4.2 Second phase response options for water and sanitation
| 2nd phase options | Uses and benefits | Constraints and considerations |
Water supply |
||
| Piped water supply with tap stand, including treatment at storage level | Provides 24-hour water supply
Storage provides buffer between source and distribution for settlement and treatment
Reduces walking distances, is an organised distribution with reduced concentration of people at water sources
Eliminates direct user contact with source, thus reducing contamination risk
|
Needs skilled engineers to set up
Needs continuous maintenance at all levels (e.g. broken taps)
Need to do calculations on yield of sources available to meet peak demand flow rate
Treatment system requires skills, logistics, fuel, equipment and chemicals
Need to train caretakers to do chlorination or other treatment and pump maintenance |
| Urban piped water scheme | Is a more sustainable option in situations where a pipeline already exists
Will likely need to rehabilitate or repair existing pipeline to reach affected locations |
Will likely need to support local authority/local water authority to maintain pipeline, or provide materials (e.g. chlorine) |
| Rainwater harvesting scheme | Sustainable option in areas where rainfall is frequent
Fairly easy to control contamination sources Suitable for remote populations that are ‘cut off’ from assistance |
Can be expensive if being implemented at household level
Likely to need to also support a secondary source (e.g. water trucking) in case rainwater storage is depleted |
| Household water filtration and treatment programme | Designed to meet large areas
Suitable where people are home-based
An effective disaster risk reduction measure for populations that are frequently affected by flooding, etc. |
Sensitisation and follow-up by hygiene promoters is required to ensure filters are being used correctly
Likely to be very costly
Need to research local supply chains in case filter candles need to be replaced |
Sanitation |
||
| Pit latrines | Quick and relatively inexpensive
No need for de-sludging
Suitable for areas with low groundwater table
Possible to construct slab with locally available materials |
Can be used only in certain soil conditions and creates implications for water supply and site planning
Can be problems with smell and flies, and if they are not maintained then people may not use them
|
| VIP latrine | Similar to pit latrine, but better quality (reduced smell and flies) with addition of vent pipe from pit | Need availability of more materials and additional cost (due to pipes for ventilation) |
| Eco-san | Closed loop system, and there is no need for de-sludging
Can have environmental benefits and is of use for compost
Suitable only if populations are already familiar with use |
Needs intensive monitoring and sensitization
Should only be used in situations where families can be assigned to latrine, because dedicated daily maintenance is needed |
| Pour flush | Less smell
Used in situations where it is culturally appropriate and commonly used (e.g. where people will not use toilets if they can see into pit) |
Need water supply close by for flushing
Can be blocked easily |
| Septic tank | Can be used in conjunction with pour-flush toilets
Useful in situations where there is a high water table |
Need de-sludging options, including dumping sites
Need skilled technicians/ contractors to build, and detailed drawings beforehand
Very costly and material-intensive |
