Advertisement

Perceptions and Attitudes of the Rural Population of Morocco Towards EcoSan Latrines UDDTs

  • A. TaouraoutEmail author
  • A. Chahlaoui
  • D. Belghyti
  • M. Najy
  • I. Taha
  • A. Kharroubi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Intelligent Transportation and Infrastructure book series (LNITI)

Abstract

In Morocco, most of the rural population is not connected to sewerage systems and many households and public buildings in rural areas lack any kind of sanitation facilities. This lack of sanitation, constitute a real burden on the health of the population and environment. Traditional methods of defecation such as the simple pit latrines and the open air are still widely used in rural areas of Morocco. In response to resolve this situation, the first EcoSan latrines (UDDTs) were introduced in a rural village called ‘Ait Daoud Ou Moussa’ in Morocco in December 2009. In this study, a questionnaire survey, a group discussion and an interview with stakeholders in the field of sanitation were taken to assess the socio-cultural acceptance of the EcoSan latrines in this village. Survey results showed that these eco-toilets have been generally accepted by almost all users and non-users. However, the use of excreta after treatment in their agriculture has not been accepted (psychic effect).At the end of this study, we propose some recommendations to encourage the village’s population to reuse the treated excreta in their own fields.

Keywords

Acceptance EcoSan latrines Rural areas Morocco 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the survey participants for providing critical information and all who contributed directly or indirectly to this study.

References

  1. 1.
    United Nations: Agenda items 5, 6 and 18 (a) High-level segment High-level political forum on sustainable development, convened under the auspices of the Economic and Social Council Economic and environmental questions: sustainable development Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals Report of the Secretary-General (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    UNICEF and WHO: Progress on sanitation and drinking water: 2015 update and MDG assessment. UNICEF and World Health Organization (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    UN-HABITAT: State of the World’s Cities—Harmonious Cities! 2008/9. UN-HABITAT (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Taouraout, A., Chahlaoui, A., Belghyti, D., Mansouri, B., Kharroubi, A.: The evaluation of the impact of the first EcoSan project installed in Morocco. Adv. Res. J. Multi-Disc. Discov. I 26.0(I). ISSN NO.: 2456-1045Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Watson, R.T., Zakri, A.H.: Living beyond our means. Natural Assets and Human Well-being. Statement from the Board. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sutton, M.A., Howard, C.M., Willem Erisman, J., Billen, G., Bleeker, A., Grennfelt, P., van Grinsven, H., Grizzetti, B. (eds.) European Nitrogen Assessment: Sources, Effects and Policy Perspectives. University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Galloway, J.N., Dentener, F.J., Capone, D.G., Boyer, E.W., Howarth, R.W., Seitzinger, S.P., Asner, G.P., Cleveland, C.C., Green, P.A., Holland, E.A., et al.: Nitrogen cycles: past, present, and future. Biogeochemistry 70, 153–226 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jewitt, S.: Poo gurus? Researching the threats and opportunities presented by human waste. Appl. Geogr. 31, 761–769 (2011). This paper provides a good overview of the importance of human waste (as both a threat and an opportunity) in different spatial, historical and cultural contexts and highlights potential areas of interest for applied geographical research in the futureCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    UNICEF and WHO: Progress on drinking water and sanitation. 2012 update. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation (2012). http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/JMP-report-2012-en.pdf
  10. 10.
    UNICEF/WHO: World Health Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation (JMP): Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: Special Focus on Sanitation (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Farmer, A.M.: Reducing phosphate discharges: the role of the 1991 EC Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. Water Sci. Technol. 44, 41–48 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    High Commissioner of Planning: The Morocco between millennium goals for the development and objectives of sustainable development achievements and challenges. National Report, Aug 2015Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    WHO/UNICEF: Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Update and SDG Baselines (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Winblad, U., Simpson-Hebert, M.: Ecological Sanitation—Revised and Enlarged Edition. Stockholm Environment Institute (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Werner, C., Panesar, A., Rüd, S.B., Olt, C.U.: Ecological sanitation: principles, technologies and project examples for sustainable wastewater and excreta management. Desalination 248, 392–401 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    WHO: Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater Use in Agriculture and Aquaculture. World Health Organisation (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Niwagaba, C., Kulabako, R.N., Mugala, P., Jönsson, H.: Comparing microbial die-off in separately collected faeces with ash and sawdust additives. Waste Manage. 29, 2214–2219 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tilley, E., Ulrich, L., Lüthi, C., Reymond, Ph., Zurbrügg, C.: Compendium of sanitation systems and technologies, 2nd revised edn. Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag), Dübendorf, Switzerland (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Andersson, E.: Turning waste into value: using human urine to enrich soils for sustainable food production in Uganda. J. Clean. Prod. 96, 290298 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dellstrom Rosenquist, L.E.: A psychosocial analysis of the human-sanitation nexus. J. Environ. Psychol. 25, 335–346 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nawab, B., Nyborg, I.L.P., Esser, K.B., Jenssen, P.D.: Cultural preferences in designing ecological sanitation systems in North West Frontier Province, Pakistan. J. Environ. Psychol. 26, 236–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.07.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wendland, C., Deegener, S., Jorritsma, F.: Experiences with urine diverting dry toilets (UDDTs) for households, schools and kindergarten in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia (EECCA). Issue 6 (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Avvannavar, S.M., Mani, M.: A conceptual model of people’s approach to sanitation. Sci. Total Environ. 390, 1–12 (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kjellén, M., Pensulo, C., Nordqvist, P., Fogde, M.: Global review of sanitation system trends and interactions with menstrual management practices. Stockholm Environment Institute (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Winblad, U., Kilama, W.: Sanitation Without Water. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lienert, J., Haller, M., Berner, A., Stauffacher, M., Larsen, T.A.: How farmers in Switzerland perceive fertilizers from recycled anthropogenic nutrients (urine). Water Sci. Technol. 2003(48), 47–56 (1985)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pahl-Wostl, C., Schonborn, A., Willi, N., Muncke, J., Larsen, T.A.: Investigating consumer attitudes towards the new technology of urine separation. Water Sci. Technol. 48, 57–65 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lienert, J., Larsen, T.A.: High acceptance of urine source separation in seven European countries: a review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 556–566 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Simha, P., Lalander, C., Vinnerås, B., Ganesapillai, M.: Farmer attitudes and perceptions to the re-use of fertiliser products from resource-oriented sanitation systems—the case of Vellore, South India. Sci. Total Environ. 581, 885–896 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Drangert, J.-O., Nawab, B.: A cultural-spatial analysis of excreting, recirculation of human excreta and health—the case of North West Frontier Province, Pakistan. Health Place 17, 57–66 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mariwah, S., Drangert, J.-O.: Community perceptions of human excreta as fertilizer in peri-urban agriculture in Ghana. Waste Manage. Res. 29(8), 815–822 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242x10390073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Abarghaz, Y.: Assainissement écologique rurale - Projet pilote du douar de DayetIfrah. Master en génie et gestion de l‘eau et environnement, p. 88. Faculté des sciences Rabat, Maroc (2009)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gonidanga, S. B.: Contribution to the implementation of the ecological sanitation (Ecosan) in the African context: Study of the hygienisation process of the urine for a healthy use in agriculture. Thesis, EcolePolytechniqueFédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland, pp. 15–20 (2004)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Simha, P., Ganesapillai, M.: Ecological Sanitation and nutrient recovery from human urine: How far have we come? A review. Sustain. Environ. (2016). www.journals.elsevier.com/sustainableenvironmentresearch/
  35. 35.
    Schönning, C., Stenström, T.-A.: Guidelines on the Safe Use of Urine and Faeces in Ecological Sanitation Systems. Book January 2004with16 Reads. ISBN: 9188714934Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Esrey, S., Gough, J., Rapaport, D., Sawyer, R., Simpson-Hébert, M., Vargas, J., Winblad, U.: Ecological Sanitation. SIDA, Stockholm (1998)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Abeyuriya, K., Mitchell, C., White, S.: Can corporate social responsibility resolve the sanitation question in developing Asian countries? Ecol. Econ. 62, 174–183 (2007)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Uddin, S.M.N., Tempel, A., Adamowski, J.F., Lapegue, J., Li, Z., Mang, H.-P.: Exploring alternative sources of funding for deploying sustainable sanitation technologies and services in Mongolia. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 32, 881–894 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2015.1121137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Trémolet, S., Kolsky, P., Perez, E.: Financing on-site sanitation for the poor. A six country comparative review and analysis (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Taouraout
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • A. Chahlaoui
    • 2
  • D. Belghyti
    • 1
  • M. Najy
    • 1
  • I. Taha
    • 2
  • A. Kharroubi
    • 3
  1. 1.Laboratory of Agrophysiology, Biotechnology, Environment and Qualities, Faculty of SciencesUniversity IbnTofail of KenitraKenitraMorocco
  2. 2.Laboratory of Natural Resources Management and Development Team, Health and Environment, Faculty of ScienceMoulay Ismail UniversityMeknesMorocco
  3. 3.RU: Applied Hydrosciences Research UnitHigher Institute of Water Sciences and Techniques, University of GabèsGabèsTunisia

Personalised recommendations