Comparing Sanitation Systems Using Sustainability Criteria

The report argues that no sanitation system is universally sustainable and must be assessed based on specific local contexts using a multi-criteria analysis. By comparing various on-site alternatives against a '0 alternative' (connection to a centralized wastewater treatment plant) in Sweden, South Africa, and Mexico, the study finds that dry urine-diversion systems consistently outperform centralized systems in environmental metrics, such as nutrient recovery and water conservation, although they often rank lower in socio-cultural acceptability and household-level health risks due to the requirement for manual handling of waste.

• The report establishes that sustainability in sanitation is context-specific, meaning no single system is universally sustainable and each must be evaluated within its specific environment.
• Across all three illustrative examples, dry urine-diversion systems showed superior performance compared to centralized wastewater treatment plants regarding environmental criteria, specifically in reducing discharges of nitrogen and BOD, improving the quality of recycled products, and reducing water consumption.
• Dry urine-diversion systems consistently rank lower than centralized systems in terms of socio-cultural appropriateness and convenience because waterborne sanitation is the established norm in the studied countries.
• The use of dry sanitation systems introduces a higher risk of infection at the household level compared to centralized systems because users must manually handle excreta.
• In the South African case (Buffalo City), the centralized waterborne system is deemed unsustainable due to outdated infrastructure, lack of maintenance funds, and the fact that 56 per cent of the population has no income to pay for services.
• In Mexico (Tepoztlán), approximately 90 per cent of municipal wastewater treatment plants are abandoned due to inappropriate technology choices, high operational costs, and lack of maintenance.
• Financial sustainability of centralized systems in Mexico and South Africa is questioned because they rely on heavy municipal subsidies for construction and operation, whereas on-site systems shift costs to the household.
• In the Swedish case (Sandviken), on-site systems are often more economically viable for households than connecting to a centralized plant due to the principle of full cost recovery applied by the municipality.

APA

Lennartsson, M., Kvarnström, E., Lundberg, T., Buenfil, J., & Sawyer, R. (2009). Comparing Sanitation Systems Using Sustainability Criteria. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Air-land-water-resources/comparing-sanitation-systemsweb.pdf

Chicago

Lennartsson, Maria, Elisabeth Kvarnström, Tommy Lundberg, Jacinto Buenfil, and Ron Sawyer. Comparing Sanitation Systems Using Sustainability Criteria. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2009. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Air-land-water-resources/comparing-sanitation-systemsweb.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Lennartsson |first1=Maria |last2=Kvarnström |first2=Elisabeth |last3=Lundberg |first3=Tommy |last4=Buenfil |first4=Jacinto |last5=Sawyer |first5=Ron |title=Comparing Sanitation Systems Using Sustainability Criteria |publisher=Stockholm Environment Institute |date=2009 |url=https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Air-land-water-resources/comparing-sanitation-systemsweb.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{lennartsson2009comparing, author = {Lennartsson, Maria and Kvarnström, Elisabeth and Lundberg, Tommy and Buenfil, Jacinto and Sawyer, Ron}, title = {{Comparing Sanitation Systems Using Sustainability Criteria}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, year = {2009}, url = {https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Air-land-water-resources/comparing-sanitation-systemsweb.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }