP) select appropriate used for the present analysis due to their potential technical solutions to guide the users through logical actions aiming for sanitation) at adequate decisions. Indeed, they describe a sug- gested set of steps (i.e., the ‘process’) that may be used by decision-makers to assess and improve countries and (2) they constitute a stepwise process sanitation conditions (Palaniappan et al. 2008). including some form of guidance for technology These planning guidelines are usually developed decision-making, namely questions to orient deci- by international or research organizations. They sions, tables, decision trees or procedures. The focus commonly comprise the following steps: problem on urban areas results from the fact that the potential identiﬁcation, deﬁnition of objectives, options for disease, mortality and misfortune due to inade- design, selection of solutions and action plan for quate or absence of sanitation services is much implementation (McConville et al. 2011). Other greater in these challenging areas than in rural support resources excluded from this analysis ones (Isunju et al. 2011). The second criteria implies owing to their reduced guidance for decision-mak- that process guides introducing interesting planning ing are, for instance, technical briefs presenting concepts but which do not provide speciﬁcsupport technology descriptions, or technical references for the technology selection were not considered in providing guidance on how to carry out speciﬁc the analysis (e.g., strategic sanitation planning tasks like construction works. (Wright 1997), strategic planning for municipal Out of this initial list of sanitation process sanitation (GHK, WEDC, WSP-SA 2000)orcity- guides, ﬁve were shortlisted for analysis (Table 1) wide sanitation strategies (WSP 2010)). With the based on the following reasons: (1) they are applic- exception of IWA (2006), the selected documents able in urban or peri-urban contexts in developing have been ﬁeld-tested. A new version of IWA 194 A. Ramôa et al. Table 2. Scoring system and related meaning of the different decision elements under analysis. The scores. elements receiving more guidance presented higher scores than the remaining ones. Score Meaning ⊘ There is no reference on the importance of the element in any step of the planning process 3. Potentially relevant decision elements in ○ The importance of considering the element is sanitation planning mentioned but not speciﬁcally for decision- Based on the current literature, four ‘categories of making comprehensiveness’ were deﬁned for being poten- ● The importance of the element for decision- making is mentioned with reduced support tially relevant in sanitation planning: (a) the multi- on its incorporation into decisions sectoral approach, (b) the multiplicity of sustain- ●● The importance of the element for decision- able dimensions, (c) the system analysis perspec- making is mentioned with detailed support tive and (d) the co-existence of planning scales. on its incorporation into decisions All of them are somehow aligned with general The score ‘●●’ means that an element effectively receives more aspects of urban development planning. decision support regarding the selection of sanitation technolo- The ﬁrst deﬁned category is the multi-sectoral gies, compared to the score ‘●’. Support is considered to be reduced when only few references or examples are presented on approach. In urban planning, some agencies the importance of the incorporation of the element in technical increasingly recognise that problems should not decisions. be solved sectorally but instead, solutions in dif- ferent sectors may be mutually reinforced (2006) has been published recently. However, as it (Rossiter 2000). In particular, as sanitation sys- is less process-oriented than the previous version, it tems are intrinsically linked to other components was not included in this analysis. of the water cycle and other sectors of society, Then, a qualitative scoring system was deﬁned such as water supply and spatial planning (Isunju (Table 2) in order to assess the level of support et al. 2011), the integration of sanitation-related process guides provided for the comprehensive inte- sectors in decision-making seems to be crucial to gration of issues related to the categories of com- capture their potential synergies, thus leading to prehensiveness (here called decision elements), both more sustainable and cost-effective solutions in planning and decision-making processes. The (Lüthi et al. 2012). ﬁrst two scores, ‘⊘’ and ‘○’, assess whether or not The concept of sustainability has also ﬂour- there are references to the importance of the element ished in urban planning literature (Rosales 2011). under analysis in any step of process guides, i.e., It has been accompanied by discussions on its from the situation analysis to the assessment of application to the sanitation sector (e.g., Carter options or the preparation of a plan. This will et al. 1999; Rosemarin et al. 2008). Indeed, allow acquiring a global perspective of the recogni- although the primary objective of sanitation is tion of the element’s importance in the entire plan- public health improvement, many other sustain- ning process. The scores in bold, ‘●’ and ‘●●’, ability elements, like socio-economic, institutional speciﬁcally reﬂect the degree to which each element and environmental ones, are said to need urgent is integrated in technology decision-making. consideration to stem the trend of disrepair hap- For each category of analysis, the scoring sys- pening in the sector and to accelerate progress in tem allowed assessing the level of comprehensive- sanitation coverage levels (Montgomery et al. ness in the process guides. Process guides showing 2009). higher levels of comprehensiveness were the ones Another tool explored in planning is the sys- whose decision elements were classiﬁed with tem analysis, whereby, considering a physical or higher scores. The scoring system also permitted conceptual system composed of interrelated ele- the analysis of the relative guidance provided to ments, decisions can be made about its optimal International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 195 performance (ASCE 1986). In the sanitation sec- sanitation systems whose main ﬁnal product is tor, more and more emphasis is given to the need sludge, from water-based systems which result in to look at all the segments of sanitation systems, the production of wastewater. Finally, the category from the user interface (i.e., a toilet or latrine) to ‘co-existence of planning scales’ takes into the ﬁnal disposal or reuse of the different gener- account two different scales that are commonly ated waste products (Maurer et al. 2012). It is found in planning literature: city-wide and loca- expected that by bearing in mind the sanitation lized small-scale. system thinking, other relevant aspects become clearer, such as operation and maintenance issues 4. Analysis of comprehensiveness in process and interactions among stakeholders (Lüthi et al. guides 2011). Finally, the analysis of different urban plan- The process guides analysis identiﬁed the level of ning scales also deserves attention in urban plan- comprehensiveness of selected planning guides ning (e.g., Tayler 1998). Particularly in sanitation, and the relative guidance provided to decision the combination of city-wide and more localized elements in each category of comprehensiveness. scales has been increasingly discussed. On the one This section presents the most relevant observa- hand, small-scale activities may better meet com- tions to evaluate the potential contribution of pro- munities’ expectations, but if isolated they may cess guides to support comprehensive decision- also compromise beneﬁts at the city-wide level making. (Tayler 2008). Conversely, city-wide initiatives, often capital intensive, are associated with inertia 4.1 Multi-sectoral approach that makes them slow to adapt to particular con- texts (Nilsson 2006), and frequently fail to reach With the exception of World Bank (2007), the poor areas. However, they may contribute to sol- process guides acknowledge the importance of ving problems at a wider scale, namely in terms of considering interactions between sanitation and expertise and physical connections to municipal all other related sectors under analysis (Table 4). services or supply chains (Lüthi & Parkinson When it comes to decision-making, however, the 2011). linkages across sanitation and other sectors are not After deﬁning the categories of comprehen- fully elaborated. For instance, Eawag-Sandec siveness, it was important to break them down (2011), which calls for coordinated sectoral into different decision elements (Table 3). For the actions, admits that in practical terms it might be category ‘multi-sectoral approach’, elements advisable to deal with sectors separately for better represent sectors that may constrain the adequacy traction. World Bank (2007) draws attention to the of sanitation technologies, or with which there challenges caused by differences in responsibil- might be synergies of combined solutions. ities, institutional arrangements and scale of Rosemarin et al. (2008) is used as a basis for applied technologies from different sectors. deﬁning the elements of the category ‘multiplicity Finally, pS-Eau (2012) even stresses the need to of sustainable dimensions’, because it is consid- clearly focus on sanitation as it tends to be over- ered the broader proposed deﬁnition for the sector. looked in favour of other sectors. The dimension ‘socio-cultural and institutional’ When comparing the relative guidance provided was broken down into two separate elements in to linkages between sanitation and other related order to better analyse their particularities. The sectors, water supply is the one receiving more elements of the category ‘system analysis perspec- support, mainly based on the presentation of viable tive’ are based on the segmentation of sanitation sanitation technologies according to water con- systems found in Maurer et al. (2012), with some sumption levels (World Bank 2007;WSP 2008), modiﬁcations, namely to differentiate dry the distinction between water-based or waterless 196 A. Ramôa et al. Table 3. Categories and related elements potentially relevant in urban sanitation decision-making. Category Element Deﬁnition Multi-sectoral Water supply Possible constraints or synergies between selected sanitation approach Stormwater drainage technologies and existing or planned solutions within water Solid waste management supply, stormwater drainage, solid waste management, Agriculture agriculture (due to the potential reuse of treated products), Energy energy (potentially used or produced by sanitation systems) Spatial planning and spatial planning (land use and settlement patterns). Multiplicity of Technology and operation Functionality and ease of construction, operation and sustainable maintenance, as well as, vulnerability and ﬂexibility of dimensions technical elements to external factors. Financial and economic Direct costs (construction, operation, maintenance and issues reinvestment) and the capacity of communities to pay, and external costs (e.g., environmental pollution) and beneﬁts (e.g., increased agricultural productivity and employment creation). Institutional aspects Compliance with legal framework and institutional settings. Socio-cultural aspects Socio-cultural acceptance and appropriateness of the system, convenience and consideration of gender issues. Environment and natural Environmental conditions, needed resources, emissions to the resources environment and potential of recycling and reuse of products. Health and hygiene Risk of exposure to hazardous substances that can affect public health and hygiene aspects. System analysis Interface /collection Way in which the user accesses the sanitation system and the perspective way of collecting and storing the generated products. Emptying Method by which sludge is emptied from collection infrastructures. Transport Method of transport of products (sludge/wastewater) from one segment of the supply chain to another. Treatment Type and level of treatment of sludge/wastewater. Disposal/reuse Method by which products (sludge/wastewater) are ultimately returned to the environment, as either useful resources or reduced-risk materials. Co-existence of City-wide scale Centrally designed planning scale which takes a wider view of planning scales the entire city. Localized small-scale Localized planning scale, usually community-led, not necessarily accounting for the wider scale. Table 4. Comprehensiveness of the multi-sectoral approach. Water Stormwater Solid waste Spatial Process guide supply drainage management Agriculture Energy planning IWA (2006) ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ World Bank (2007) ●● ⊘⊘ ● ⊘ ○ WSP (2008) ●● ● ○ ○ ● ●● Eawag-Sandec (2011) ●● ●● ● ●● ●● ● pS-Eau (2012) ●● ○ ○ ●● ●● ●● International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 197 systems (Eawag-Sandec 2011) and the deﬁnition of in particular, provides a multi-criteria analysis pro- water requirements for the different technologies cedure for technology selection. (pS-Eau 2012). Concerning agriculture and energy, Concerning technology and operation, the most information is provided on the potential of technol- considered sustainable dimension, various technol- ogies to produce sanitation products that can be ogies are characterised, namely regarding operation used as fertilizers or energy sources, as well as, on and maintenance requirements, functionality and energy consumption requirements (Eawag-Sandec ease of construction (WSP 2008; Eawag-Sandec 2011;pS-Eau 2012). Regarding spatial planning, 2011;pS-Eau 2012). In ﬁnancial and economic some decision factors for technology selection are terms, guidance is provided on calculating technol- presented for guidance, namely space constraints, ogy life cycle costs (WSP 2008; Eawag-Sandec land use, housing layout, tenure issues (WSP 2011), and approximate technology costs are pro- 2008), the distance between pits and the disposal vided (pS-Eau 2012). The process guides integrate or treatment site, the required surface area and the social issues through community workshops accessibility needed for emptying pits (pS-Eau together with information on organisational aspects 2012). Finally, stormwater drainage and solid (WSP 2008;Eawag-Sandec 2011), or by the inclu- waste management are the less considered sectors, sion of one selection criteria related to the technol- both receiving most guidance in Eawag-Sandec ogy social acceptance and a methodological guide (2011), in which stormwater is an input to technol- on how to analyse users demand (pS-Eau 2012). ogy systems templates, and references to tools for Within the institutional dimension, the need to solid waste management are provided. look at different interests likely to impact decisions in different domains, from the household to beyond the city, is stressed by IWA (2006). Also, support is provided on how to involve stakeholders in deci- 4.2 Multiplicity of sustainable dimensions sion-making (Eawag-Sandec 2011;pS-Eau 2012), All analysed process guides recognize the rele- which is said to avoid potential conﬂicts with exist- vance of all sustainability dimensions, either as ing policies and regulations. Concerning the envir- onmental dimension, factors are presented that may representing factors that affect the outcome of inﬂuence choices like the quantity of wastewater sanitation investments, or as being part of an produced, soil type, groundwater depth, topography enabling environment representing the minimal and some basic information regarding resources requirements to conduct the planning (Table 5). recovery (WSP 2008; Eawag-Sandec 2011;pS- The importance of considering possible interde- Eau 2012). Finally, although recognized as a pri- pendencies and trade-offs between sustainable mary concern, health concerns are poorly repre- dimensions is also generally stressed, warning sented in decision-making. Indeed, only references that improvements in one aspect may be reduced are provided, namely on the need to consider health if carried out in isolation. Eawag-Sandec (2011), Table 5. Comprehensiveness of the multiplicity of sustainable dimensions. Technology Financial and Socio- Environment Health and economic Institutional cultural and natural and Process guide operation issues aspects aspects resources Hygiene IWA (2006) ●○ ● ○ ○ ○ World Bank (2007) ●○ ○ ○ ○ ○ WSP (2008) ●● ●● ○ ●● ●● ● Eawag-Sandec (2011) ●● ●● ●● ●● ● ● pS-Eau (2012) ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ○ 198 A. Ramôa et al. aspects when water is reused in agriculture (WSP wastewater segments is generally higher when com- 2008), or to include municipal health ofﬁcers as pared to the other segments. Major forms of gui- stakeholders (Eawag-Sandec 2011). dance include the enumeration of factors that might inﬂuence choice and some general guidance for technology selection in the form of examples, tables or simpliﬁed decision trees, although only for a few 4.3 System analysis perspective technologies (World Bank 2007;WSP 2008). As The level of comprehensiveness of the system previously said, worth noting is the attention that analysis perspective seems to be high as all the Eawag-Sandec (2011) and pS-Eau (2012)place on corresponding decision elements (here referred as the entire sanitation supply chain. In particular, sanitation segments), i.e., from the user interface Eawag-Sandec (2011) is meant to be used jointly to the ﬁnal disposal or reuse of the different gen- with a Compendium of Sanitation Systems and erated waste products, are considered to be impor- Technologies (Tilley et al. 2014) which provides tant by all process guides (Table 6). In fact, there information about sanitation technologies along the is a general recognition that addressing only one full range of system segments. PowerPoint presen- particular segment may transfer the problem else- tation slides about the compendium are provided to where, thereby, not offering the full intended ben- help planners familiarize with its related concepts. eﬁts. However, this is not reﬂected in guidance to In pS-Eau (2012), technologies from each segment decision-making in all analysed guides. are compared for selection using technology fact Furthermore, references were found on the rele- sheets, pre-deﬁned feasibility criteria and through vance of looking at the interdependencies between various decision tables and diagrams. segments. In this regard, Eawag-Sandec (2011) and pS-Eau (2012) guarantee the segment interde- pendency based on the deﬁnition of system tem- 4.4 Co-existence of planning scales plates or sanitation chains, respectively, which represent a combination of technologies along The analysed process guides either focus on the the segments of the sanitation supply chain, thus city-wide scale or the localised small-scale, i.e., ensuring material ﬂow compatibility and avoiding neighbourhood scale (Table 7). This seems to be the need to consider every technology closely related to their respective target audiences. permutation. Additionally, the need to harmonize both planning The guidance provided on the user interface/ scales receives little attention and limited guidance collection and on the transport and treatment of is provided on the coordination between these two Table 6. Comprehensiveness of the system analysis perspective. Sludge Wastewater Interface/ Disposal/ Disposal/ Process guide Collection Emptying Transport Treatment Reuse Transport Treatment Reuse IWA (2006) ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ World Bank ●● ○ ○ ○ ● ● ● (2007) WSP (2008) ●○ ○ ○ ○ ● ● ○ Eawag- ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● Sandec (2011) pS-Eau ●● ●● ●● ● ○ ●● ●● ● (2012) International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 199 Table 7. Comprehensiveness of the co-existence of organize community workshops. It assumes the planning scales. process is time-consuming, but afﬁrms that it con- tributes to ﬁnding solutions better accepted by key City-wide Localized stakeholders and better suited to the case-speciﬁc Process guide scale small-scale conditions. IWA (2006) ●○ World Bank (2007) ● ⊘ WSP (2008) ○○ 5. Improvement of process guides to support Eawag-Sandec (2011) ●●● comprehensive decisions pS-Eau (2012) ●● ⊘ The analysed process guides are considered to be adequate starting points to assist in the considera- scales. Eawag-Sandec (2011) is the process guide tion of the broad range of decision elements which mostly recognizes the relevance of both under study. This is particularly due to their planning scales, highlighting the need for the ability to create awareness of certain aspects local initiatives to complement and be supported and to help structure decisions. Although there by city-level services. It ﬁrst analyses whether is no single process guide which provides sup- there is a productive working relationship between portive guidance to all decision elements, these community-level initiatives and public sector documents seem to progressively recognise that agencies. It then stresses the need to identify the addressing only some decision elements may just main links within city-wide infrastructures and transfer problems elsewhere, leading to undesired existing municipal or private services. Also, IWA results. Indeed, the more recent they are, the (2006) suggests identifying the pay-offs between more elements receive decision-making guidance. stakeholder interests and factors inﬂuencing the Nevertheless, detailed support for the integration identiﬁcation of appropriate sanitation systems at of decision elements into technology decision- different scale levels, but not many details are making is not always provided, even when pro- provided on how to deal with the localized cess guides acknowledge the importance of con- small-scale. sidering such elements at some point of the All analysed process guides recognize the planning process. This section reﬂects on how importance of the city-wide perspective, namely to further develop existing process guides to bet- to guarantee that decisions do not cause deteriora- ter support comprehensive technology decision- tion of the wider environment. pS-Eau (2012) making. Suggested improvements may be possi- provides the most detailed guidance at the city- bly undertaken by international organizations and wide scale, encouraging the coherence in technol- research institutions involved in the development ogy choices at town level. This document divides of existing process guides, as well as, entities the town into homogeneous areas and identiﬁes enrolled in urban sanitation planning. the most appropriate solution for each area, detect- ing whether it is possible to merge areas using 5.1 General suggested improvements similar sanitation solutions that may lead to econo- mies of scale. For instance, vacuum trucks may Simpliﬁed support tools within process guides need to meet the various requirements for more (e.g., fact sheets, decision tables or decision than one area. The location and construction of trees) could be updated to provide more guidance any wastewater treatment plant also need to be for all decision elements. Generally speaking, they considered at the town scale. On the other hand, are considered to be useful, particularly due to Eawag-Sandec (2011) is the only process guide their simplicity and user-friendliness. However, especially dedicated to small-scale localized pro- they do not cover all important decision elements, jects, providing detailed information on how to which may indicate an opportunity to further 200 A. Ramôa et al. explore these tools. For example, the technology developing countries (e.g., Katukiza et al. 2010), fact sheets, such as the ones found in WSP (2008), and comprehensive lists of criteria and indicators pS-Eau (2012) and referred to by Eawag-Sandec are currently available in the literature (e.g., Garfì (2011), could be updated with additional informa- & Ferrer-Martí 2011). Other alternative decision tion covering all decision elements. It is never- methodologies may also be interesting to consider theless acknowledged that technological when upgrading process guides, such as meth- innovation is an on-going process. Therefore, odologies focused on the participation of stake- technology fact sheets could be worded in such a holders rather than purely numerically focused way as to allow for changes and additions to lists analysis (Willetts et al. 2013), conceptual maps of recommended technologies. For instance, they used as visualization tools for establishing the could provide references for expected technologi- interconnectedness of all factors affecting sanita- cal developments and set the general requirements tion systems (Tiberghien et al. 2011) or the capa- that newly developed technologies should comply city factor analysis model which assesses the with, e.g., following international standards, such community’s capacity to manage a sanitation ser- as ISO 24511:2007 (ISO 2007), or referring to vice in order to assist in the selection of appro- national legislation, hopefully driven by the Best priate technologies (Bouabid & Louis 2015). Available Technology (BAT) or the Best Available Process guides’ users could then select which Technology Not Entailing Excessive Costs tools to use in accordance with the speciﬁc situa- (BATNEEC) approaches. These approaches are tion, namely data availability. For this to be effec- expected to better ensure the affordability and the tive, process guides should explain how to use long-term performance of selected technologies. It these other resources and tools in a complemen- should be stressed that on-site sanitation technol- tary way. ogies typically found in developing countries need Additional real case applications of decision more research, namely for the deﬁnition of perfor- elements in decision-making processes could also mance criteria, compared to the end-of-pipe solu- be presented by process guides, including success- tions usually found in developed countries (Ujang ful examples but also situations where there are & Henze 2006). lessons to be learnt from failures. This should be Providing links to other documentation or accompanied by a clear explanation of the context existing decision tools, e.g., the guidelines pro- where such real cases occurred, since many chal- duced by WHO (2006) on the safe use of sanita- lenges and solutions in the sanitation sector are tion products or the cost-based decision tools site-speciﬁc. It is particularly recommended to applied to the sanitation sector (Fonseca et al. take into account community practices which 2011), might also be relevant for helping process occur to compensate for the inefﬁciencies of the guides’ users to become familiar with certain formal services but that remain unrecognised and issues and explore them in more detail. With the unsupported (Hofmann 2011). For example, exception of Eawag-Sandec (2011), which pro- although not representing the most preferable solu- vides a simpliﬁed multi-criteria procedure for tion in terms of public health, in some cases, technology selection, decision-support tools, such manual emptying of pits might be the most viable as multi-criteria analysis or life cycle assessment, solution, at least in the short-term. Process guides are not explored in analysed process guides. should then support planners to identify further Incorporating or referring to such decision tools improvements of existing local solutions rather is therefore another suggestion for improving pro- than solely guiding planners to select new tech- cess guides. In particular, multi-criteria analyses, nologies. In the example provided, process guides which rate options against various criteria to come could, for instance, suggest improving the manual up with most appropriate solutions, have been emptying equipment in order to avoid human con- increasingly applied in the sanitation sector of tact with faeces during emptying activities. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 201 Finally, some further improvements in process to select a certain technology considering that it guides can be identiﬁed to help guarantee that will be managed by the municipal entity, these these documents actually facilitate effective deci- planning documents should prompt the users for sion-making, especially regarding the ﬂexibility the selection of technologies taking into account required to comply with different urban planning other service provision models. Such potentially situations. First, they could further beneﬁt from alternative models could include community adapting to distinct levels of information available initiatives or the involvement of the formal or for decision-making. This would allow the process informal private sector. Indeed, these alternative to be as comprehensive as possible without falling service provision models may be beneﬁcial to into disproportional resource-intensive, complex compensate for inefﬁciencies of formal public ser- or even impossible analyses. In fact, data in devel- vices. Their consideration may actually broaden oping countries is often scarce, of poor quality and the range of appropriate technologies under dis- it is usually not captured in the required form. cussion as it may inﬂuence, e.g., the adequacy of Therefore, process guides could ﬁrst provide operation and maintenance procedures or the cost detailed indicators for supporting technology recovery of certain solutions. selection based on numerical thresholds, e.g., water consumption levels (litres/capita/day). 5.2 Improvements applied to each category of Nevertheless, it would be helpful if they also analysis allow for a second level of guidance rather than blocking the planning process by unavailable data. It is considered preferable that process guides take In this example, users could be guided on technol- a comprehensive approach and deal with all rele- ogy selection based on more easily available infor- vant decision elements due to their potential of mation, such as the modality of water provision awareness-raising, while helping users to select (stand post, yard tap or in-house connection). the elements which actually need deeper consid- Complementary, efforts need to be continuously eration in each particular situation. Nevertheless, enforced by practitioners to improve available prioritizing improvements on process guides may information. Second, planning documents could be particularly relevant when sufﬁcient resources prompt the involvement of a broad range of sta- are not available to undertake the previously men- keholders in order to consolidate taken decisions. tioned recommendations. In order to further sug- A multi-disciplinary team would help to address gest how process guides can be improved, it is common low levels of knowledge and skills of interesting to compare with how each category of planners. Nevertheless, in cases where this is not comprehensiveness is addressed in practice. possible, process guides should clearly advise for Within the multi-sectoral approach, the analy- areas of expertise that are needed to analyse some sis of planning documents showed that linkages particular aspects. For instance, they could advise between sanitation and water supply are deemed users to look for the opinion of experts who would most important to consider. This is probably justi- speciﬁcally assess the possibility of applying ﬁed by the historical recognition of water and sludge to crops and identify irrigation practices sanitation interdependencies (Carter et al. 1999). appropriate for the wastewater quality expected In opposition, connections with other sectors, to be obtained by the treatment technologies especially stormwater drainage and solid waste under analysis. Third, in order to comply with management, are less explored in process guides. distinct governance structures, process guides This low consideration of multi-sectoral linkages should be compatible with different institutional is in-line with realities on the ground, where sec- frameworks and working conditions, while allow- tors are usually not integrated in planning pro- ing for productive relationships between stake- cesses or they are not institutionally close to each holders. For example, instead of guiding the user other (Lüthi et al. 2012). However, in certain 202 A. Ramôa et al. contexts, the systematic consideration of other certain sustainability dimensions, for instance, by sectors might be crucial when planning sanitation providing examples of successes and failures of solutions, particularly in cases where cross-sec- past decisions. Adding information to technology toral relations are not obvious, or are affected by fact sheets is believed to be an interesting way of misconceptions. Therefore, users of process guides supporting the analysis of sustainability dimen- would beneﬁt if they could follow an explicit and sions. However, a balance is required so that fact structured checklist of the situations where sanita- sheets do not become overloaded with informa- tion technologies are potentially affected by exist- tion. Providing references to further documenta- ing and planned solutions found in sanitation- tion describing technologies is an option to related sectors, or situations where potential syner- alleviate this problem. Particularly, the health gies of combined sectoral solutions may exist. As dimension should be emphasised in order to analysed sanitation-related sectors might be judge technologies according to their expected handled by distinct institutions, the suggested health risks and the potential health gains to the improvements could also help to involve stake- communities. In this respect, further documenta- holders from different sectors earlier in the plan- tion to be referred to might include, for instance, ning process. the report from Stenström et al. (2011), which Technical, economic and socio-cultural issues clearly presents the health risks associated with receive most guidance among the sustainability different sanitation technologies. Complementary dimensions of analysed process guides, with a methodologies and approaches might also be particular emphasis on technology management referred to, such as health impact and microbial requirements, costs and community preferences. risk methodologies, the recently developed rapid Those dimensions are actually viewed by the sec- participatory sanitation system risk assessment tor as critical to guarantee sustainability, although methodology (Campos et al. 2015) or the multi- being often overlooked (Montgomery et al. 2009). barrier approach applied by Sanitation Safety Health is the least considered dimension in ana- Plans (WHO 2015). Finally, the clear focus on lysed guides. It seems that these documents the functions of the technologies under considera- assume that providing sanitation will lead to the tion (e.g., whether they provide low level or com- achievement of health goals and, therefore, few plete treatment) is critical so that planners orientations are provided. More detailed guidance compare options which actually provide similar was also expected to be found on the recovery of outputs. water, nutrients and energy, as current sanitation Regarding the system analysis, segments deal- literature on sustainability emphasises recovery ing with sludge are generally subjected to less and reuse opportunities (e.g., Guest et al. 2009). guidance in analysed planning documents. This This might result, among other reasons, from the is in accordance with the lower attention provided fact that, besides the potential advantages of tech- to those segments in the ﬁeld (Tayler 2008). nologies allowing for resources recovery, such as Hence, it is important that process guides are source separating technologies, they are still con- able to clearly communicate the system concept sidered immature and risky by most professionals such that all segments are considered, and water- (Larsen et al. 2009). However, it should not be and dry-based solutions are equally presented. forgotten that reuse of sanitation products without Further applying the system schematics found in adequate treatment (e.g., untreated wastewater Eawag-Sandec (2011) and, additionally, develop- used for irrigation) occurs in many communities, ing decision trees to help select technologies based a fact requiring serious consideration in decision- on system thinking is expected to avoid pre-con- making. In order to facilitate the multi-dimen- ceived technical solutions that might not be ade- sional approach, process guides need to clearly quate to certain areas. In addition, it may drive show the long-term implications of disregarding planners to think not only about the user International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 203 requirements of the sanitation systems, but also the It is also interesting to note that within the end opportunities of sanitation products. Process categories: ‘multiplicity of sustainable dimen- guides could also encourage planners to explore sions’, ‘system analysis approach’ and ‘co-exis- incremental technological solutions that could be tence of planning scales’, the inter-relationships upgraded over time, for instance, by providing between respective elements are said to be relevant examples of technologies which can be adapted to account for by analysed process guides. In this to changing conditions, such as treatment plants regards, a multi-criteria methodology accounting that can be built in phases in order to accommo- for sustainability aspects and the system template/ date to increased treatment requirements and bud- sanitation chain concepts are suggested by these get availability. planning documents. Particularly, the compendium Finally, in terms of relative guidance provided of technologies from Eawag-Sandec (2011) pro- on planning scales, process guides are mainly vides a signiﬁcant contribution in the structuring applied at the city-wide scale, which is also the of systematic analysis of sanitation technologies approach that dominates current sanitation plan- and helps to account for interactions among seg- ning (Lüthi et al. 2012). It is believed that process ments of the sanitation supply chain. However, for guides focusing on different scales are all valu- the ‘co-existence of planning scales’, more sys- able. This might be in agreement with the general tematic guidance might be needed regarding har- need for combining methods and tools for envir- monisation of both scales. For instance, onmental planning and management of peri-urban independently of working small-scale or city- interfaces, ranging from the need to pay attention wide, process guides should encourage planners to the heterogeneity and power relations within to ensure coherence and coordinated efforts in communities, to broader dimensions of regional technology choice, while avoiding incompatible planning (Allen 2003). Another suggested and fragmented solutions. One possible way to improvement of process guides is to develop an deal with this is to include a clear and explicit explicit decision step which carefully assesses the step in the decision-making process where the replicability of existing small-scale localised solu- users have to follow a checklist of guided ques- tions in the city under study. Localised solutions tions, namely to investigate if there are potential may include particular types of latrines/toilets opportunities of physical connections to municipal which were introduced at a localised scale, such services, existing expertise and supply chains. as the ones providing opportunities for the reuse of Synergies and economies of scales can also be sanitation products, or the construction and man- further analysed by complementary communica- agement of transfer stations that temporarily col- tion and mapping tools that process guides may lect faecal sludge in order to reduce travel times refer to. For instance, Shit Flow Diagrams may be before ﬁnal transportation to centralised treatment used for visualizing the ﬂow of faecal matter along or disposal sites. Attention should be drawn to the multiple pathways from defecation to disposal or context-speciﬁcity of solutions which may differ end-use (WSP 2014). The Sanitation Mapper is even between neighbourhoods. another freely available tool that enables the geo- Based on the present analysis, it then is sug- graphical representation of data by mapping sani- gested that priority improvements for sanitation tation facilities and their status to inform planning process guides would be directed to the considera- (Roma et al. 2013). tion of the ‘multiplicity of sustainable dimensions’ and the ‘system analysis perspective’ as those 6. Integration of sanitation process guides into categories are usually important but not sufﬁ- urban planning ciently tackled in the ﬁeld. The ‘multi-sectoral approach’ and the ‘co-existence of planning The main point of using process guides is to scales’ are more context-speciﬁc. facilitate planning. This is particularly important 204 A. Ramôa et al. as inadequate planning often limits the success of advocacy for ‘pro-poor’ and more ‘inclusive’ urban development interventions. The present sec- urban planning approaches (Watson 2009) can tion intends to explore the integration of process also beneﬁt from the use of sanitation process guides into urban planning debates, both from a guides. Indeed, such planning documents are theoretical and a practical perspective. increasingly incorporating guidance to develop non-conventional urban solutions that are contex- tualised to poor areas. 6.1 Theoretical debates The process-oriented and multi-actor nature of the 6.2 Practical recommendations for urban analysed process guides is believed to facilitate the planners implementation of contemporary urban planning approaches. For instance, these planning docu- The present analysis can also provide insights to ments may contribute to address power imbal- urban planners and managers, namely regarding ances, as well as social and environmental justice the use of process guides, the balanced need for principles (as defended by advocacy planning), to comprehensiveness and suggested key comple- ease consensus building processes (as in delibera- mentary actions required for successful decisions. tive planning), or to support dialogue and cope First of all, it would be important to under- with uncertainty and conﬂicts (as in communica- stand the real use of analysed process guides. A tive planning). Furthermore, contrary to master complementary study analysing interviews to planning which typically evaluates data from dif- practitioners with international experience in ferent disciplines separately, a ‘trans-disciplinary sanitation concluded that besides the increased approach’ can be used when applying process awareness of current alternatives to planning, the guides so that mutual inﬂuences of data are ana- application of process guides has been quite lysed (Smith & Jenkins 2015). Additionally, the limited, namely due to low dissemination or relevance of the ‘facilitator’ of a planning process, low interest from planners. This makes it difﬁ- as considered in communication and collaboration cult to analyse the real impacts of the use of planning theories (Lawrence 2000), is also process guides, their advantages and limitations. reﬂected in some analysed process guides where It is therefore important to promote the use of support is provided to the person undertaking this these planning documents, follow up on the role. The concept of ‘decision windows’ as devel- cases where they are used and share lessons oped by Stigt et al. (2013), meaning critical for future applications. Improved marketing moments in which different interests are com- that effectively reaches planners is suggested to bined, can also be supported by sanitation process increase use of process guides. For example, guides. In this sector, a ‘decision window’ might electronic versions or paper copies of these occur when structural institutional reforms are documents may be provided at conferences or under way, when priority and budget are allocated international meetings and planning promotion to sanitation, or simply because a proactive person campaigns targeted speciﬁcally at planners and joins an organization. In fact, if it is not possible to decision-makers may be undertaken. It would gather all relevant stakeholders from the beginning also be relevant to regularly upgrade process of the planning process, planners can still make guides in accordance with evolving needs in use of process guides to help identifying possible the sector. Furthermore, national or local gov- relevant decision elements and possible solutions, ernments could also adapt and develop their own while at the same time, staying ﬂexible enough to guides,possiblytranslatingthemtolocal recognise and stimulate decision windows to languages. cooperate with other planning areas and to reframe Second, when planning sanitation solutions, the original problem accordingly. At last, the even in cases where process guides are used, it International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 205 might be not only difﬁcult but also irrelevant to be the possible connections between both scales. fully comprehensive. Indeed, not all decision ele- Then, planners should identify the sectors, sustain- ments are equally important in every situation. On ability dimensions and segments of the supply the other hand, too many aspects to consider might chain that potentially affect or are affected by end up complicating and possibly ruining the solutions needed for the local context, at the pre- whole planning process. Therefore, it is underlined sent and in the future. Accordingly, appropriate here that when applying process guides it is more process guides would be selected. It would then important to identify most relevant elements rather be desirable if process guides label themselves than comprehensively include all of them. This is with regards to the aspects that are explored in also expected to avoid highly resource-consuming more detail and the contexts in which they are data collection processes by excluding decision particularly applicable. Furthermore, if a particular elements that are not locally prioritised. In practi- process guide does not cover all important ele- cal terms, depending on the speciﬁc planning ments, some complementarity between more than objectives, existing conditions and available one, as well as, additional resources and coopera- resources, the ﬁrst important question to be asked tion with stakeholders from different disciplinary would be whether planning is to take place at the expertise might be needed to support the planning city-wide or small-scale, while keeping in mind process. Table 8. Complementary actions for successful planning against each category of comprehensiveness. Category of comprehensiveness Complementary actions for successful planning Multi-sectoral approach ● Guarantee that sanitation is not overlooked in favour of other sectors. ● Involve stakeholders from different sectors early in the planning process in order to design potential synergies of combined solutions. ● Lobby for sanitation when preparing urban development plans (e.g. considering implications from tenure issues on service accessibility, space needed for treatment sites, etc.). Multiplicity of sustainable Encourage multi-disciplinary teams, e.g. including municipal health ofﬁcers. dimensions Promote public participation, namely through community workshops. Encourage the consideration of long-term implications of certain technologies, e.g., preparing and disseminating manuals in local languages describing technical operation and maintenance, life cycle costs, etc. Follow-up on the implementation of selected technologies. System analysis perspective Promote the system thinking such that all segments are considered, as well as, their interdependencies. Codify non-conventional but still appropriate technologies (e.g., on-site solutions, simpliﬁed sewers, if applicable) into national technical standards or regulations. Support the emphasis on the recovery and reuse opportunities of sanitation products. Co-existence of planning Acknowledge the importance of distinct service provision models (e.g. community- scales driven or informal providers). Assess urban dynamics (e.g. increased population density) and allow for ﬂexible solutions at different scales. ● Support small-scale solutions, if appropriate, and facilitate exchange of experiences for collective learning. ● Investigate potential opportunities of economies of scale (e.g., physical connec- tions), thus avoiding fragmented or incompatible solutions. 206 A. Ramôa et al. Finally, a supportive enabling environment is highlight the interconnectedness of elements recognised as essential to guarantee the actual affecting sanitation decisions and may play an uptake of process guides and a successful planning important role to make certain aspects visible for and implementation process. Aspects increasingly policy-makers and practitioners. Nevertheless, discussed in the literature include prioritisation of decision support in the studied planning docu- sanitation by governments, support from interna- ments is not always provided in a detailed way tional donors on institutional reforms, stronger that would support technology selection process. inter-sectoral collaboration (Uwejamomere 2011), It is therefore important that process guides are recognition of the potential role of the private sector continuously improved, e.g., by international orga- in the provision of sanitation services and the nizations and research institutions. The potential urgent need to formally recognise poor commu- of support tools within analysed process guides, nities under new governance regimes (Hofmann namely decision tables, decision trees, fact sheets 2011). Indeed, although it is advocated in this arti- and checklists, can be further explored taking cle that process guides may help structuring plan- advantage of their visually driven simplicity. In ning and decision-making processes, it is also order to enrich process guides and avoid overload- recognised that complementary actions for each ing them with excessive information, these plan- category are needed as a crucial complement to ning documents may also refer to relevant the use of such planning documents (Table 8). documentation and existing decision-support Besides the speciﬁcmeasures identiﬁed for each tools, while explaining how to integrate these category, some additional recommendations to resources into the decision-making process. In practitioners and planners wishing to employ pro- addition, presenting real case studies might also cess guides include the need to allocate resources be useful for planners. Increasing the ﬂexibility of for planning, clarify roles of stakeholders involved process guides to adapt to distinct levels of data in service provision, promote dialogue and coopera- availability, existing knowledge, working practices tion, qualify practitioners competencies, formulate and institutional frameworks is also paramount. adequate policies and support the enforcement of Priority improvements should be devoted to the laws. consideration of the multiplicity of sustainable dimensions and the system analysis perspective, as those aspects are usually important and not 7. Conclusions sufﬁciently tackled in the ﬁeld. The present study ﬁrst identiﬁed categories of The present analysis also resonates with dis- decision elements potentially relevant to take into cussions around general urban planning theories account when planning sanitation, sorted in four and practices in developing countries. Indeed, the distinct categories: (a) the multi-sectoral approach, process-oriented and multi-actor nature of ana- (b) the multiplicity of sustainable dimensions, (c) lysed process guides is expected to facilitate the the system analysis perspective and (d) the co- implementation of modern forms of planning, such existence of planning scales. These categories are as collaborative and deliberative ones. However, important not only to help planners selecting sani- in practical terms, the real uptake of these guides tation technologies but also to adapt technological is quite limited, which justiﬁes the need to explore designs and identify complementary measures, for options for increasing their use, e.g., improved instance, on how to control health risks or reduce marketing that effectively reaches planners. costs not completely dealt with by selected Selecting the appropriate process guides for the technologies. elements that are locally prioritised is also sug- The above-mentioned categories are increas- gested. However, from an urban planner’s per- ingly acknowledged as crucial by the analysed spective, some limitations on the detailed urban sanitation process guides. These documents guidance provided by process guides might mean International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 207 that complementary support may be needed, e.g., Technology (EAWAG). His research includes the vali- dation of demand-driven community-based and strategic by consulting further documentation or through citywide planning approaches and the development of cooperation with different disciplinary experts. contextualised planning tools for urban infrastructure. Finally, it is paramount to recognise that, even Jennifer McConville is a postdoc researcher at Chalmers when using these guides, an enabling environment Architecture, Chalmers University of Technology, is crucial to guarantee the successful planning and Gothenburg, Sweden. Her research interests are related implementation of selected solutions, e.g., through to processes of planning and decision-making with appropriate policy frameworks and planning regards to urban sanitation and wastewater management. She works with concepts of sustainability, life-cycle procedures. thinking, participation and decision support frameworks In conclusion, increasing the added value of to better shape planning processes. process guides and better integrating them into José Saldanha Matos is full Professor at the School of urban sanitation planning practices is believed to Engineering of the University of Lisbon, Portugal, support planners undertake more efﬁcient and where he is coordinating the Sanitary Engineering locally adapted decisions. The presented sugges- group. He is fellow of the International Water tions are likely to be signiﬁcant for other urban Association and Vice President of the European Water sectors of developing countries facing similar Association. His main interests cover wastewater engi- neering for developing countries. challenges, such as water supply and solid waste management (e.g., Guerrero et al. 2013). It is then expected to help dealing with the multi- ORCID faceted nature of urban sustainable development, A. Ramôa http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5954-6241 with the ultimate goal to improve living condi- J. McConville http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0373-685X tions of urban communities in developing J. Matos http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1335-0635 countries. Disclosure statement References No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the Allen A. 2003. Environmental planning and manage- authors. ment of the peri-urban interface: perspectives on an emerging ﬁeld. Environ Urban. 15:135–148. ASCE. 1986. Urban planning guide. ASCE manuals and reports on engineering practice, no. 49. New York Funding (NY): American Society of Civil Engineers. The work of the ﬁrst author was supported by the Barnes R, Roser D, Brown P. 2011. Critical evaluation Portuguese Foundation of Science and Technology of planning frameworks for rural water and sanita- (FCT) with the grant SFRH/BD/75785/2011. tion development projects. Dev Pract. 21:168–189. Bouabid A, Louis G. 2015. Capacity factor analysis for evaluating water and sanitation infrastructure choices for developing communities. J Environ Notes on contributors Manage. 161:335–343. Ana Ramôa is a doctoral student at Instituto Superior Butala N, VanRooyen M, Patel R. 2010. Improved Técnico (University of Lisbon), Portugal. Her disserta- health outcomes in urban sums through infrastruc- tion aims at developing a decision support methodology ture upgrading. Soc Sci Med. 71:935–940. for improving sanitation services of peri-urban areas in Campos L, Ross P, Nasir Z, Taylor H, Parkinson J. developing countries integrating sustainability aspects 2015. Development and application of a methodol- and the system thinking (from the interface of the user ogy to assess sanitary risks in Maputo, with the sanitation system to the ﬁnal destination of Mozambique. Environ Urban. 27:1–19. sanitation products). Carter R, Tyrrel S, Howsam P. 1999. The impact of Christoph Lüthi is head of the Department of Sanitation, sustainability of community water supply and sani- Water and Solid Waste for Development (Sandec) at the tation programs in developing countries. J Chartered Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Inst Water Environ Manage. 13:292–296. 208 A. Ramôa et al. Eawag-Sandec. 2011. Community-Led Urban Kennedy-Walker R, Evans B, Amezaga J, Paterson C. Environmental Sanitation Planning: CLUES – 2014. Challenges for the future of urban sanitation Complete Guidelines for Decision-Makers with 30 planning: critical analysis of John Kalbermatten’s Tools. Dübendorf (Switzerland): Swiss Federal inﬂuence. J Water Sanit Hyg Dev. 4:1–14. Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Larsen T, Alder A, Eggen R, Maurer M, Liener J. 2009. Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council Source separation: will we see a paradigm shift in and United Nations Human Settlements Programme. wastewater handling? Environ Sci Technol. Fonseca C, Dubé A, Verhoeven J 2011. Cost-based 43:6121–6125. decision support tools for water and sanitation. Lawrence D. 2000. Planning theories and environmental impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre. 20:607–625. WASHCost, Working Paper 4. Lüthi C, Lehn H, Norstrom A, Panesar A, Rud S, Garfì M, Ferrer-Martí L. 2011. Decision-making criteria Saywell D, Verhagen J, Ulrich L, Ingle R 2012. and indicators for water and sanitation projects in Planning of sustainable sanitation for cities. developing countries. Water Sci Technol. 64:83–101. SuSanA factsheet. Cities and Planning: Working GHK, WEDC, WSP-SA. 2000. Strategic planning for Group 6. municipal sanitation: A guide. First ed. London, Lüthi C, Panesar A, Schutze T, Norström A, McConville UK: GHK Research and Training Ltd.. J, Parkinson J, Saywell D, Ingle R. 2011. sustain- Gomez J, Nakat A. 2002. Community participation in able sanitation in cities – A framework for action. water and sanitation. Water Int. 27:343–353. The Netherlands: Sustainable Sanitation Alliance Guerrero L, Maas G, Hogland W. 2013. Solid waste and International Forum on Urbanism, Papiroz management challenges for cities in developing Publishing House. countries. Waste Manage. 33:220–232. Lüthi C, Parkinson J 2011. Environmental sanitation Guest J, Barnard J, Beck M, Daigger G, Hilger H, planning for cities of the South – Linking local Jackson S, Karvazy K, Kelly L, Macpherson L, level initiatives with city-wide action. Mihelcic J, et al. 2009. A new planning and design 35th WEDC International Conference, paradigm to achieve sustainable resource recovery Loughborough, UK. from wastewater. Environ Sci Technol. 43:6126– 6130. Maurer M, Bufardi A, Tilley E, Zurbrügg C, Truffer B. Hofmann P. 2011. Falling through the net: access to 2012. A compatibility-based procedure designed to water and sanitation by the peri-urban water poor. generate potential sanitation system alternatives. J Int J Urban Sustain Dev. 3:40–55. Environ Manage. 104:51–61. ISO. 2007. ISO 24511:2007(E): Activities relating to McConville J, Kain J, Kvarnström E, Renman G. 2011. drinking water and wastewater services — Bridging sanitation engineering and planning: the- Guidelines for the management of wastewater utili- ory and practice in Burkina Faso. J Water Sanit Hyg ties and for the assessment of wastewater services. Dev. 1:205–212. Geneva (Switzerland): International Organization Montgomery M, Bartram J, Elimelech M. 2009. for Standardization. Increasing functional sustainability of water and sanitation supplies in rural Sub-Saharan Africa. Isunju J, Schwartz K, Schouten M, Johnson W, Van Dijk Environ Eng Sci. 26:1017–1023. M. 2011. Socio-economic aspects of improved sani- Nilsson D. 2006. A heritage of unsustainability? tation in slums: a review. Public Health. 125:368– Reviewing the origin of the large-scale water and sanitation system in Kampala, Uganda. Environ IWA. 2006. Sanitation 21. Simple approaches to com- Urban. 18:369–385. plex sanitation. A draft framework for analysis. Okurut K, Charles K. 2014. Household demand for London (UK): International Water Association. sanitation improvements in low-income informal Katukiza A, Ronteltap M, Oleja A, Niwagaba C, settlements: a case of East African cities. Habitat Kansiime F, Lens P. 2010. Selection of sustainable Int. 44:332–338. sanitation technologies for urban slums – a case of Palaniappan M, Lang M, Gleick P. 2008. A review of bwaise III in Kampala, Uganda. Sci Total Environ. decision-making support tools in the water, sanita- 409:52–62. tion and hygiene sector. Oakland (CA): Paciﬁc Keivani R. 2010. A review of the main challenges to Institute and Environmental Change and Security urban sustainability. Int J Urban Sustain Dev. 1:5– Program. 16. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 209 Peal A, Evans B, Van Der Voorden C. 2010. Hygiene Tilley E, Ulrich L, Lüthi C, Reymond P, Zurbrügg C. and sanitation software: an overview of approaches. 2014. Compendium of sanitation systems and tech- nd Geneva, Switzerland: Water Supply and Sanitation nologies. 2 Revised ed. Dübendorf, CH: Swiss Collaborative Council. Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and pS-Eau. 2012. How to select appropriate technical solu- Technology (Eawag). tions for sanitation – Methodological guides, nº4. Törnqvist R, Norström A, Kärrman E, Malmqvist P. Paris (France): Program Solidarité Eau and 2008. A framework for planning of sustainable Municipal Development Partnership. water and sanitation systems in peri-urban areas. Richardson T. 2005. Environmental assessment and Water Sci Technol. 58:563–570. planning theory: four short stories about power, Ujang Z, Henze M. 2006. Municipal wastewater man- multiple rationality, and ethics. Environ Impact agement in developing countries: principles and Assess Rev. 25:341–365. engineering. London, UK: IWA Publishing. Roma E, Pearce J, Brown C, Islam S. 2013. Note from Uwejamomere T. 2011. The challenge of urban poverty the ﬁeld: sanitation mapper: a tool for mapping and and inequalities in developing world cities: issues monitoring sanitation in low-income countries. and options for the sanitation and water sector. Int J Waterlines. 31:309–313. Urban Sustain Dev. 3:127–131. Rosales N. 2011. Towards the modelling of sustainabil- Watson V. 2009. “The planned city sweeps the poor st ity into urban planning: using indicators to build away. . .”: urban planning and 21 century urbanisa- sustainable cities. Procedia Eng. 21:641–647. tion. Prog Plann. 72:151–193. Rosemarin A, Ekane N, Caldwell I, Kvarnström E, WHO. 2006. Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, McConville J, Ruben C, Fogde M. 2008. excreta and greywater. Geneva (Switzerland): World Pathways for sustainable sanitation: achieving the Health Organization. millennium development goals. Stockholm: WHO. 2015. Sanitation safety planning manual for safe Stockholm Environment Institute/International use and disposal of wastewater, greywater and excreta. Water Association. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization. Rossiter J 2000. Integrated urban housing development. WHO and UNICEF. 2015. Progress on sanitation and Comparison of single sector, multisector and inte- drinking water –2015 update and MDG assessment. grated urban development projects and their impact Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization. on the livelihoods of the urban poor. Working paper 1. Willetts J, Paddon M, Nam N, Trung N, Carrard N. Smith H, Jenkins P. 2015. Trans-disciplinary research 2013. Sustainability assessment of sanitation and strategic urban expansion planning in a context options in Vietnam: planning with the future in of weak institutional capacity: case study of mind. J Water Sanit Hyg Dev. 3:262–268. Huambo, Angola. Habitat Int. 46:244–251. World Bank. 2007. Principles of town water supply and Stenström T, Seidu R, Ekane N, Zurbrügg C. 2011. sanitation. Part 2: sanitation. Washington (DC): The Microbial exposure and health assessments in sani- World Bank. tation technologies and systems. Stockholm Wright A. 1997. Towards a strategic sanitation approach: improving the sustainability of urban Environment Institute. Eco SanRes Ser. 2011-1:1– 154. sanitation planning in developing countries, water Stigt R, Driessen P, Spitt T. 2013. A window on urban and sanitation program. Washington (DC): The sustainability – integration of environmental inter- World Bank. ests in urban planning through “decision windows”. WSP. 2008. Technology options for urban sanitation in Environ Impact Assess Rev. 42:18–24. india for rural drinking water and sanitation in dis- Tayler K. 2008. Urban sanitation – lessons from experi- trict municipalities. New Delhi (India): Water ence. Waterlines. 27:30–47. Sanitation Program. Tayler N. 1998. Urban Planning Theories Since 1945. WSP. 2010. Marching Together with a Citywide London (UK): SAGE Publications. Sanitation Strategy. Washington (DC): Water Tiberghien J, Robbins P, Tyrrel S. 2011.Reﬂexive Sanitation Program. assessment of practical and holistic sanitation devel- WSP. 2014. The missing link in sanitation service deliv- opment tools using the rural and peri-urban case of ery: a review of fecal sludge management in 12 cities. Mexico. J Environ Manage. 92:457–471. Washington (DC): Water Sanitation Program. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development Taylor & Francis http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/taylor-francis/urban-sanitation-technology-decision-making-in-developing-countries-a-zPUnLALAAe

Loading next page...

References (72)

T. Larsen, A. Alder, R. Eggen, M. Maurer, J. Lienert (2009)
Source separation: will we see a paradigm shift in wastewater handling?
Environmental science & technology, 43 16
T. Stenström, R. Seidu, N. Ekane, Zurbrügg Christian (2011)
Microbial exposure and health assessments in sanitation technologies and systems
(2000)
Integrated urban housing development. Comparison of single sector, multisector and integrated urban development projects and their impact on the livelihoods of the urban poor
E. Roma, J. Pearce, Christopher Brown, S. Islam (2012)
Sanitation Mapper: A tool for mapping and monitoring sanitation in low-income countries
Waterlines, 31
E. Tilley, C. Lüthi, A. Morel, C. Zurbrügg, R. Schertenleib (2008)
Compendium of sanitation systems and technologies
T. Schilderman, V. Lall, S. Lall, J. Omotto, Michael Kiyanyui, E. Mwangi, Edward Marona, Pauline Chege, M. Albu, E. Agevi, S. Kiarie, J. Mwaura, H. Kamau (2005)
INTEGRATED URBAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
(2009)
A new planning and design
(2008)
A review of decision-making support tools in the water, sanitation and hygiene sector
(1999)
The impact of sustainability of community water supply and sanitation programs in developing countries
(2013)
Note from the field: sanitation mapper: a tool for mapping and monitoring sanitation in low-income countries
C. Lüthi, A. Panesar, T. Schütze, A. Norström, J. McConville, J. Parkinson, D. Saywell, R. Ingle (2010)
Sustainable sanitation in cities : A framework for action
K. Tayler, J. Colin, J. Parkinson (2000)
Strategic planning for municipal sanitation: a guide
B. Evans, D. Saywell (2006)
Sanitation 21: Simple Approaches to Complex Sanitation - A Draft Framework for Analysis
J. Guest, S. Skerlos, J. Barnard, M. Beck, G. Daigger, H. Hilger, S. Jackson, Karen Karvazy, Linda Kelly, L. Macpherson, J. Mihelcic, A. Pramanik, L. Raskin, M. Loosdrecht, D. Yeh, N. Love (2009)
A new planning and design paradigm to achieve sustainable resource recovery from wastewater.
Environmental science & technology, 43 16
(2012)
How to select appropriate technical solutions for sanitation -Methodological guides, nº4
(2011)
Falling through the net: access
Rebecca Barnes, D. Roser, P. Brown (2011)
Critical evaluation of planning frameworks for rural water and sanitation development projects
Development in Practice, 21
L. Campos, Philippa Ross, Z. Nasir, H. Taylor, J. Parkinson (2015)
Development and application of a methodology to assess sanitary risks in Maputo, Mozambique
Environment & Urbanization, 27
J. McConville, Jaan-Henrik Kain, E. Kvarnström, G. Renman (2011)
Bridging sanitation engineering and planning: theory and practice in Burkina Faso
Journal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, 1
D. Jackson, Mirko Winkler, T. Stenström, K. Medlicott (2015)
Sanitation safety planning : manual for safe use and disposal of wastewater, greywater and excreta
V. Watson (2009)
'The planned city sweeps the poor away ... ' § : Urban planning and 21st century urbanisation
Progress in Planning, 72
(1997)
Towards a strategic sanitation approach: improving the sustainability of urban sanitation planning in developing countries, water and sanitation program
A. Allen (2003)
Environmental planning and management of the peri-urban interface: perspectives on an emerging field
Environment & Urbanization, 15
P. Walsh (1983)
Community participation in water and sanitation
Timeyin Uwejamomere (2011)
The challenge of urban poverty and inequalities in developing world cities: issues and options for the sanitation and water sector
International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 3
A. Rosemarin, N. Ekane, I. Caldwell, E. Kvarnström, J. McConville, C. Ruben, Madeleine Fogde (2008)
Pathways for Sustainable Sanitation: Achieving the Millennium Development Goals
P. Hawkins, C. Heymans, I. Blackett (2014)
The missing link in sanitation service delivery : a review of fecal sludge management in 12 cities
D. Lawrence (2000)
Planning theories and environmental impact assessment
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20
Neel Butala, M. Vanrooyen, R. Patel (2010)
Improved health outcomes in urban slums through infrastructure upgrading.
Social science & medicine, 71 5
(2015)
Progress on sanitation and drinking water –2015 update and MDG assessment
Natalie Rosales (2011)
Towards the Modeling of Sustainability into Urban Planning: Using Indicators to Build Sustainable Cities
Procedia Engineering, 21
L. Guerrero, G. Maas, W. Hogland (2015)
Solid waste management challenges for cities in developing countries.
Waste management, 33 1
Z. Ujang, M. Henze (2015)
Municipal wastewater management in developing countries: Principles and engineering
Water intelligence online, 5
(2010)
Selection of sustainable
Barbara Evans, C. Voorden, M. Haas, R. Ahmed, J. Bartram, sally Bloomfield, P. Bongartz, J. Colin, B. Collignon, J. Devine (2010)
Hygiene and Sanitation Software: An Overview of Approaches
W. Claire (1969)
Urban planning guide
(2010)
Marching Together with a Citywide Sanitation Strategy
A. Chang, G. Pan, T. Asano, S. Buechler, G. Devi, S. Petterson, N. Ashbolt, C. Schönning, L. Schwartzbrod (2006)
Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and greywater
M. Montgomery, J. Bartram, M. Elimelech (2009)
Increasing Functional Sustainability of Water and Sanitation Supplies in Rural Sub-Saharan Africa
Environmental Engineering Science, 26
K. Tayler (2008)
Urban sanitation - lessons from experience
Waterlines, 27
(2007)
Activities relating to drinking water and wastewater services -Guidelines for the management of wastewater utilities and for the assessment of wastewater services
R. Kennedy-Walker, B. Evans, J. Amezaga, C. Paterson (2014)
Challenges for the future of urban sanitation planning: critical analysis of John Kalbermatten’s influence.
Journal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, 4
Ramin Keivani (2009)
A review of the main challenges to urban sustainability
International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 1
(1945)
Urban Planning Theories Since
(1998)
Urban Planning Theories Since 1945
(1954)
THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
Medical Journal of Australia, 2
T. Richardson (2005)
Environmental assessment and planning theory: four short stories about power, multiple rationality, and ethics
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25
R. Carter, Sean Tyrrel, P. Howsam (1999)
The Impact and Sustainability of Community Water Supply and Sanitation Programmes in Developing Countries
Water and Environment Journal, 13
R. Stigt, P. Driessen, T. Spit (2013)
A window on urban sustainability: Integration of environmental interests in urban planning through ‘decision windows’
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 42
A. Katukiza, M. Ronteltap, A. Oleja, C. Niwagaba, F. Kansiime, Piet Lens (2010)
Selection of sustainable sanitation technologies for urban slums--a case of Bwaise III in Kampala, Uganda.
The Science of the total environment, 409 1
(2015)
Development and application of a methodology to assess sanitary risks in Maputo
C. Lüthi, A. Morel, E. Tilley, L. Ulrich (2011)
Community-led urban environmental sanitation planning: CLUES. Complete guidelines for decision-makers with 30 tools
M. Maurer, Ahmed Bufardi, E. Tilley, C. Zurbrügg, B. Truffer (2012)
A compatibility-based procedure designed to generate potential sanitation system alternatives.
Journal of environmental management, 104
M. Garfí, L. Ferrer-Martí (2011)
Decision-making criteria and indicators for water and sanitation projects in developing countries.
Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research, 64 1
C. Lüthi, J. Parkinson (2011)
Environmental sanitation planning for cities of the south: linking local level initiatives with city-wide action
(2011)
Socio-economic aspects of improved sani
R. Törnqvist, A. Norström, E. Kärrman, P. Malmqvist (2008)
A framework for planning of sustainable water and sanitation systems in peri-urban areas.
Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research, 58 3
Ali Bouabid, G. Louis (2015)
Capacity factor analysis for evaluating water and sanitation infrastructure choices for developing communities.
Journal of environmental management, 161
K. Okurut, Katrina Charles (2014)
Household demand for sanitation improvements in low-income informal settlements: A case of East African cities
Habitat International, 44
D. Nilsson (2006)
A heritage of unsustainability? Reviewing the origin of the large-scale water and sanitation system in Kampala, Uganda
Environment & Urbanization, 18
J. Isunju, Klaas Schwartz, Marco Schouten, William Johnson, M. Dijk (2011)
Socio-economic aspects of improved sanitation in slums: a review.
Public health, 125 6
Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council and United Nations Human Settlements Programme
Harry Smith, Paul Jenkins (2015)
Trans-disciplinary research and strategic urban expansion planning in a context of weak institutional capacity: Case study of Huambo, Angola
Habitat International, 46
(2009)
urban planning and 21 st century urbanisation
P. Hofmann (2011)
Falling through the net: access to water and sanitation by the peri-urban water poor
International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 3
R. Sethuraman, E. Perez, K. Tayler, M. Gauss, J. Parkinson, J. Colin, A. Nema, S. Moulik, Sara Almqvist, V. Raman, Anjali Gupta, Sajid Darokhan, C. Kumar, Guy Stubbs, Pvt Ltd (2008)
Technology Options for Urban Sanitation in India
K. Tayler (2007)
Principles of town water supply and sanitation - Part 2 : sanitation
Jacques-Edouard Tiberghien, Peter Robbins, Sean Tyrrel (2011)
Reflexive assessment of practical and holistic sanitation development tools using the rural and peri-urban case of Mexico.
Journal of environmental management, 92 3
(2011)
Cost-based decision support tools for water and sanitation
J. Willetts, M. Paddon, N. Nam, N. Trung, N. Carrard (2013)
Sustainability assessment of sanitation options in Vietnam: planning with the future in mind
Journal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, 3
(2012)
Planning of sustainable sanitation for cities
(2008)
Urban sanitation -lessons from experience. Waterlines

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Copyright: © 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
ISSN: 1946-3146
eISSN: 1946-3138
DOI: 10.1080/19463138.2016.1186674
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 2016 Vol. 8, No. 2, 191–209, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2016.1186674 Urban sanitation technology decision-making in developing countries: a critical analysis of process guides a b c a A. Ramôa *, C. Lüthi , J. McConville and J. Matos a b Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal; Department of Sanitation, Water and Solid Waste for Development (Sandec), Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Eawag, Dübendorf, Switzerland; Department of Architecture, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden (Received 13 October 2015; accepted 3 May 2016) Planning for urban sanitation in developing contexts is one of the major development challenges of this century. Particularly, the relevance of a broad perspective in sanitation decision-making processes has been increasingly discussed. One possible contribution to achieve comprehensive decisions is through the use of planning guidelines, also called process guides. The present work ﬁrst identiﬁed categories of relevant decision elements, namely: (a) the multi-sectoral approach, (b) the multiplicity of sustainable dimensions, (c) the system analysis perspective and (d) the co-existence of planning scales. Then, for each category, a comparative analysis of urban sanitation process guides was conducted with a focus on technology decision-making. It was found that the importance of considering those categories is increasingly reﬂected in process guides, although not always in a detailed supportive way. Recommendations are provided to increase the added value of process guides regarding technology selection, as well as, to better integrate them into urban planning. Keywords: Decision-making; developing countries; planning; process guides; sanitation 1. Introduction challenges, insecure tenure (Okurut & Charles 2014), the marginalisation of peri-urban poor, Globally, approximately 2.4 billion people (around existing regulations and a general failure to take 32% of the total population) still do not have the local context into account (Hofmann 2011). access to improved sanitation facilities (WHO & Poor planning, and particularly the inability to UNICEF 2015), a situation which negatively take into account the above-mentioned factors, has impacts people’s health, social standing, liveli- also been implicated among the reasons for fail- hoods and ultimately economic development ures in sanitation services in developing countries (Törnqvist et al. 2008). In particular, the inade- (Barnes et al. 2011). This mirrors what happens in quate provision of sanitation services in urban urban planning in general, where the dominant areas of developing countries is one of the major form of planning, named rational or master plan- challenges of this century (Tayler 2008). Indeed, ning, has been criticised for rigidity towards urban lack of sanitation services, coupled to the unpre- dynamics, disregard of peri-urban areas and little cedented growth of unplanned urban settlements, local buy-in, among other aspects (Watson 2009). is a critical element to assuring sustainable urban Alternative approaches, such as communicative development (Keivani 2010). This appalling situa- and deliberative ones which imply more coopera- tion is rooted in many causes, namely low income tion and dialogue between stakeholders, have been and education levels, institutional and political *Corresponding author. Email: ana.ramoa@tecnico.ulisboa.pt © 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 192 A. Ramôa et al. suggested as more appropriate and have thus relevant ones to account for when planning sanita- gained popularity (Richardson 2005). Planning tion solutions. has also been increasingly seen as an iterative, In addition, one way to overcome difﬁculties ﬂexible and participatory process valuing other when planning with a broader view is to use forms of non-technical knowledge and the invol- process guides, which are documents describing vement of the community (Allen 2003). steps decision-makers need to undergo when Additionally, there has also been a trend towards selecting sanitation solutions. The possible contri- more broad view of thinking in urban planning, bution of process guides to support comprehensive e.g., considering complex issues like sustainabil- decisions results from their potential to raise rele- ity, a concept supported by the socio-ecological vant aspects and structure their consideration dur- idealism planning theory (Lawrence 2000). ing planning processes. Sanitation process guides Nevertheless, alternative approaches are rarely have been analysed through different perspectives, reﬂected in developing countries faced with weak namely planning theory, stakeholders’ participa- local government capacity and lack of coordina- tion and their implementation on the ground tion between organisations and resources for plan- (e.g., Palaniappan et al. 2008; Törnqvist et al. ning (Smith & Jenkins 2015). In addition, the 2008; Peal et al. 2010; Barnes et al. 2011; broad consideration of different aspects during McConville et al. 2011; Kennedy-Walker et al. planning processes may be very challenging, 2014). It is therefore important to further assess namely because interdependencies among decision such planning documents regarding the level of elements can create trade-offs, muddle decisions support they provide for the consideration of and undermine the successful implementation of potentially relevant elements when taking sanita- selected solutions. For example, the integration of tion decisions. Indeed, the way process guides are comprehensive assessment tools, such as environ- structured and the level of support provided for mental impact assessment (EIA), into planning has decision-making is believed to inﬂuence the ade- been hampered by power structures and the fragile quacy of selected solutions. Decision-making, here coalition of interests (Richardson 2005). referring speciﬁcally to the selection of sanitation Despite difﬁculties in shifting planning prac- technologies (i.e., dealing with wastewater and tices, some of these newer planning theories are excreta), receives particular attention owing to its starting to ﬁnd their way into the sanitation sector critical contribution to the success of the entire of developing countries. In fact, ideals of partici- planning process and ﬁnal implemented solutions. pation and communicative theory can already be Hence, this article aims to (a) identify which found in sanitation planners and practitioners’ sanitation decision elements are potentially rele- rhetoric (McConville et al. 2011). Sanitation plan- vant for urban areas of developing countries, (b) ning approaches have been evolving from a more evaluate the potential contribution and further engineering focus, often based on prescribed tech- improvements of process guides to support the nologies for presumed conditions that rarely exist consideration of such elements in decision-making (Lüthi & Parkinson 2011), to a wider multi-dis- and (c) integrate sanitation process guides into ciplinary focus (Kennedy-Walker et al. 2014). urban planning debates. As lack or inadequate However, although the international community access to sanitation signiﬁcantly impacts the living increasingly stresses the need to address sanitation conditions of urban communities, and because from a holistic perspective, practicalities on the analysed topics are very much aligned with ground often make decision elements difﬁcult to aspects of urban development, the present analysis consider in a comprehensive way (Tiberghien is also expected to contribute to the wider debate et al. 2011). Consequently, it is important to ﬁrst on how to bring about sustainable urban identify which decision elements are the most development. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 193 2. Methodology Table 1. Analysed urban sanitation process guides. From sanitation literature and discourses, groups Authors Year Title of decision elements potentially relevant to con- International Water 2006 Sanitation 21. Simple sider when planning sanitation services were iden- Association Approaches to tiﬁed. They are referred to in this article as (IWA) Complex Sanitation. ‘categories of comprehensiveness’, meaning that A Draft Framework each category comprises a broad group of related for Analysis decision elements. The term ‘comprehensiveness’ World Bank 2007 Principles of Town Water Supply and here means the broad consideration of decision Sanitation. Part 2: elements, not being associated with the traditional Sanitation rational comprehensive planning theory. Other Water and Sanitation 2008 Technology Options for cross-cutting issues, such as participation and Program (WSP) Urban Sanitation in urban upgrading, are also frequently mentioned India Swiss Federal 2011 Community-Led Urban with regards to sanitation planning (e.g., Gomez Institute of Environmental & Nakat 2002; Butala et al. 2010). However, these Aquatic Science Sanitation Planning: issues can be seen as strategies for achieving com- and Technology CLUES – Complete prehensiveness rather than speciﬁc categories of (Eawag-Sandec) Guidelines for comprehensiveness and, therefore, they were Decision-Makers with 30 Tools excluded from analysis. Program Solidarité 2012 Concerted Municipal Then, based on Palaniappan et al. (2008), Peal Eau (pS-Eau) and Strategy (CMS) – et al. (2010) and further web-based research, Municipal Methodological around 50 sanitation process guides for developing Development Guides (including countries were identiﬁed. Process guides were Partnership one guide on how to (MDP) select appropriate used for the present analysis due to their potential technical solutions to guide the users through logical actions aiming for sanitation) at adequate decisions. Indeed, they describe a sug- gested set of steps (i.e., the ‘process’) that may be used by decision-makers to assess and improve countries and (2) they constitute a stepwise process sanitation conditions (Palaniappan et al. 2008). including some form of guidance for technology These planning guidelines are usually developed decision-making, namely questions to orient deci- by international or research organizations. They sions, tables, decision trees or procedures. The focus commonly comprise the following steps: problem on urban areas results from the fact that the potential identiﬁcation, deﬁnition of objectives, options for disease, mortality and misfortune due to inade- design, selection of solutions and action plan for quate or absence of sanitation services is much implementation (McConville et al. 2011). Other greater in these challenging areas than in rural support resources excluded from this analysis ones (Isunju et al. 2011). The second criteria implies owing to their reduced guidance for decision-mak- that process guides introducing interesting planning ing are, for instance, technical briefs presenting concepts but which do not provide speciﬁcsupport technology descriptions, or technical references for the technology selection were not considered in providing guidance on how to carry out speciﬁc the analysis (e.g., strategic sanitation planning tasks like construction works. (Wright 1997), strategic planning for municipal Out of this initial list of sanitation process sanitation (GHK, WEDC, WSP-SA 2000)orcity- guides, ﬁve were shortlisted for analysis (Table 1) wide sanitation strategies (WSP 2010)). With the based on the following reasons: (1) they are applic- exception of IWA (2006), the selected documents able in urban or peri-urban contexts in developing have been ﬁeld-tested. A new version of IWA 194 A. Ramôa et al. Table 2. Scoring system and related meaning of the different decision elements under analysis. The scores. elements receiving more guidance presented higher scores than the remaining ones. Score Meaning ⊘ There is no reference on the importance of the element in any step of the planning process 3. Potentially relevant decision elements in ○ The importance of considering the element is sanitation planning mentioned but not speciﬁcally for decision- Based on the current literature, four ‘categories of making comprehensiveness’ were deﬁned for being poten- ● The importance of the element for decision- making is mentioned with reduced support tially relevant in sanitation planning: (a) the multi- on its incorporation into decisions sectoral approach, (b) the multiplicity of sustain- ●● The importance of the element for decision- able dimensions, (c) the system analysis perspec- making is mentioned with detailed support tive and (d) the co-existence of planning scales. on its incorporation into decisions All of them are somehow aligned with general The score ‘●●’ means that an element effectively receives more aspects of urban development planning. decision support regarding the selection of sanitation technolo- The ﬁrst deﬁned category is the multi-sectoral gies, compared to the score ‘●’. Support is considered to be reduced when only few references or examples are presented on approach. In urban planning, some agencies the importance of the incorporation of the element in technical increasingly recognise that problems should not decisions. be solved sectorally but instead, solutions in dif- ferent sectors may be mutually reinforced (2006) has been published recently. However, as it (Rossiter 2000). In particular, as sanitation sys- is less process-oriented than the previous version, it tems are intrinsically linked to other components was not included in this analysis. of the water cycle and other sectors of society, Then, a qualitative scoring system was deﬁned such as water supply and spatial planning (Isunju (Table 2) in order to assess the level of support et al. 2011), the integration of sanitation-related process guides provided for the comprehensive inte- sectors in decision-making seems to be crucial to gration of issues related to the categories of com- capture their potential synergies, thus leading to prehensiveness (here called decision elements), both more sustainable and cost-effective solutions in planning and decision-making processes. The (Lüthi et al. 2012). ﬁrst two scores, ‘⊘’ and ‘○’, assess whether or not The concept of sustainability has also ﬂour- there are references to the importance of the element ished in urban planning literature (Rosales 2011). under analysis in any step of process guides, i.e., It has been accompanied by discussions on its from the situation analysis to the assessment of application to the sanitation sector (e.g., Carter options or the preparation of a plan. This will et al. 1999; Rosemarin et al. 2008). Indeed, allow acquiring a global perspective of the recogni- although the primary objective of sanitation is tion of the element’s importance in the entire plan- public health improvement, many other sustain- ning process. The scores in bold, ‘●’ and ‘●●’, ability elements, like socio-economic, institutional speciﬁcally reﬂect the degree to which each element and environmental ones, are said to need urgent is integrated in technology decision-making. consideration to stem the trend of disrepair hap- For each category of analysis, the scoring sys- pening in the sector and to accelerate progress in tem allowed assessing the level of comprehensive- sanitation coverage levels (Montgomery et al. ness in the process guides. Process guides showing 2009). higher levels of comprehensiveness were the ones Another tool explored in planning is the sys- whose decision elements were classiﬁed with tem analysis, whereby, considering a physical or higher scores. The scoring system also permitted conceptual system composed of interrelated ele- the analysis of the relative guidance provided to ments, decisions can be made about its optimal International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 195 performance (ASCE 1986). In the sanitation sec- sanitation systems whose main ﬁnal product is tor, more and more emphasis is given to the need sludge, from water-based systems which result in to look at all the segments of sanitation systems, the production of wastewater. Finally, the category from the user interface (i.e., a toilet or latrine) to ‘co-existence of planning scales’ takes into the ﬁnal disposal or reuse of the different gener- account two different scales that are commonly ated waste products (Maurer et al. 2012). It is found in planning literature: city-wide and loca- expected that by bearing in mind the sanitation lized small-scale. system thinking, other relevant aspects become clearer, such as operation and maintenance issues 4. Analysis of comprehensiveness in process and interactions among stakeholders (Lüthi et al. guides 2011). Finally, the analysis of different urban plan- The process guides analysis identiﬁed the level of ning scales also deserves attention in urban plan- comprehensiveness of selected planning guides ning (e.g., Tayler 1998). Particularly in sanitation, and the relative guidance provided to decision the combination of city-wide and more localized elements in each category of comprehensiveness. scales has been increasingly discussed. On the one This section presents the most relevant observa- hand, small-scale activities may better meet com- tions to evaluate the potential contribution of pro- munities’ expectations, but if isolated they may cess guides to support comprehensive decision- also compromise beneﬁts at the city-wide level making. (Tayler 2008). Conversely, city-wide initiatives, often capital intensive, are associated with inertia 4.1 Multi-sectoral approach that makes them slow to adapt to particular con- texts (Nilsson 2006), and frequently fail to reach With the exception of World Bank (2007), the poor areas. However, they may contribute to sol- process guides acknowledge the importance of ving problems at a wider scale, namely in terms of considering interactions between sanitation and expertise and physical connections to municipal all other related sectors under analysis (Table 4). services or supply chains (Lüthi & Parkinson When it comes to decision-making, however, the 2011). linkages across sanitation and other sectors are not After deﬁning the categories of comprehen- fully elaborated. For instance, Eawag-Sandec siveness, it was important to break them down (2011), which calls for coordinated sectoral into different decision elements (Table 3). For the actions, admits that in practical terms it might be category ‘multi-sectoral approach’, elements advisable to deal with sectors separately for better represent sectors that may constrain the adequacy traction. World Bank (2007) draws attention to the of sanitation technologies, or with which there challenges caused by differences in responsibil- might be synergies of combined solutions. ities, institutional arrangements and scale of Rosemarin et al. (2008) is used as a basis for applied technologies from different sectors. deﬁning the elements of the category ‘multiplicity Finally, pS-Eau (2012) even stresses the need to of sustainable dimensions’, because it is consid- clearly focus on sanitation as it tends to be over- ered the broader proposed deﬁnition for the sector. looked in favour of other sectors. The dimension ‘socio-cultural and institutional’ When comparing the relative guidance provided was broken down into two separate elements in to linkages between sanitation and other related order to better analyse their particularities. The sectors, water supply is the one receiving more elements of the category ‘system analysis perspec- support, mainly based on the presentation of viable tive’ are based on the segmentation of sanitation sanitation technologies according to water con- systems found in Maurer et al. (2012), with some sumption levels (World Bank 2007;WSP 2008), modiﬁcations, namely to differentiate dry the distinction between water-based or waterless 196 A. Ramôa et al. Table 3. Categories and related elements potentially relevant in urban sanitation decision-making. Category Element Deﬁnition Multi-sectoral Water supply Possible constraints or synergies between selected sanitation approach Stormwater drainage technologies and existing or planned solutions within water Solid waste management supply, stormwater drainage, solid waste management, Agriculture agriculture (due to the potential reuse of treated products), Energy energy (potentially used or produced by sanitation systems) Spatial planning and spatial planning (land use and settlement patterns). Multiplicity of Technology and operation Functionality and ease of construction, operation and sustainable maintenance, as well as, vulnerability and ﬂexibility of dimensions technical elements to external factors. Financial and economic Direct costs (construction, operation, maintenance and issues reinvestment) and the capacity of communities to pay, and external costs (e.g., environmental pollution) and beneﬁts (e.g., increased agricultural productivity and employment creation). Institutional aspects Compliance with legal framework and institutional settings. Socio-cultural aspects Socio-cultural acceptance and appropriateness of the system, convenience and consideration of gender issues. Environment and natural Environmental conditions, needed resources, emissions to the resources environment and potential of recycling and reuse of products. Health and hygiene Risk of exposure to hazardous substances that can affect public health and hygiene aspects. System analysis Interface /collection Way in which the user accesses the sanitation system and the perspective way of collecting and storing the generated products. Emptying Method by which sludge is emptied from collection infrastructures. Transport Method of transport of products (sludge/wastewater) from one segment of the supply chain to another. Treatment Type and level of treatment of sludge/wastewater. Disposal/reuse Method by which products (sludge/wastewater) are ultimately returned to the environment, as either useful resources or reduced-risk materials. Co-existence of City-wide scale Centrally designed planning scale which takes a wider view of planning scales the entire city. Localized small-scale Localized planning scale, usually community-led, not necessarily accounting for the wider scale. Table 4. Comprehensiveness of the multi-sectoral approach. Water Stormwater Solid waste Spatial Process guide supply drainage management Agriculture Energy planning IWA (2006) ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ World Bank (2007) ●● ⊘⊘ ● ⊘ ○ WSP (2008) ●● ● ○ ○ ● ●● Eawag-Sandec (2011) ●● ●● ● ●● ●● ● pS-Eau (2012) ●● ○ ○ ●● ●● ●● International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 197 systems (Eawag-Sandec 2011) and the deﬁnition of in particular, provides a multi-criteria analysis pro- water requirements for the different technologies cedure for technology selection. (pS-Eau 2012). Concerning agriculture and energy, Concerning technology and operation, the most information is provided on the potential of technol- considered sustainable dimension, various technol- ogies to produce sanitation products that can be ogies are characterised, namely regarding operation used as fertilizers or energy sources, as well as, on and maintenance requirements, functionality and energy consumption requirements (Eawag-Sandec ease of construction (WSP 2008; Eawag-Sandec 2011;pS-Eau 2012). Regarding spatial planning, 2011;pS-Eau 2012). In ﬁnancial and economic some decision factors for technology selection are terms, guidance is provided on calculating technol- presented for guidance, namely space constraints, ogy life cycle costs (WSP 2008; Eawag-Sandec land use, housing layout, tenure issues (WSP 2011), and approximate technology costs are pro- 2008), the distance between pits and the disposal vided (pS-Eau 2012). The process guides integrate or treatment site, the required surface area and the social issues through community workshops accessibility needed for emptying pits (pS-Eau together with information on organisational aspects 2012). Finally, stormwater drainage and solid (WSP 2008;Eawag-Sandec 2011), or by the inclu- waste management are the less considered sectors, sion of one selection criteria related to the technol- both receiving most guidance in Eawag-Sandec ogy social acceptance and a methodological guide (2011), in which stormwater is an input to technol- on how to analyse users demand (pS-Eau 2012). ogy systems templates, and references to tools for Within the institutional dimension, the need to solid waste management are provided. look at different interests likely to impact decisions in different domains, from the household to beyond the city, is stressed by IWA (2006). Also, support is provided on how to involve stakeholders in deci- 4.2 Multiplicity of sustainable dimensions sion-making (Eawag-Sandec 2011;pS-Eau 2012), All analysed process guides recognize the rele- which is said to avoid potential conﬂicts with exist- vance of all sustainability dimensions, either as ing policies and regulations. Concerning the envir- onmental dimension, factors are presented that may representing factors that affect the outcome of inﬂuence choices like the quantity of wastewater sanitation investments, or as being part of an produced, soil type, groundwater depth, topography enabling environment representing the minimal and some basic information regarding resources requirements to conduct the planning (Table 5). recovery (WSP 2008; Eawag-Sandec 2011;pS- The importance of considering possible interde- Eau 2012). Finally, although recognized as a pri- pendencies and trade-offs between sustainable mary concern, health concerns are poorly repre- dimensions is also generally stressed, warning sented in decision-making. Indeed, only references that improvements in one aspect may be reduced are provided, namely on the need to consider health if carried out in isolation. Eawag-Sandec (2011), Table 5. Comprehensiveness of the multiplicity of sustainable dimensions. Technology Financial and Socio- Environment Health and economic Institutional cultural and natural and Process guide operation issues aspects aspects resources Hygiene IWA (2006) ●○ ● ○ ○ ○ World Bank (2007) ●○ ○ ○ ○ ○ WSP (2008) ●● ●● ○ ●● ●● ● Eawag-Sandec (2011) ●● ●● ●● ●● ● ● pS-Eau (2012) ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ○ 198 A. Ramôa et al. aspects when water is reused in agriculture (WSP wastewater segments is generally higher when com- 2008), or to include municipal health ofﬁcers as pared to the other segments. Major forms of gui- stakeholders (Eawag-Sandec 2011). dance include the enumeration of factors that might inﬂuence choice and some general guidance for technology selection in the form of examples, tables or simpliﬁed decision trees, although only for a few 4.3 System analysis perspective technologies (World Bank 2007;WSP 2008). As The level of comprehensiveness of the system previously said, worth noting is the attention that analysis perspective seems to be high as all the Eawag-Sandec (2011) and pS-Eau (2012)place on corresponding decision elements (here referred as the entire sanitation supply chain. In particular, sanitation segments), i.e., from the user interface Eawag-Sandec (2011) is meant to be used jointly to the ﬁnal disposal or reuse of the different gen- with a Compendium of Sanitation Systems and erated waste products, are considered to be impor- Technologies (Tilley et al. 2014) which provides tant by all process guides (Table 6). In fact, there information about sanitation technologies along the is a general recognition that addressing only one full range of system segments. PowerPoint presen- particular segment may transfer the problem else- tation slides about the compendium are provided to where, thereby, not offering the full intended ben- help planners familiarize with its related concepts. eﬁts. However, this is not reﬂected in guidance to In pS-Eau (2012), technologies from each segment decision-making in all analysed guides. are compared for selection using technology fact Furthermore, references were found on the rele- sheets, pre-deﬁned feasibility criteria and through vance of looking at the interdependencies between various decision tables and diagrams. segments. In this regard, Eawag-Sandec (2011) and pS-Eau (2012) guarantee the segment interde- pendency based on the deﬁnition of system tem- 4.4 Co-existence of planning scales plates or sanitation chains, respectively, which represent a combination of technologies along The analysed process guides either focus on the the segments of the sanitation supply chain, thus city-wide scale or the localised small-scale, i.e., ensuring material ﬂow compatibility and avoiding neighbourhood scale (Table 7). This seems to be the need to consider every technology closely related to their respective target audiences. permutation. Additionally, the need to harmonize both planning The guidance provided on the user interface/ scales receives little attention and limited guidance collection and on the transport and treatment of is provided on the coordination between these two Table 6. Comprehensiveness of the system analysis perspective. Sludge Wastewater Interface/ Disposal/ Disposal/ Process guide Collection Emptying Transport Treatment Reuse Transport Treatment Reuse IWA (2006) ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ World Bank ●● ○ ○ ○ ● ● ● (2007) WSP (2008) ●○ ○ ○ ○ ● ● ○ Eawag- ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● Sandec (2011) pS-Eau ●● ●● ●● ● ○ ●● ●● ● (2012) International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 199 Table 7. Comprehensiveness of the co-existence of organize community workshops. It assumes the planning scales. process is time-consuming, but afﬁrms that it con- tributes to ﬁnding solutions better accepted by key City-wide Localized stakeholders and better suited to the case-speciﬁc Process guide scale small-scale conditions. IWA (2006) ●○ World Bank (2007) ● ⊘ WSP (2008) ○○ 5. Improvement of process guides to support Eawag-Sandec (2011) ●●● comprehensive decisions pS-Eau (2012) ●● ⊘ The analysed process guides are considered to be adequate starting points to assist in the considera- scales. Eawag-Sandec (2011) is the process guide tion of the broad range of decision elements which mostly recognizes the relevance of both under study. This is particularly due to their planning scales, highlighting the need for the ability to create awareness of certain aspects local initiatives to complement and be supported and to help structure decisions. Although there by city-level services. It ﬁrst analyses whether is no single process guide which provides sup- there is a productive working relationship between portive guidance to all decision elements, these community-level initiatives and public sector documents seem to progressively recognise that agencies. It then stresses the need to identify the addressing only some decision elements may just main links within city-wide infrastructures and transfer problems elsewhere, leading to undesired existing municipal or private services. Also, IWA results. Indeed, the more recent they are, the (2006) suggests identifying the pay-offs between more elements receive decision-making guidance. stakeholder interests and factors inﬂuencing the Nevertheless, detailed support for the integration identiﬁcation of appropriate sanitation systems at of decision elements into technology decision- different scale levels, but not many details are making is not always provided, even when pro- provided on how to deal with the localized cess guides acknowledge the importance of con- small-scale. sidering such elements at some point of the All analysed process guides recognize the planning process. This section reﬂects on how importance of the city-wide perspective, namely to further develop existing process guides to bet- to guarantee that decisions do not cause deteriora- ter support comprehensive technology decision- tion of the wider environment. pS-Eau (2012) making. Suggested improvements may be possi- provides the most detailed guidance at the city- bly undertaken by international organizations and wide scale, encouraging the coherence in technol- research institutions involved in the development ogy choices at town level. This document divides of existing process guides, as well as, entities the town into homogeneous areas and identiﬁes enrolled in urban sanitation planning. the most appropriate solution for each area, detect- ing whether it is possible to merge areas using 5.1 General suggested improvements similar sanitation solutions that may lead to econo- mies of scale. For instance, vacuum trucks may Simpliﬁed support tools within process guides need to meet the various requirements for more (e.g., fact sheets, decision tables or decision than one area. The location and construction of trees) could be updated to provide more guidance any wastewater treatment plant also need to be for all decision elements. Generally speaking, they considered at the town scale. On the other hand, are considered to be useful, particularly due to Eawag-Sandec (2011) is the only process guide their simplicity and user-friendliness. However, especially dedicated to small-scale localized pro- they do not cover all important decision elements, jects, providing detailed information on how to which may indicate an opportunity to further 200 A. Ramôa et al. explore these tools. For example, the technology developing countries (e.g., Katukiza et al. 2010), fact sheets, such as the ones found in WSP (2008), and comprehensive lists of criteria and indicators pS-Eau (2012) and referred to by Eawag-Sandec are currently available in the literature (e.g., Garfì (2011), could be updated with additional informa- & Ferrer-Martí 2011). Other alternative decision tion covering all decision elements. It is never- methodologies may also be interesting to consider theless acknowledged that technological when upgrading process guides, such as meth- innovation is an on-going process. Therefore, odologies focused on the participation of stake- technology fact sheets could be worded in such a holders rather than purely numerically focused way as to allow for changes and additions to lists analysis (Willetts et al. 2013), conceptual maps of recommended technologies. For instance, they used as visualization tools for establishing the could provide references for expected technologi- interconnectedness of all factors affecting sanita- cal developments and set the general requirements tion systems (Tiberghien et al. 2011) or the capa- that newly developed technologies should comply city factor analysis model which assesses the with, e.g., following international standards, such community’s capacity to manage a sanitation ser- as ISO 24511:2007 (ISO 2007), or referring to vice in order to assist in the selection of appro- national legislation, hopefully driven by the Best priate technologies (Bouabid & Louis 2015). Available Technology (BAT) or the Best Available Process guides’ users could then select which Technology Not Entailing Excessive Costs tools to use in accordance with the speciﬁc situa- (BATNEEC) approaches. These approaches are tion, namely data availability. For this to be effec- expected to better ensure the affordability and the tive, process guides should explain how to use long-term performance of selected technologies. It these other resources and tools in a complemen- should be stressed that on-site sanitation technol- tary way. ogies typically found in developing countries need Additional real case applications of decision more research, namely for the deﬁnition of perfor- elements in decision-making processes could also mance criteria, compared to the end-of-pipe solu- be presented by process guides, including success- tions usually found in developed countries (Ujang ful examples but also situations where there are & Henze 2006). lessons to be learnt from failures. This should be Providing links to other documentation or accompanied by a clear explanation of the context existing decision tools, e.g., the guidelines pro- where such real cases occurred, since many chal- duced by WHO (2006) on the safe use of sanita- lenges and solutions in the sanitation sector are tion products or the cost-based decision tools site-speciﬁc. It is particularly recommended to applied to the sanitation sector (Fonseca et al. take into account community practices which 2011), might also be relevant for helping process occur to compensate for the inefﬁciencies of the guides’ users to become familiar with certain formal services but that remain unrecognised and issues and explore them in more detail. With the unsupported (Hofmann 2011). For example, exception of Eawag-Sandec (2011), which pro- although not representing the most preferable solu- vides a simpliﬁed multi-criteria procedure for tion in terms of public health, in some cases, technology selection, decision-support tools, such manual emptying of pits might be the most viable as multi-criteria analysis or life cycle assessment, solution, at least in the short-term. Process guides are not explored in analysed process guides. should then support planners to identify further Incorporating or referring to such decision tools improvements of existing local solutions rather is therefore another suggestion for improving pro- than solely guiding planners to select new tech- cess guides. In particular, multi-criteria analyses, nologies. In the example provided, process guides which rate options against various criteria to come could, for instance, suggest improving the manual up with most appropriate solutions, have been emptying equipment in order to avoid human con- increasingly applied in the sanitation sector of tact with faeces during emptying activities. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 201 Finally, some further improvements in process to select a certain technology considering that it guides can be identiﬁed to help guarantee that will be managed by the municipal entity, these these documents actually facilitate effective deci- planning documents should prompt the users for sion-making, especially regarding the ﬂexibility the selection of technologies taking into account required to comply with different urban planning other service provision models. Such potentially situations. First, they could further beneﬁt from alternative models could include community adapting to distinct levels of information available initiatives or the involvement of the formal or for decision-making. This would allow the process informal private sector. Indeed, these alternative to be as comprehensive as possible without falling service provision models may be beneﬁcial to into disproportional resource-intensive, complex compensate for inefﬁciencies of formal public ser- or even impossible analyses. In fact, data in devel- vices. Their consideration may actually broaden oping countries is often scarce, of poor quality and the range of appropriate technologies under dis- it is usually not captured in the required form. cussion as it may inﬂuence, e.g., the adequacy of Therefore, process guides could ﬁrst provide operation and maintenance procedures or the cost detailed indicators for supporting technology recovery of certain solutions. selection based on numerical thresholds, e.g., water consumption levels (litres/capita/day). 5.2 Improvements applied to each category of Nevertheless, it would be helpful if they also analysis allow for a second level of guidance rather than blocking the planning process by unavailable data. It is considered preferable that process guides take In this example, users could be guided on technol- a comprehensive approach and deal with all rele- ogy selection based on more easily available infor- vant decision elements due to their potential of mation, such as the modality of water provision awareness-raising, while helping users to select (stand post, yard tap or in-house connection). the elements which actually need deeper consid- Complementary, efforts need to be continuously eration in each particular situation. Nevertheless, enforced by practitioners to improve available prioritizing improvements on process guides may information. Second, planning documents could be particularly relevant when sufﬁcient resources prompt the involvement of a broad range of sta- are not available to undertake the previously men- keholders in order to consolidate taken decisions. tioned recommendations. In order to further sug- A multi-disciplinary team would help to address gest how process guides can be improved, it is common low levels of knowledge and skills of interesting to compare with how each category of planners. Nevertheless, in cases where this is not comprehensiveness is addressed in practice. possible, process guides should clearly advise for Within the multi-sectoral approach, the analy- areas of expertise that are needed to analyse some sis of planning documents showed that linkages particular aspects. For instance, they could advise between sanitation and water supply are deemed users to look for the opinion of experts who would most important to consider. This is probably justi- speciﬁcally assess the possibility of applying ﬁed by the historical recognition of water and sludge to crops and identify irrigation practices sanitation interdependencies (Carter et al. 1999). appropriate for the wastewater quality expected In opposition, connections with other sectors, to be obtained by the treatment technologies especially stormwater drainage and solid waste under analysis. Third, in order to comply with management, are less explored in process guides. distinct governance structures, process guides This low consideration of multi-sectoral linkages should be compatible with different institutional is in-line with realities on the ground, where sec- frameworks and working conditions, while allow- tors are usually not integrated in planning pro- ing for productive relationships between stake- cesses or they are not institutionally close to each holders. For example, instead of guiding the user other (Lüthi et al. 2012). However, in certain 202 A. Ramôa et al. contexts, the systematic consideration of other certain sustainability dimensions, for instance, by sectors might be crucial when planning sanitation providing examples of successes and failures of solutions, particularly in cases where cross-sec- past decisions. Adding information to technology toral relations are not obvious, or are affected by fact sheets is believed to be an interesting way of misconceptions. Therefore, users of process guides supporting the analysis of sustainability dimen- would beneﬁt if they could follow an explicit and sions. However, a balance is required so that fact structured checklist of the situations where sanita- sheets do not become overloaded with informa- tion technologies are potentially affected by exist- tion. Providing references to further documenta- ing and planned solutions found in sanitation- tion describing technologies is an option to related sectors, or situations where potential syner- alleviate this problem. Particularly, the health gies of combined sectoral solutions may exist. As dimension should be emphasised in order to analysed sanitation-related sectors might be judge technologies according to their expected handled by distinct institutions, the suggested health risks and the potential health gains to the improvements could also help to involve stake- communities. In this respect, further documenta- holders from different sectors earlier in the plan- tion to be referred to might include, for instance, ning process. the report from Stenström et al. (2011), which Technical, economic and socio-cultural issues clearly presents the health risks associated with receive most guidance among the sustainability different sanitation technologies. Complementary dimensions of analysed process guides, with a methodologies and approaches might also be particular emphasis on technology management referred to, such as health impact and microbial requirements, costs and community preferences. risk methodologies, the recently developed rapid Those dimensions are actually viewed by the sec- participatory sanitation system risk assessment tor as critical to guarantee sustainability, although methodology (Campos et al. 2015) or the multi- being often overlooked (Montgomery et al. 2009). barrier approach applied by Sanitation Safety Health is the least considered dimension in ana- Plans (WHO 2015). Finally, the clear focus on lysed guides. It seems that these documents the functions of the technologies under considera- assume that providing sanitation will lead to the tion (e.g., whether they provide low level or com- achievement of health goals and, therefore, few plete treatment) is critical so that planners orientations are provided. More detailed guidance compare options which actually provide similar was also expected to be found on the recovery of outputs. water, nutrients and energy, as current sanitation Regarding the system analysis, segments deal- literature on sustainability emphasises recovery ing with sludge are generally subjected to less and reuse opportunities (e.g., Guest et al. 2009). guidance in analysed planning documents. This This might result, among other reasons, from the is in accordance with the lower attention provided fact that, besides the potential advantages of tech- to those segments in the ﬁeld (Tayler 2008). nologies allowing for resources recovery, such as Hence, it is important that process guides are source separating technologies, they are still con- able to clearly communicate the system concept sidered immature and risky by most professionals such that all segments are considered, and water- (Larsen et al. 2009). However, it should not be and dry-based solutions are equally presented. forgotten that reuse of sanitation products without Further applying the system schematics found in adequate treatment (e.g., untreated wastewater Eawag-Sandec (2011) and, additionally, develop- used for irrigation) occurs in many communities, ing decision trees to help select technologies based a fact requiring serious consideration in decision- on system thinking is expected to avoid pre-con- making. In order to facilitate the multi-dimen- ceived technical solutions that might not be ade- sional approach, process guides need to clearly quate to certain areas. In addition, it may drive show the long-term implications of disregarding planners to think not only about the user International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 203 requirements of the sanitation systems, but also the It is also interesting to note that within the end opportunities of sanitation products. Process categories: ‘multiplicity of sustainable dimen- guides could also encourage planners to explore sions’, ‘system analysis approach’ and ‘co-exis- incremental technological solutions that could be tence of planning scales’, the inter-relationships upgraded over time, for instance, by providing between respective elements are said to be relevant examples of technologies which can be adapted to account for by analysed process guides. In this to changing conditions, such as treatment plants regards, a multi-criteria methodology accounting that can be built in phases in order to accommo- for sustainability aspects and the system template/ date to increased treatment requirements and bud- sanitation chain concepts are suggested by these get availability. planning documents. Particularly, the compendium Finally, in terms of relative guidance provided of technologies from Eawag-Sandec (2011) pro- on planning scales, process guides are mainly vides a signiﬁcant contribution in the structuring applied at the city-wide scale, which is also the of systematic analysis of sanitation technologies approach that dominates current sanitation plan- and helps to account for interactions among seg- ning (Lüthi et al. 2012). It is believed that process ments of the sanitation supply chain. However, for guides focusing on different scales are all valu- the ‘co-existence of planning scales’, more sys- able. This might be in agreement with the general tematic guidance might be needed regarding har- need for combining methods and tools for envir- monisation of both scales. For instance, onmental planning and management of peri-urban independently of working small-scale or city- interfaces, ranging from the need to pay attention wide, process guides should encourage planners to the heterogeneity and power relations within to ensure coherence and coordinated efforts in communities, to broader dimensions of regional technology choice, while avoiding incompatible planning (Allen 2003). Another suggested and fragmented solutions. One possible way to improvement of process guides is to develop an deal with this is to include a clear and explicit explicit decision step which carefully assesses the step in the decision-making process where the replicability of existing small-scale localised solu- users have to follow a checklist of guided ques- tions in the city under study. Localised solutions tions, namely to investigate if there are potential may include particular types of latrines/toilets opportunities of physical connections to municipal which were introduced at a localised scale, such services, existing expertise and supply chains. as the ones providing opportunities for the reuse of Synergies and economies of scales can also be sanitation products, or the construction and man- further analysed by complementary communica- agement of transfer stations that temporarily col- tion and mapping tools that process guides may lect faecal sludge in order to reduce travel times refer to. For instance, Shit Flow Diagrams may be before ﬁnal transportation to centralised treatment used for visualizing the ﬂow of faecal matter along or disposal sites. Attention should be drawn to the multiple pathways from defecation to disposal or context-speciﬁcity of solutions which may differ end-use (WSP 2014). The Sanitation Mapper is even between neighbourhoods. another freely available tool that enables the geo- Based on the present analysis, it then is sug- graphical representation of data by mapping sani- gested that priority improvements for sanitation tation facilities and their status to inform planning process guides would be directed to the considera- (Roma et al. 2013). tion of the ‘multiplicity of sustainable dimensions’ and the ‘system analysis perspective’ as those 6. Integration of sanitation process guides into categories are usually important but not sufﬁ- urban planning ciently tackled in the ﬁeld. The ‘multi-sectoral approach’ and the ‘co-existence of planning The main point of using process guides is to scales’ are more context-speciﬁc. facilitate planning. This is particularly important 204 A. Ramôa et al. as inadequate planning often limits the success of advocacy for ‘pro-poor’ and more ‘inclusive’ urban development interventions. The present sec- urban planning approaches (Watson 2009) can tion intends to explore the integration of process also beneﬁt from the use of sanitation process guides into urban planning debates, both from a guides. Indeed, such planning documents are theoretical and a practical perspective. increasingly incorporating guidance to develop non-conventional urban solutions that are contex- tualised to poor areas. 6.1 Theoretical debates The process-oriented and multi-actor nature of the 6.2 Practical recommendations for urban analysed process guides is believed to facilitate the planners implementation of contemporary urban planning approaches. For instance, these planning docu- The present analysis can also provide insights to ments may contribute to address power imbal- urban planners and managers, namely regarding ances, as well as social and environmental justice the use of process guides, the balanced need for principles (as defended by advocacy planning), to comprehensiveness and suggested key comple- ease consensus building processes (as in delibera- mentary actions required for successful decisions. tive planning), or to support dialogue and cope First of all, it would be important to under- with uncertainty and conﬂicts (as in communica- stand the real use of analysed process guides. A tive planning). Furthermore, contrary to master complementary study analysing interviews to planning which typically evaluates data from dif- practitioners with international experience in ferent disciplines separately, a ‘trans-disciplinary sanitation concluded that besides the increased approach’ can be used when applying process awareness of current alternatives to planning, the guides so that mutual inﬂuences of data are ana- application of process guides has been quite lysed (Smith & Jenkins 2015). Additionally, the limited, namely due to low dissemination or relevance of the ‘facilitator’ of a planning process, low interest from planners. This makes it difﬁ- as considered in communication and collaboration cult to analyse the real impacts of the use of planning theories (Lawrence 2000), is also process guides, their advantages and limitations. reﬂected in some analysed process guides where It is therefore important to promote the use of support is provided to the person undertaking this these planning documents, follow up on the role. The concept of ‘decision windows’ as devel- cases where they are used and share lessons oped by Stigt et al. (2013), meaning critical for future applications. Improved marketing moments in which different interests are com- that effectively reaches planners is suggested to bined, can also be supported by sanitation process increase use of process guides. For example, guides. In this sector, a ‘decision window’ might electronic versions or paper copies of these occur when structural institutional reforms are documents may be provided at conferences or under way, when priority and budget are allocated international meetings and planning promotion to sanitation, or simply because a proactive person campaigns targeted speciﬁcally at planners and joins an organization. In fact, if it is not possible to decision-makers may be undertaken. It would gather all relevant stakeholders from the beginning also be relevant to regularly upgrade process of the planning process, planners can still make guides in accordance with evolving needs in use of process guides to help identifying possible the sector. Furthermore, national or local gov- relevant decision elements and possible solutions, ernments could also adapt and develop their own while at the same time, staying ﬂexible enough to guides,possiblytranslatingthemtolocal recognise and stimulate decision windows to languages. cooperate with other planning areas and to reframe Second, when planning sanitation solutions, the original problem accordingly. At last, the even in cases where process guides are used, it International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 205 might be not only difﬁcult but also irrelevant to be the possible connections between both scales. fully comprehensive. Indeed, not all decision ele- Then, planners should identify the sectors, sustain- ments are equally important in every situation. On ability dimensions and segments of the supply the other hand, too many aspects to consider might chain that potentially affect or are affected by end up complicating and possibly ruining the solutions needed for the local context, at the pre- whole planning process. Therefore, it is underlined sent and in the future. Accordingly, appropriate here that when applying process guides it is more process guides would be selected. It would then important to identify most relevant elements rather be desirable if process guides label themselves than comprehensively include all of them. This is with regards to the aspects that are explored in also expected to avoid highly resource-consuming more detail and the contexts in which they are data collection processes by excluding decision particularly applicable. Furthermore, if a particular elements that are not locally prioritised. In practi- process guide does not cover all important ele- cal terms, depending on the speciﬁc planning ments, some complementarity between more than objectives, existing conditions and available one, as well as, additional resources and coopera- resources, the ﬁrst important question to be asked tion with stakeholders from different disciplinary would be whether planning is to take place at the expertise might be needed to support the planning city-wide or small-scale, while keeping in mind process. Table 8. Complementary actions for successful planning against each category of comprehensiveness. Category of comprehensiveness Complementary actions for successful planning Multi-sectoral approach ● Guarantee that sanitation is not overlooked in favour of other sectors. ● Involve stakeholders from different sectors early in the planning process in order to design potential synergies of combined solutions. ● Lobby for sanitation when preparing urban development plans (e.g. considering implications from tenure issues on service accessibility, space needed for treatment sites, etc.). Multiplicity of sustainable Encourage multi-disciplinary teams, e.g. including municipal health ofﬁcers. dimensions Promote public participation, namely through community workshops. Encourage the consideration of long-term implications of certain technologies, e.g., preparing and disseminating manuals in local languages describing technical operation and maintenance, life cycle costs, etc. Follow-up on the implementation of selected technologies. System analysis perspective Promote the system thinking such that all segments are considered, as well as, their interdependencies. Codify non-conventional but still appropriate technologies (e.g., on-site solutions, simpliﬁed sewers, if applicable) into national technical standards or regulations. Support the emphasis on the recovery and reuse opportunities of sanitation products. Co-existence of planning Acknowledge the importance of distinct service provision models (e.g. community- scales driven or informal providers). Assess urban dynamics (e.g. increased population density) and allow for ﬂexible solutions at different scales. ● Support small-scale solutions, if appropriate, and facilitate exchange of experiences for collective learning. ● Investigate potential opportunities of economies of scale (e.g., physical connec- tions), thus avoiding fragmented or incompatible solutions. 206 A. Ramôa et al. Finally, a supportive enabling environment is highlight the interconnectedness of elements recognised as essential to guarantee the actual affecting sanitation decisions and may play an uptake of process guides and a successful planning important role to make certain aspects visible for and implementation process. Aspects increasingly policy-makers and practitioners. Nevertheless, discussed in the literature include prioritisation of decision support in the studied planning docu- sanitation by governments, support from interna- ments is not always provided in a detailed way tional donors on institutional reforms, stronger that would support technology selection process. inter-sectoral collaboration (Uwejamomere 2011), It is therefore important that process guides are recognition of the potential role of the private sector continuously improved, e.g., by international orga- in the provision of sanitation services and the nizations and research institutions. The potential urgent need to formally recognise poor commu- of support tools within analysed process guides, nities under new governance regimes (Hofmann namely decision tables, decision trees, fact sheets 2011). Indeed, although it is advocated in this arti- and checklists, can be further explored taking cle that process guides may help structuring plan- advantage of their visually driven simplicity. In ning and decision-making processes, it is also order to enrich process guides and avoid overload- recognised that complementary actions for each ing them with excessive information, these plan- category are needed as a crucial complement to ning documents may also refer to relevant the use of such planning documents (Table 8). documentation and existing decision-support Besides the speciﬁcmeasures identiﬁed for each tools, while explaining how to integrate these category, some additional recommendations to resources into the decision-making process. In practitioners and planners wishing to employ pro- addition, presenting real case studies might also cess guides include the need to allocate resources be useful for planners. Increasing the ﬂexibility of for planning, clarify roles of stakeholders involved process guides to adapt to distinct levels of data in service provision, promote dialogue and coopera- availability, existing knowledge, working practices tion, qualify practitioners competencies, formulate and institutional frameworks is also paramount. adequate policies and support the enforcement of Priority improvements should be devoted to the laws. consideration of the multiplicity of sustainable dimensions and the system analysis perspective, as those aspects are usually important and not 7. Conclusions sufﬁciently tackled in the ﬁeld. The present study ﬁrst identiﬁed categories of The present analysis also resonates with dis- decision elements potentially relevant to take into cussions around general urban planning theories account when planning sanitation, sorted in four and practices in developing countries. Indeed, the distinct categories: (a) the multi-sectoral approach, process-oriented and multi-actor nature of ana- (b) the multiplicity of sustainable dimensions, (c) lysed process guides is expected to facilitate the the system analysis perspective and (d) the co- implementation of modern forms of planning, such existence of planning scales. These categories are as collaborative and deliberative ones. However, important not only to help planners selecting sani- in practical terms, the real uptake of these guides tation technologies but also to adapt technological is quite limited, which justiﬁes the need to explore designs and identify complementary measures, for options for increasing their use, e.g., improved instance, on how to control health risks or reduce marketing that effectively reaches planners. costs not completely dealt with by selected Selecting the appropriate process guides for the technologies. elements that are locally prioritised is also sug- The above-mentioned categories are increas- gested. However, from an urban planner’s per- ingly acknowledged as crucial by the analysed spective, some limitations on the detailed urban sanitation process guides. These documents guidance provided by process guides might mean International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 207 that complementary support may be needed, e.g., Technology (EAWAG). His research includes the vali- dation of demand-driven community-based and strategic by consulting further documentation or through citywide planning approaches and the development of cooperation with different disciplinary experts. contextualised planning tools for urban infrastructure. Finally, it is paramount to recognise that, even Jennifer McConville is a postdoc researcher at Chalmers when using these guides, an enabling environment Architecture, Chalmers University of Technology, is crucial to guarantee the successful planning and Gothenburg, Sweden. Her research interests are related implementation of selected solutions, e.g., through to processes of planning and decision-making with appropriate policy frameworks and planning regards to urban sanitation and wastewater management. She works with concepts of sustainability, life-cycle procedures. thinking, participation and decision support frameworks In conclusion, increasing the added value of to better shape planning processes. process guides and better integrating them into José Saldanha Matos is full Professor at the School of urban sanitation planning practices is believed to Engineering of the University of Lisbon, Portugal, support planners undertake more efﬁcient and where he is coordinating the Sanitary Engineering locally adapted decisions. The presented sugges- group. He is fellow of the International Water tions are likely to be signiﬁcant for other urban Association and Vice President of the European Water sectors of developing countries facing similar Association. His main interests cover wastewater engi- neering for developing countries. challenges, such as water supply and solid waste management (e.g., Guerrero et al. 2013). It is then expected to help dealing with the multi- ORCID faceted nature of urban sustainable development, A. Ramôa http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5954-6241 with the ultimate goal to improve living condi- J. McConville http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0373-685X tions of urban communities in developing J. Matos http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1335-0635 countries. Disclosure statement References No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the Allen A. 2003. Environmental planning and manage- authors. ment of the peri-urban interface: perspectives on an emerging ﬁeld. Environ Urban. 15:135–148. ASCE. 1986. Urban planning guide. ASCE manuals and reports on engineering practice, no. 49. New York Funding (NY): American Society of Civil Engineers. The work of the ﬁrst author was supported by the Barnes R, Roser D, Brown P. 2011. Critical evaluation Portuguese Foundation of Science and Technology of planning frameworks for rural water and sanita- (FCT) with the grant SFRH/BD/75785/2011. tion development projects. Dev Pract. 21:168–189. Bouabid A, Louis G. 2015. Capacity factor analysis for evaluating water and sanitation infrastructure choices for developing communities. J Environ Notes on contributors Manage. 161:335–343. Ana Ramôa is a doctoral student at Instituto Superior Butala N, VanRooyen M, Patel R. 2010. Improved Técnico (University of Lisbon), Portugal. Her disserta- health outcomes in urban sums through infrastruc- tion aims at developing a decision support methodology ture upgrading. Soc Sci Med. 71:935–940. for improving sanitation services of peri-urban areas in Campos L, Ross P, Nasir Z, Taylor H, Parkinson J. developing countries integrating sustainability aspects 2015. Development and application of a methodol- and the system thinking (from the interface of the user ogy to assess sanitary risks in Maputo, with the sanitation system to the ﬁnal destination of Mozambique. Environ Urban. 27:1–19. sanitation products). Carter R, Tyrrel S, Howsam P. 1999. The impact of Christoph Lüthi is head of the Department of Sanitation, sustainability of community water supply and sani- Water and Solid Waste for Development (Sandec) at the tation programs in developing countries. J Chartered Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Inst Water Environ Manage. 13:292–296. 208 A. Ramôa et al. Eawag-Sandec. 2011. Community-Led Urban Kennedy-Walker R, Evans B, Amezaga J, Paterson C. Environmental Sanitation Planning: CLUES – 2014. Challenges for the future of urban sanitation Complete Guidelines for Decision-Makers with 30 planning: critical analysis of John Kalbermatten’s Tools. Dübendorf (Switzerland): Swiss Federal inﬂuence. J Water Sanit Hyg Dev. 4:1–14. Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Larsen T, Alder A, Eggen R, Maurer M, Liener J. 2009. Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council Source separation: will we see a paradigm shift in and United Nations Human Settlements Programme. wastewater handling? Environ Sci Technol. Fonseca C, Dubé A, Verhoeven J 2011. Cost-based 43:6121–6125. decision support tools for water and sanitation. Lawrence D. 2000. Planning theories and environmental impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre. 20:607–625. WASHCost, Working Paper 4. Lüthi C, Lehn H, Norstrom A, Panesar A, Rud S, Garfì M, Ferrer-Martí L. 2011. Decision-making criteria Saywell D, Verhagen J, Ulrich L, Ingle R 2012. and indicators for water and sanitation projects in Planning of sustainable sanitation for cities. developing countries. Water Sci Technol. 64:83–101. SuSanA factsheet. Cities and Planning: Working GHK, WEDC, WSP-SA. 2000. Strategic planning for Group 6. municipal sanitation: A guide. First ed. London, Lüthi C, Panesar A, Schutze T, Norström A, McConville UK: GHK Research and Training Ltd.. J, Parkinson J, Saywell D, Ingle R. 2011. sustain- Gomez J, Nakat A. 2002. Community participation in able sanitation in cities – A framework for action. water and sanitation. Water Int. 27:343–353. The Netherlands: Sustainable Sanitation Alliance Guerrero L, Maas G, Hogland W. 2013. Solid waste and International Forum on Urbanism, Papiroz management challenges for cities in developing Publishing House. countries. Waste Manage. 33:220–232. Lüthi C, Parkinson J 2011. Environmental sanitation Guest J, Barnard J, Beck M, Daigger G, Hilger H, planning for cities of the South – Linking local Jackson S, Karvazy K, Kelly L, Macpherson L, level initiatives with city-wide action. Mihelcic J, et al. 2009. A new planning and design 35th WEDC International Conference, paradigm to achieve sustainable resource recovery Loughborough, UK. from wastewater. Environ Sci Technol. 43:6126– 6130. Maurer M, Bufardi A, Tilley E, Zurbrügg C, Truffer B. Hofmann P. 2011. Falling through the net: access to 2012. A compatibility-based procedure designed to water and sanitation by the peri-urban water poor. generate potential sanitation system alternatives. J Int J Urban Sustain Dev. 3:40–55. Environ Manage. 104:51–61. ISO. 2007. ISO 24511:2007(E): Activities relating to McConville J, Kain J, Kvarnström E, Renman G. 2011. drinking water and wastewater services — Bridging sanitation engineering and planning: the- Guidelines for the management of wastewater utili- ory and practice in Burkina Faso. J Water Sanit Hyg ties and for the assessment of wastewater services. Dev. 1:205–212. Geneva (Switzerland): International Organization Montgomery M, Bartram J, Elimelech M. 2009. for Standardization. Increasing functional sustainability of water and sanitation supplies in rural Sub-Saharan Africa. Isunju J, Schwartz K, Schouten M, Johnson W, Van Dijk Environ Eng Sci. 26:1017–1023. M. 2011. Socio-economic aspects of improved sani- Nilsson D. 2006. A heritage of unsustainability? tation in slums: a review. Public Health. 125:368– Reviewing the origin of the large-scale water and sanitation system in Kampala, Uganda. Environ IWA. 2006. Sanitation 21. Simple approaches to com- Urban. 18:369–385. plex sanitation. A draft framework for analysis. Okurut K, Charles K. 2014. Household demand for London (UK): International Water Association. sanitation improvements in low-income informal Katukiza A, Ronteltap M, Oleja A, Niwagaba C, settlements: a case of East African cities. Habitat Kansiime F, Lens P. 2010. Selection of sustainable Int. 44:332–338. sanitation technologies for urban slums – a case of Palaniappan M, Lang M, Gleick P. 2008. A review of bwaise III in Kampala, Uganda. Sci Total Environ. decision-making support tools in the water, sanita- 409:52–62. tion and hygiene sector. Oakland (CA): Paciﬁc Keivani R. 2010. A review of the main challenges to Institute and Environmental Change and Security urban sustainability. Int J Urban Sustain Dev. 1:5– Program. 16. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 209 Peal A, Evans B, Van Der Voorden C. 2010. Hygiene Tilley E, Ulrich L, Lüthi C, Reymond P, Zurbrügg C. and sanitation software: an overview of approaches. 2014. Compendium of sanitation systems and tech- nd Geneva, Switzerland: Water Supply and Sanitation nologies. 2 Revised ed. Dübendorf, CH: Swiss Collaborative Council. Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and pS-Eau. 2012. How to select appropriate technical solu- Technology (Eawag). tions for sanitation – Methodological guides, nº4. Törnqvist R, Norström A, Kärrman E, Malmqvist P. Paris (France): Program Solidarité Eau and 2008. A framework for planning of sustainable Municipal Development Partnership. water and sanitation systems in peri-urban areas. Richardson T. 2005. Environmental assessment and Water Sci Technol. 58:563–570. planning theory: four short stories about power, Ujang Z, Henze M. 2006. Municipal wastewater man- multiple rationality, and ethics. Environ Impact agement in developing countries: principles and Assess Rev. 25:341–365. engineering. London, UK: IWA Publishing. Roma E, Pearce J, Brown C, Islam S. 2013. Note from Uwejamomere T. 2011. The challenge of urban poverty the ﬁeld: sanitation mapper: a tool for mapping and and inequalities in developing world cities: issues monitoring sanitation in low-income countries. and options for the sanitation and water sector. Int J Waterlines. 31:309–313. Urban Sustain Dev. 3:127–131. Rosales N. 2011. Towards the modelling of sustainabil- Watson V. 2009. “The planned city sweeps the poor st ity into urban planning: using indicators to build away. . .”: urban planning and 21 century urbanisa- sustainable cities. Procedia Eng. 21:641–647. tion. Prog Plann. 72:151–193. Rosemarin A, Ekane N, Caldwell I, Kvarnström E, WHO. 2006. Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, McConville J, Ruben C, Fogde M. 2008. excreta and greywater. Geneva (Switzerland): World Pathways for sustainable sanitation: achieving the Health Organization. millennium development goals. Stockholm: WHO. 2015. Sanitation safety planning manual for safe Stockholm Environment Institute/International use and disposal of wastewater, greywater and excreta. Water Association. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization. Rossiter J 2000. Integrated urban housing development. WHO and UNICEF. 2015. Progress on sanitation and Comparison of single sector, multisector and inte- drinking water –2015 update and MDG assessment. grated urban development projects and their impact Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization. on the livelihoods of the urban poor. Working paper 1. Willetts J, Paddon M, Nam N, Trung N, Carrard N. Smith H, Jenkins P. 2015. Trans-disciplinary research 2013. Sustainability assessment of sanitation and strategic urban expansion planning in a context options in Vietnam: planning with the future in of weak institutional capacity: case study of mind. J Water Sanit Hyg Dev. 3:262–268. Huambo, Angola. Habitat Int. 46:244–251. World Bank. 2007. Principles of town water supply and Stenström T, Seidu R, Ekane N, Zurbrügg C. 2011. sanitation. Part 2: sanitation. Washington (DC): The Microbial exposure and health assessments in sani- World Bank. tation technologies and systems. Stockholm Wright A. 1997. Towards a strategic sanitation approach: improving the sustainability of urban Environment Institute. Eco SanRes Ser. 2011-1:1– 154. sanitation planning in developing countries, water Stigt R, Driessen P, Spitt T. 2013. A window on urban and sanitation program. Washington (DC): The sustainability – integration of environmental inter- World Bank. ests in urban planning through “decision windows”. WSP. 2008. Technology options for urban sanitation in Environ Impact Assess Rev. 42:18–24. india for rural drinking water and sanitation in dis- Tayler K. 2008. Urban sanitation – lessons from experi- trict municipalities. New Delhi (India): Water ence. Waterlines. 27:30–47. Sanitation Program. Tayler N. 1998. Urban Planning Theories Since 1945. WSP. 2010. Marching Together with a Citywide London (UK): SAGE Publications. Sanitation Strategy. Washington (DC): Water Tiberghien J, Robbins P, Tyrrel S. 2011.Reﬂexive Sanitation Program. assessment of practical and holistic sanitation devel- WSP. 2014. The missing link in sanitation service deliv- opment tools using the rural and peri-urban case of ery: a review of fecal sludge management in 12 cities. Mexico. J Environ Manage. 92:457–471. Washington (DC): Water Sanitation Program.

Journal

International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development – Taylor & Francis

Published: Jul 2, 2016

Keywords: Decision-making; developing countries; planning; process guides; sanitation

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Urban sanitation technology decision-making in developing countries: a critical analysis of process guides

Urban sanitation technology decision-making in developing countries: a critical analysis of process guides

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Urban sanitation technology decision-making in developing countries: a critical analysis of process guides

Urban sanitation technology decision-making in developing countries: a critical analysis of process guides

References (72)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies