Selection of the sustainability of sanitation technologies for urban slum: the case of jimma town, Ethiopia

Abstract

Background: More than half of the world’s population now lives in urban areas, and this is set to increase, mostly driven by urban growth in developing countries. This rapid urbanization increases the demand for services like water, sanitation, and hygiene in the last decades upto now. The demand of the urban poor is high on sanitation as in food and other commodities. Selection of sustainable sanitation technology and innovation that alleviate the problem is indicated for less invested development agenda in Ethiopia especially in urban settings. The basis for sanitation improvement in urban slums is a result of contaminated conditions and their negative effects on public health and the environment. Objectives: The over all objectives of this study was to investigate the selection of sustainable sanitation technologies for urban slumsinJimma Town. Methods: This project was conducted using a cross-sectional household survey in which households were selected using sampling of randomly selected kebeles. A total of 310 households were included; that the sample is calculated based on single proportion formula. Questionnaires were used to collect household sanitation conditions and systematic walks with key informants through the study area aimed at observing the slum condition of the kebeles carrying out informal and informative interviews using checklists. Data were analyzed using SPSS software for the survey;multi-criteria analysis (MCA) for focus group discussion (FGD) and descriptive statics were used to summarize the results. Finally, alternative sanitation options were prioritized. Result: Most of the households 234(77.5%) at least had one form of toilet facility. About 88(37.6%) has septic tanks, 53(22.6%) use traditional pit latrine, 50(21.4%) used to flushed pit latrine, 28(12%), discharge there feaces somewhere and 15(6.4%) used VIP. Only 31(10.2%) households safely manage fecal sludge, 44(14.6%) has access to basic service, 131(43.4%) has limited service, and 28(9.3%) unimproved sanitation and 68(22.5%) has access to any form of toilet facility. More than half 206(68.2%) has access to improved facilities. Where as, about 135(57.7%) were shared facilities at least between two or more households. Of the facilities observed 143(38.9%) were treated either in-suite or emptied safely as reported by respondents. The multi-criteria analysis was applied and the result shows; flush to septic tanks, compost ix | P a g e toilets, and biogas toilets were the three alternatives ranked in the final analysis for this particular study area. Conclusion and recommendation: Sanitation of urban slums in the town was low coverage. More of the technology options were traditional which are not sustainable, and unimproved. Only 10 % reported using safely managedsanitation service. Considering sustainability criteria and multi-criteria analysis septic tanks, compost toilets, and biogas toilet options were the three alternatives for the urban slum of Jimma town. The coverage of those sanitation technology options was very low that more than 70% of the households used other than the sustainable sanitation options. Only septic tanks were reported in use among some of the householders. Mobilize and demonstrating sustainable sanitation options like septic tanks, biogas toilets, and compost toiletsare required to achieve sustainable sanitation goals for the study area.