Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

NoMix toilets separate urine and feces at the source and are a promising resource recovery technology. However, design issues hamper the transformation from unattractive to aspirational products. Little effort has been done to design toilets that account for physiological differences, leading to adverse effects on user-friendliness and urine separation efficiency. We used infrared recordings to assess gender-specific urination practices. Based on field data, we developed the Urinator, a simple device that allows simulating male and female urine streams. This supports engineers in developing more user- and gender-friendly and reuse-oriented sanitation technologies.

Keywords

design research gender-friendly sanitation inclusive design user-centered design NoMix toilets Sustainable Development Goal 6

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andriessen

Ward

B. J.

Strande

(2019). To char or not to char? Review of technologies to produce solid fuels for resource recovery from faecal sludge. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, 9(2), 210–224. https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2019.184

Cai

You

(1998). An ergonomic approach to public squatting-type toilet design. Applied ergonomics, 29(2), 147–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(96)00023-3

Darnton

Verplanken

White

Whitmarsh

(2011, November). Habits, routines and sustainable lifestyles: Summary report. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/e28f7a_181d01f0924344588c52b728ab08891e.pdf

Devine

(2009, October). Introducing SaniFOAM: A framework to analyze sanitation behaviors to design effective sanitation programs (Working Paper 72205). Water and Sanitation Program. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/272351468334778050/pdf/722050WSP0Box30PUBLIC00GSP0sanifoam.pdf

Dreibelbis

Winch

P. J.

Leontsini

Hulland

K. R.

Ram

P. K.

Unicomb

Luby

S. P.

(2013). The integrated behavioural model for water, sanitation, and hygiene: A systematic review of behavioural models and a framework for designing and evaluating behaviour change interventions in infrastructure-restricted settings. BMC Public Health, 13(1), Article 1015. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-1015

Elledge

Parker

Toolaram

Stoner

(2020). A gender lens into sanitation technology innovation. Journal of Management in Engineering, 36(4), Article 06020002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000775

Greed

(2003). Inclusive urban design. Routledge.

Gundlach

Bryla

Larsen

T. A.

Kristoferitsch

Gru

Holzner

(2020). Novel NoMix toilet concept for efficient separation of urine and feces and its design optimization using computational fluid mechanics. Journal of Building Engineering, 33, Article 101500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101500

Haylen

Ashby

Sutherst

J. R.

Frazer

West

(1989). Maximum and average urine flow rates in normal male and female populations: The Liverposl nomograms. British Journal of Urology, 64(1), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.1989.tb05518.x

10.

Hueso

Malhotra

Shipra

Nath

(2018). Female-friendly public and community toilets: A guide for planners and decision makers. UNICEF, WSUP, & WaterAid. https://washmatters.wateraid.org/sites/g/files/jkxoof256/files/female-friendly-public-and-community-toilets-a-guide.pdf

11.

Junghanns

Beery

(2020). Ecological sanitation and sustainable nutrient recovery education: Considering the three fixes for environmental problem-solving. Sustainability, 12(9), Article 3587. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093587

12.

Kira

(1976). The bathroom (New and expanded ed.). Viking Press.

13.

Kriwanek

Bryla

Stern

Gründl

Kristoferitsch

(2018). Urinator [version 1]. Gates Open Res, 2, 51. https://doi.org/10.21955/gatesopenres.1114890.1

14.

Kumar

Dhabalia

J. V.

Nelivigi

G. G.

Punia

M. S.

Suryavanshi

(2009). Age, gender, and voided volume dependency of peak urinary flow rate and uroflowmetry nomogram in the Indian population. Indian Journal of Urology, 25(4), 461–466. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.57912

15.

Lienert

(2013). High acceptance of source-separating technologies–but . . . In Larsen

T. A.

Udert

K. M.

Lienert

(Eds.), Source separation and decentralization for wastewater management (pp. 193–207): IWA. https://www.dora.lib4ri.ch/eawag/islandora/object/eawag%3A11624

16.

Lungu

Morse

Grimason

(2008). Ecological sanitation: Implementation, opportunities and challenges in Chikwawa. Environment & Health International, 10(2), 1–7.

17.

Mahieu

Pringot

Bodart

(1984). Defecography: I. Description of a new procedure and results in normal patients. Gastrointestinal Radiology, 9(1), 247–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01887845

18.

McClelland

Ward

J. S.

(1976). Ergonomics in relation to sanitary ware design. Ergonomics, 19(4), 465–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140137608931558

19.

Mosler

Contzen

(2016). Systematic behavior change in water, sanitation and hygiene: A practical guide using the RANAS approach. Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Research and Technology.

20.

Mullick

Kumar

(2012). Research and design of a cultural product: Inclusive design of a squat latrine. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 56(1), 615–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181312561128

21.

Prüss-Ustün

Wolf

Bartram

Clasen

Cumming

Freeman

M. C.

Gordon

Hunter

P. R.

Medlicott

Johnston

(2019). Burden of disease from inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene for selected adverse health outcomes: An updated analysis with a focus on low-and middle-income countries. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 222(5), 765–777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2019.05.004

22.

Roma

Philp

Buckley

Xulu

Scott

(2013). User perceptions of urine diversion dehydration toilets: Experiences from a cross-sectional study in eThekwini Municipality. Water SA, 39(2), 302–312. https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v39i2.15

23.

Routray

Schmidt

W.-P.

Boisson

Clasen

Jenkins

M. W.

(2015). Socio-cultural and behavioural factors constraining latrine adoption in rural coastal Odisha: An exploratory qualitative study. BMC Public Health, 15(1), Article 880. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2206-3

24.

Tilley

Bieri

Kohler

(2013). Sanitation in developing countries: a review through a gender lens. Journal of Water, Sanitation & Hygiene for Development, 3(3), 298–314. https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2013.090

25.

Tilley

Ulrich

Lüthi

Reymond

Zurbrügg

Schertenleib

(2014). Compendium of sanitation systems and technologies (2nd rev. ed.). Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology. https://www.iwa-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Compendium-Sanitation-Systems-and-Technologies.pdf

26.

Tumwebaze

I. K.

Orach

C. G.

Nakayaga

J. K.

Karamagi

Luethi

Niwagaba

(2011). Ecological sanitation coverage and factors affecting its uptake in Kabale municipality, western Uganda. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 21(4), 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/09603123.2010.550036

27.

United Nations Children’s Fund & World Health Organization. (2019). Progress on household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene 2000-2017: Special focus on inequalities. https://www.unicef.org/media/55276/file/Progress%20on%20drinking%20water,%20sanitation%20and%20hygiene%202019%20.pdf

28.

Werner

Panesar

Rüd

Olt

(2009). Ecological sanitation: Principles, technologies and project examples for sustainable wastewater and excreta management. Desalination, 248(1–3), 392–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2008.05.080

29.

Wiles

Prosser

Bagnoli

Clark

Davies

Holland

Renold

(2008, October). Visual ethics: Ethical issues in visual research (Working Paper NCRM/011). ESRC National Centre for Research Methods. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/421/1/MethodsReviewPaperNCRM-011.pdf

How Women and Men Pee: Assessing Gender-Specific Urination Practices for a Comfortable Toilet Experience

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References