2020 Architecture Thesis : Sanitation in Salisburyline

SANITATION IN SALISBURYLINE INFRASTRUCTURE & INFORMALITY, MZUZU CITY, MALAWI

SANITATION IN SALISBURYLINE INFRASTRUCTURE & INFORMALITY, MZUZU CITY, MALAWI

MATHEW CONRAD

PROJECT PRESENTED TO THE : FACULTY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARCHITECTURE DESIGN 10 : RESEARCH AND DESIGN FACULTY : CHRIS HARNISH MATHEW CONRAD PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA MAY 2020

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 6-23 ABSTRACT

RESEARCH QUESTION BACKGROUND THESIS INTENTIONS METHODOLOGIES

FINDINGS

CRITERIA & METRICS

SITE ANALYSIS

SITE COMPARISON

SANITATION SYSTEMS

CASE STUDIES IMPLEMENTATION

6-7 8-9 10-19 20-21 22 23

24-55

24-25 26-35 36-39 40-47 48-53 54-57

SYNTHESIS 58-65 CONCLUSIONS

DESIGN CRITERIA

DESIGN PROPOSAL

EXPECTED OUTCOMES

58 59-61 62-63 64-65

DESIGN 66-97

SYSTEM 1

SYSTEM 2

SYSTEM 3

SITE SELECTION IMPLEMENTATION

66-71 72-75 77-81 82-85 86-97

CONCLUSIONS 98-99 REFLECTION

END NOTES/BIB.

5

98-99

100-105

6 | INTRODUCTION : ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

ABSTRACT :

Mzuzu is a rapidly expanding urban center in Northern Malawi, with the highest rate of population growth out of any city in the country.

The majority of new residents move into informal settlements located in the western half of the city, where there is room to expand. However, existing infrastructure is already strained in its ability to meet the sanitation needs of residents. To meet the basic needs of the people living there, residential and infrastructural expansion need to be considered simultaneously; however, given the informal nature of residential expansion in Mzuzu, meeting the needs of growing communities becomes a significant challenge.

This design proposal examines the informal community of Salisburyline in the city of Mzuzu and considers the integration of sanitation infrastructure within this context. The design intention is to create a community-inspired design that brings formal sanitation infrastructure to an informally-developed community without truly formalizing or removing its unique character.

Better sanitation services will then hopefully increase overall health and well-being and decrease water-borne infection rates. Several literature reviews will need to be conducted on topics including the community itself, existing health metrics, and possible strategies for sanitation development. The project will hopefully generate a prototypical plan for sanitation infrastructure in informal communities, which can then also be implemented in similar contexts as the city continues to grow.

7 | INTRODUCTION : ABSTRACT

8 | SECTION TITLE

INTRODUCTION

RESEARCH QUESTION :

How can sanitation infrastructure be implemented in Salisburyline, an informal settlement in the city of Mzuzu, to improve health outcomes and sanitation access to levels seen in adjacent formal communities, while creating autonomous and selfactualized communities that can continue to meet the same health and sanitation access goals in the future?

9 | INTRODUCTION : RESEARCH QUESTION

INTRODUCTION

URBANIZATION & INFORMALITY :

Urbanization is broadly defined as the process by which cities and towns expand over time both spatially and by population, and the institutional, social, and governmental reactions to these changes. In Malawi, urban growth can be explained through three primary factors: rural-urban migration, natural increase, and the reclassification of settlements as urban.1 Rural-urban migration has several drivers behind it, classified as either push or pull. Push factors, those causing emigration from rural areas, include poverty, lack of economic mobility or opportunity, desertification of arable land, population pressure, and boredom. Pull factors are those which draw people to specifically immigrate to urban areas and include increased access to services, modern utilities, and economic opportunities.2 Natural increase is defined as the net difference between births and deaths in a region and is another significant contributor to population growth in urban areas. While typically, fertility rates are much lower in urban areas than in rural areas of Malawi, they are still significantly higher than the world average and contribute to the overall population growth of the cities there including Mzuzu.3 Political expansion and reclassification of settlements also impacts urbanization. There are two major forms that this takes: the extension of boundaries to include rural areas or settlements within the jurisdictional bounds of the city, or the

10 | INTRODUCTION : BACKGROUND

overall redefinition of what it means to be part of an urban center.4 Informality is often the product of rapid urban expansion, when there are no existing functional frameworks for growth. The term is difficult to define, having very different connotations to different people and groups. To urban planners and city officials, informality is viewed in a negative light with its lack of regularity or conformity to existing regulations. Others view it through the lens of necessity, as the natural extension of exclusivity in formal housing and its inability to keep pace with population growth.

For the purposes of this study and book, housing informality will be defined as development without top-down prescriptive planning, without credence to existing building regulations, and beyond the authority of existing government systems. The goal is to view informality as neither a negative or a positive but as a continued reality in urban contexts such as Mzuzu with both negative and positive outcomes.

However, governmental and institutional actors currently view macro-level infrastructural planning mostly through the lens of formalized settlements, which is leading to sharp disparities in access to basic infrastructural needs between the people living in formal neighborhoods and those living in informal settlements. the key to meeting the needs of the growing population is not to reject informality but rather to create formal systems that work within informally developed patterns.

11 | INTRODUCTION : BACKGROUND

INTRODUCTION

MALAWI :

Understanding urban planning in Mzuzu requires a deeper understanding of the country that surrounds it: the South-eastern African nation of Malawi. Located with the shores of Lake Malawi to its east, the country is unique within its context. In comparison to neighboring Tanzania and Mozambique, whose urban populations now number between 30% and 40% of their total populations,6 16% of the population of Malawi live in a city or urban area.7 A large percentage of the population engages in subsistence farming to support themselves, roughly 80% of the total population.8 Outside of this, agriculture remains the largest economic generator especially through the export of tobacco and tea. Malawi is also fully landlocked, meaning any imports or exports must pass through one of its neighboring countries or through air transport. Partially because of this, it economically and politically relies on economic assistance through various organizations including the World Bank9 in order to remain solvent.

These factors have a broad impact on overall population demographics and the location of people throughout the country. A very small percentage of people living in Malawi are immigrants from another nation, representing 0.33% of the total population.10 Likewise, the growth rate of immigrants within the country was relatively small: an increase from a total of 51,554 in 200811 to 57,211 in 2018,12 an increase per annum of only 1.09%. This is in comparison

12 | INTRODUCTION : BACKGROUND

to the overall national growth rate of 2.9%13 per year. Most of the population growth is therefore the result of natural increase over time. In spite of this, Malawi has one of the highest rates of population growth in the world, over double the per year average of 1.2%, and a significant increase from the Sub-Saharan African average of 2.7% per year.14 Malawi is also experiencing high rates of urbanization compared to the rest of the world.

Currently the country experiences a rate of 4.2% increase in urban population per year compared to the 1.9% global average.15 Again, because of the low levels of immigration, urbanization in the country is largely the result of internal processes and population shifts. Among these, there are three specifically identified by the Malawian government: natural increases, political restructuring, and rural-urban migration within the country.16 Because of this rapid influx into the cities, informal settlements have become the primary method of expansion. The shift in population has overwhelmed existing development plans and government agencies in parts of the country, which were already hampered by low financial capacity, conflicting plans between agencies, and weak governance.17 In 2019, roughly 60% of the population lived in informal or low-income settlements throughout the country, with certain urban areas having an even higher percentage;18 the city of Mzuzu is one such area in northern Malawi.

MZUZU

LILONGWE

221,272

989,318

5.4%

3.8%

ZOMBA BLANTYRE

CITY

POPULATION (2018)

13 | INTRODUCTION : BACKGROUND

GROWTH RATE19

105,013

800,264

2.5%

2.0%

Fig. ? : Malawi Population Statistics

INTRODUCTION

MZUZU :

Mzuzu exists as an urban center both within the context of broader Malawian trends and as an exception to them. Because of its location as the northernmost of the three largest cities in Malawi, it experiences a significant amount of geographic isolation from the rest of the country. Surrounded on three sides by a series of mountains, highlands, and national parks, the only major transportation route between Mzuzu and the rest of Malawi is the M1 road (right). Its isolation has resulted in a unique style of spatial development and population increase that has had a large impact on its expansion and evolution over time.

At the same time, Mzuzu acts as a centralized hub for the Northern Region because of its remote nature in relation to Southern and Central Malawi. This has resulted in the amplification of rural-urban migration to the region with its overall rate of population increase being the highest in Malawi at 5.4% per year, nearly double the national average.20 The limitations of geography have resulted in this population expansion being mostly westward into rural Mzimba district and through the densification of informal settlements in the western half of the city. Furthermore, Mzuzu’s marshy geography has also resulted in a lack of a formal sewer system or similar.21 Historically, however, the Viphya Plateau to its east and the adjoining Lunyanga River were why Mzuzu was sited on this location at all. The settlement that would eventually become the city was originally located on an estate for tung tree oil,22 which requires large amounts of rainfall,

14 | INTRODUCTION : BACKGROUND

water, sedimentation, and altitudes of between 3,000 and 5,000 feet above sea level in order to propagate. These original settlements were located in the far eastern part of the modern city23 in what are now the wards of Katawa, Zolozolo East, and Jombo/Kaning’ina (right), and constitute most of Mzuzu’s current formalized communities. The town continued to expand around this original settlement through postindependence because of its central location within northern Malawi, eventually becoming a city in 1985.24 The city has continued to expand since then, in terms of both space and population, and as a hub for commerce, learning, and culture in the north of Malawi. Mzuzu University opened as the country’s second national university in 1997.

Because of its size and central location, Mzuzu acts as a center of commerce for the Northern Region with an economy that has been growing on average at 5.8% per year, timber, agriculture, and mining being the primary formal industries. The informal economy is the largest economic driver, employing 63% of the working population.25 Much of the urban growth can be attributed to the rapidly increasing population. Between 2008 and 2018, the city of Mzuzu increased in population by 93,733 people to a total of 221,272 or a roughly 73% increase.26 This has also led to a significant increase in the overall density of the city, growing from 874 people per square kilometer to 1,516 people per square kilometer, a trend which can be seen in its spatial distribution.27

Fig. ? : Mzuzu Ward Map

NKHOLONGO LUPASO

LUWINGA ZOLOZOLO EAST

5

6 2 MCHENGAUTUBA WEST

3

4 7

1

KATAWA

JOMBO/KANING’INA

MASASA

MSONGWE

MAP KEY : City Boundary : Ward Boundary : Major Road : River : Forest :

15 | INTRODUCTION : BACKGROUND

1 : MCHENGAUTUBA EAST 2 : CHIBAVI WEST 3 : CHIBAVI EAST 4 : CHIBANJA

5 : ZOLOZOLO WEST 6 : CHIPUTULA 7 : MZILAWAINGWE

2006 16 | SECTION TITLE

2019

INTRODUCTION

MZUZU (CONT.) :

Mzuzu is experiencing a far greater rate of urbanization than other urban areas in Malawi.

Both Blantyre and Lilongwe have averaged less than a 50% increase in population between 2008 and 2018.28 The growth of Mzuzu also far outstrips the average growth of Malawi over the same period, at 35%.29 Of the three identified factors impacting urban growth (rural-urban migration, natural increase, and the reclassification of settlements),30 ruralurban migration is the most significant contributor according to studies by the city government.

In fact, of the total population living in Mzuzu currently, only 33.89% were born there, with the other significant contributions coming from the surrounding Mzimba district (21%) and other rural areas within the Northern Region (30.16%).31 Rural-urban migration’s role as the source of Mzuzu’s population growth has led to sharp divisions within the city. Residential regions on the city’s eastern edge are generally far more spaced out and formalized than the more organic expansion experienced in the west.

Urban expansion within the city primarily comes in two major forms, each providing very different challenges to infrastructure development.

The first is spatial boundary expansion along the city’s western edge as seen in the ward of Mchengautuba West. The second is the densification of existing informal settlements within the city’s boundaries, often into marshy or otherwise undesirable land, as seen in the community of Salisburyline in Chibanja ward.

17 | INTRODUCTION : BACKGROUND

18 | SECTION TITLE

INTRODUCTION

SALISBURYLINE :

Salisburyline is an informal community that has developed on the southern edge of Chibanja ward in the heart of Mzuzu. Alternatively spelled Salisburylines or Salisbury Line, the community is named after the first families there who came to Mzuzu from Salisbury, Zimbabwe in the early 1950s.32 It is located to the north of the Katoto Housing Estate, a formal settlement developed by the Malawi Housing Corporation.33 The community is located on government-owned marshy wetlands, which were left unoccupied as being “unsuitable for development�,34 with several tributaries of the Lunyangwa River running through it. While the digging of drains has reduced the overall impact of flooding, it is still a major threat within the community.35 In March of 2014, 4,600 people were left homeless in the area after heavy rains caused severe floods.36 The community has been recognized by the local Mzuzu City Council, and a decree was made against eviction by the city after petitioning in the 1970s. The 1987 Salisburyline Land Use Plan demarcated areas along the main road for official recognition and development, and introduced water infrastructure to much of the community.

The city also recognizes the community for tax and fee purposes.37 Salisburyline is also unique in that only 15.6% living there rent, while the remainder own their current houses.38 The settlement grew slowly during the course of the 20th century, having a population of only five families in the 1970s, but population has rapidly

19 | INTRODUCTION : BACKGROUND

expanded in the past 30 years. Between 2008 and 2018, the population of the community increased from 9,840 to an estimated 13,490 people.39 Salisburyline was chosen as the site for this study for a variety of reasons, the primary one being the current lack of residents with access to reliable sanitation. Less than 2% of community households have access to sanitation other than shallow pit latrines, with an additional 2% of those having access to no sanitation at all.40 There is also a large percentage of residents who own their homes. 85% of residents in Salisburyline live in houses they built themselves.41 Residents have a reason to maintain infrastructure and will receive future benefits of any intervention.

Rapid densification was also an important factor.

The population has increased by nearly 50% in the past ten years, and current issues will only be exacerbated in the future if trends continue.

Salisburyline is also located near the formalized community of Katoto, which can be used for comparison purposes in terms of health.

Because of the high water table, the threat of contamination to ground water is high, and health metrics will hopefully be able to establish whether the project was successful or not.

Finally, this community was chosen because of its presence on government-owned land. Future informal settlements in Mzuzu will share many commonalities with Salisburyline in this sense.

20 | INTRODUCTION : THESIS

INTRODUCTION

THESIS :

The use of innovative waste-to-energy technologies including biogas reactors, a reliance on existing communal knowledge around construction, and circular economic pathways generated through community-based implementation methodologies can achieve sanitation and health goals. The added benefit is the creation of an autonomous, self-actualized communities, utilizing long-term health and sanitation access metrics to determine its success.

21 | INTRODUCTION : THESIS

INTRODUCTION

GOALS & INTENTIONS :

Because of the marshy geography, rural-to-urban migration, and the lack of formal housing, there has been a proliferation of informal settlements throughout the city of Mzuzu. Development and expansion of residential areas in Mzuzu will continue to be primarily through informal means in the near future, so a framework for developing formal sanitation systems in informal communities is necessary to ensure the health and wellbeing of current and future citizens. The community of Salisburyline provides an opportunity to see how sanitation infrastructure can be implemented in informal communities without disrupting their unique character.

With the preceding intentions in mind, the following is a list of derived goals that will be used as a framework for project development:

The overarching intention is to provide greater sanitation access to the informal community of Salisburyline to be designed according to health, access, efficiency, and cost metrics, and in the process generate an overarching framework for the design of similar systems in other informal communities in Mzuzu. This will be achieved though a comprehensive sanitation plan for the community. The design is intended to be very site specific utilizing both objective site data and subjective cultural data to determine what systems would work best within the context of Salisburyline.

3) Analyze metrics of health and sanitation access in Salisburyline and Katoto, using Katoto as a standard

The principles and guidelines developed through research, design, and application, can then be applied in similar contexts around Mzuzu.

22 | INTRODUCTION : GOALS & INTENTIONS

1) Create a system of unique metrics based on health, infrastructure access, efficiency, and cost of construction to judge the success of any future infrastructural intervention in Salisburyline 2) Produce a site analysis of Salisburyline and the adjacent formalized community of Katoto that incorporates spatial, social, cultural, and political aspects to better understand context

4) Choose a system of sanitation that best suits the cultural and social context of Salisburyline while also achieving the health, access, and efficiency metrics discussed above 5) Generate an in situ sanitation system for Salisburyline 6) Provide a plan for implementation for the above system that considers the current and future needs of the community 7) Establish a framework for sanitation system development that can be implemented in contextually similar informal settlements in Mzuzu in the future

METHODOLOGY :

The initial methodology will be a literature review of existing research according to the following six research questions :

1) What metrics can be used to measure the success of a sanitation intervention in Salisburyline according to case studies, government measures, OMS standards, and Sustainable Development Goals?

2) How is the community of Salisburyline organized spatially, socially, politically, and culturally?

3) How do the previously developed metrics of sanitation access and health compare between Salisburyline and the adjacent formal community of Katoto?

4) What possible sanitation systems are available for implementation in Salisburyline, and how do they interact with both the metrics and cultural constraints previously defined?

5) What case studies exist for the implementation of sanitation infrastructure in urban informal settings?

6) What are successful methods of implementation seen in prior case studies?

From this literature review, conclusions will be drawn regarding what sanitation system, method of implementation, and spatial organization would work best in the context of Salisburyline according the base metrics developed at the

23 | INTRODUCTION : METHODOLOGY

beginning of the study. An initial design proposal will then be derived from these conclusions.

The design proposal will inform initial schematic design for a sanitation plan within the community of Salisburyline. Sanitation system type and initial design will all be dictated by the metrics and context explored through the six questions discussed previously. A plan for implementation, and the location of the infrastructure itself will also be determined according to these findings.

Following design development, a road map for how this project could be turned into a replicable framework for other communities in Mzuzu will be generated, using the metrics, research, and design decisions of the preceding project as a baseline. How decisions were made and what criteria they were based on will be distilled down into a set of goals and metrics that could be applied to other individual projects within similar contexts.

Finally, possible projects in the same area will be considered, looking at how future infrastructural interventions could integrate into the existing framework to improve overall outcomes.

FINDINGS What metrics can be used to measure the success of a sanitation intervention in Salisburyline according to case studies, government measures, OMS standards, and Sustainable Development Goals?

SANITATION ACCESS :

Before the implementation of new infrastructure, design metrics must be established in order to be able to view the success of the project in an objective way. For sanitation infrastructure and development, the primary way this can be viewed is simply through levels of access to developed sanitation infrastructure. Currently there are significant disparities between formal and informal settlements in Mzuzu; Salisburyline specifically shows a 1% rate of access to developed sanitation other than a pit latrine, while formalized settlements like Katoto have upwards of 98%.42 The UN Sustainable Development Goals contains a very specific metric of sanitation access. Goal 6.2 calls for “access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations.”43 The global indicator used to measure this is the “proportion of population using safely managed sanitation services including a hand-washing facility with soap and water.44 The WHO defines “safely managed” as an improved sanitation facility which is private, and in which waste is either intentionally and safely disposed on site or treated off-site.45 This process is broken down into five stages of analysis: toilet, containment/storage, conveyance, treatment, and finally end use/disposal.46 The WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply, Sanitation, and Hygiene (JMP) also categorizes sanitation services into five tiers:

24 | FINDINGS : CRITERIA & METRICS

safely-managed services, basic service, limited service, unimproved service, and no service. Safely managed is defined by the above definition plus access to a hand-washing facility. Basic service is defined as a privately held sanitation facility that separates waste from human contact. Limited service is defined as a basic service facility that is shared by multiple households. Unimproved service is considered a facility that does not successfully separate human waste from human contact. No service is defined purely as open defecation.47 While safely managed sanitation services are considered the ideal, basic services are considered an acceptable metric.48 The SDGs also list more abstract metrics for sanitation access. 6.3 calls for the end of dumping and water pollution, which in turn means universal access to sanitation that does not directly impact the water supply. 6.B provides something of a framework for development by using community led and managed sanitation infrastructure as a metric. 9.1 requires reliant and resilient infrastructure that is simultaneously equitable and affordable for all people, creating a sense of inclusion and long-term planning. 11.1 reiterates 6.2’s goal by requesting safe, adequate, and affordable basic services for all.49 For the purposes of this study, sanitation access will be defined as sanitation infrastructure that meets the requirements of either basic or safely managed sanitation by standards of the WHO, with the addition of universal accessibility requirements. The goal is 100% access.

HEALTH :

In order to assess whether there is contact between ground water and human waste, health metrics must be included in the overall measure of success. This can be in terms of both rates of water-borne diseases such as hepatitis and typhoid fever that are directly related to poor sanitation, and in broader terms of general health relating to malnutrition and child development.

United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3.3 includes combating water-borne and communicable diseases as a primary component, with metrics to measure it, including rates of Hepatitis B among a population.50 Furthermore, Goal 3.9 directly references mortality and illness associated with contamination from poor sanitation and water access.51 The World Health Organization (WHO) specifically lists the following diseases that are the result of poor water and sanitation practices as the most prolific: typhoid fever, hepatitis A, schistosomiasis, and various protozoal and bacterial diarrheal diseases.52 Other documents from the organization include dysentery and hookworm as water borne diseases in addition to the others listed above.53 Diarrheal diseases are varied and have multiple different causes. A 2018 study in Blantyre for children under five experiencing diarrhea concluded that of those resulting from water-borne pathogens, most cases were caused a few specific diseases: Escherichia coli, Cryptosporidium, Giardia, Norovirus, Enterocytozoon bieneusi,

25 | FINDINGS : CRITERIA & METRICS

and Encephalitozoon intestinalis.54 No instances of cholera were reported during the time frame, which does not mean there were none; this study was limited in scope to children under the age of five outside of times that cholera would typically occur.55 Cholera is a problematic metric for determining the quality of sanitation. In Malawi, at least, cholera is linked to the rainy season between May and September. Outbreaks, therefore are sporadic and typically associated with this time frame. Outbreaks are also isolated to specific districts, and while they may spread across the country, there is little consistency in how the disease spreads between different outbreaks.56 While cholera is inextricably linked with poor sanitation and water practices, the nature of cholera in Malawi makes it a difficult metric to use for sanitation infrastructure.

In conclusion, metrics for health should focus on non-outbreak diseases that are often seasonally related and determinate on outside exposure.

Furthermore, diseases explored should be endemic to the country. Hepatitis A and B, E. coli, Cryptosporidium, Giardia, Norovirus, Rotavirus, and dysentery all provide reasonably common diseases that result from poor sanitation that are relatively common throughout the year.

Specifically, E. coli cases will be used as a baseline understanding of sanitation given its widespread distribution in Mzuzu and relation to poor sanitation.57 The goal is a total reduction in E. coli exposure to 0 coliforms/100mL.

FINDINGS How is the community of Salisburyline organized spatially, socially, politically, and culturally?

URBAN PATHWAYS :

Paths and roads within Salisburyline are almost entirely organically developed over time through use, as opposed to being developed formally by exterior agencies such as the Mzuzu City Council. While some road development occurred during the Centre for Community Organization & Development (CCODE) development project in 2014 including the addition of 8 culverts and 6 crossover slabs, inadequate funding, mismanagement of funds, and community resistance led to only part of the project being completed in a single section of the overall settlement.58 However, because of Salisburyline’ direct contact to river tributaries and existing wetlands, during the rainy season (October to May), roads are often impassable due to flooding or runoff.59 Furthermore, even when the roads are usable, there are large sections of the community that remain inaccessible from them. Since pathway development is entirely informal, roads either develop from existing pathways used by the community, or through the collective agreement of those whose properties they pass through.60 Road development is therefore far more moderately paced and deliberate than what is seen in the formalized community of Katoto, where roads and houses develop simultaneously from a broad-scale urban plan. This means that while roads do not disrupt the activities or lives of individuals living within Salisburyline, they also lack the universal access and comprehensive nature of those in Katoto.

26 | FINDINGS : SITE ANALYSIS

SALISBURYLINE KATOTO

RM

FO

H PAT

GE

UN

T ER

TE STA

Fig. ? : Pathways and Fluvial Banks

27 | FINDINGS : SITE ANALYSIS

FINDINGS How is the community of Salisburyline organized spatially, socially, politically, and culturally?

FLOOD RISK :

Floods are a significant risk to the community of Salisburyline due to its proximity to the Lunyangwa River and surrounding marshland. The March 2014 floods left 4,600 people homeless.61 The floods in April of 2016 also caused significant impacts to the area and were a major cause of CCODE interventions in the community.62 The settlement expresses several additional conditions that make it vulnerable to flooding. As an informal settlement, Salisburyline lacks access to city based waste collection services, leading drains and channels to at times be blocked by garbage or solid waste. This is especially a concern following the 2020 closure of the dumping site in Mziro without a permanent replacement having been found as of the writing of this book.63 It is also located in a region of the city where much of the drainage and natural gullies flow, leading to increased strain on already overloaded infrastructure.64 City response to disasters has mostly been ex post facto interventions. Recent programs have focused on the relocation of current residents;65 however, due to a variety of economic, social, and political factors, residents of the area are often unable or unwilling to participate. Little has been done to create resilient infrastructure.66 Informal residences continue to expand toward water-logged areas, as the community continues to densify. Cholera and dysentery are increasingly becoming threats due to contamination of these low-lying areas by shallow pit latrines.67

28 | FINDINGS : SITE ANALYSIS

SALISBURYLINE KATOTO

RM

FO

H PAT

GE

UN

T ER

TE STA

Fig. ? : Flood Risk according to Topographical Location

29 | FINDINGS : SITE ANALYSIS

FINDINGS How is the community of Salisburyline organized spatially, socially, politically, and culturally?

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT :

Salisburyline has experienced rapid residential expansion in the past 20 years. Beginning with three households from Zimbabwe in 1953, the location saw scarcely any increase until the late 1970s; there were still less than ten households in the area as of 1976.68 By 2014, less than 40 years later, the number of residences in the area was over 1,50069 with an estimated population of over 10,000.70 Almost all development within this community has been informal, with residential spaces gradually shifting toward previously undesirable land near tributaries of the Lunyangwa River, that are prone to flooding. Development has also occurred as further densification of existing plots and sites.

Plots drawn up by the Mzuzu City Council in 1987 along the southern road have been divided up between different households, in spite of their intention as a formal community.71 Most houses in the community are constructed with corrugated iron roof on top of brick walls.

Other than this, around 20% of the households use thatch as their primary roofing material. A majority of the houses (85%)72 were constructed by the people currently living in them.

RESIDENTIAL MAP : 1989 Residential Extents73 : 2006 Residential Extents : 2014 Residential Extents74 :

30 | FINDINGS : SITE ANALYSIS

SALISBURYLINE KATOTO

! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!! !!! !! !!!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !!!!!!! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! !!! ! !!! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !!!!! !! !!!! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! !!!!! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !

!!

!

! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!! !!!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! !

H ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!! ! !!! ! ! !!! !

PAT ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !

E ! ! ! !

T ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

STA !! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! !!! !!! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! !!!! !!!!!!! ! !

GE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

N ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

U ! ! !!!! ! !!!!

T !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! !!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ORMER !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!!

F ! !! !! ! !!!!! !!! ! !!! ! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! !!! !!! !!! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !!!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !!!! !!! !! !!!!! !!! ! !!! ! !!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!!! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !!! !! ! !! !! !!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! !!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!

!

!

Fig. ? : Residential Expansion in Three Phases :1989, 2006, & 2014

31 | FINDINGS : SITE ANALYSIS

FINDINGS How is the community of Salisburyline organized spatially, socially, politically, and culturally?

RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION DRIVERS OF GROWTH :

Salisburyline experiences the same factors for urban growth as the rest of Mzuzu, with ruralurban migration being the primary force for expansion;75 as long as there is land available, people will settle in the area. However, the settlement has several unique characteristics that amplify the impact of these drivers.

As of the 1970s, the City Council of Mzuzu has declared that no evictions will take place within Salisburyline.76 Eviction is a major threat to informal settlements on public land, and the fact that Salisburyline is theoretically safe from them makes it unique in its context. Residents are far more likely to live in the area permanently, rather than renting land; 85% of people, regardless of government documentation, consider themselves to own the land they live on.77 Access to the formal economy also draws people to the area. Being located close to the central business district of Mzuzu,78 the settlement provides significant opportunities for direct access to formal jobs and markets. As of 2014, 44.5% of the working population were employed in the formal sector and had a steady form of income.79 Finally, Salisburyline’ adjacency to the both the M1 and the former Tung estate road to its south, in addition to its location in the western half of the city, provide ample opportunity for rural migrants to move into the site. In other words, the community has significant direct access from regions outside the city.

32 | FINDINGS : SITE ANALYSIS

SALISBURYLINE KATOTO

! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!! !!! !! !!!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !!!!!!! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! !!! ! !!! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!! ! !! !!!! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! !!!!! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !

!!

!

! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!! !! ! !! ! !!!

FORMAL ECONOMY ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !

H ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!! ! !!! ! ! !!! !

PAT ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !

E ! ! ! !

T ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

STA !! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! !!! !!! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! !!!!!!! ! !

GE !!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! !

N ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

U ! ! ! ! !!!!

T !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! !! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ORMER ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!!

F ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!! ! !!! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! !!! !!! !!! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !!!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!!!! !!! ! !!! ! !! !! !!! ! !!! !!!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! !! !!!! !!!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !!! !! !! !! ! !!!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! !!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!!!! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

FORMAL COMMUNITY !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!

!

!

Fig. ? : Drivers of Growth

33 | FINDINGS : SITE ANALYSIS

FINDINGS How is the community of Salisburyline organized spatially, socially, politically, and culturally?

POLITICAL ORGANIZATION :

Direct recognized authority, is generally relegated to either the Mzuzu City Council and traditional authorities. These powers are at times in conflict, especially in badly demarcated areas of authority or during infrastructure projects; violence has occurred on rare occasions in recent years.80 Traditional authorities or chiefs tend to predominate in areas further away from the main road. They often sign off on property selling, renting, and other land use changes, and have authority within their communities. Their authority is at least informally recognized by the MCC, if not on paper or in decrees.81 They are left out of most political meetings by the MCC, and lack true political power outside of their communities in MCC matters.82 MCC authority is mostly projected through “block leaders,” first implemented in 2015. Seen as an attempt to check chiefs’ power, they were not well-received within one community and seen as puppets of the city government by resident chiefs.83 The other major development by the city government was the introduction of city tax rates into the settlement in 2013. However, the city still does not provide general sanitation services.84 The MCC generally only recognizes the community when it can acquire a benefit from doing so; otherwise, existing informal settlement is viewed negatively and not on par with formalized communities. Access to formal infrastructure in Salisburyline is therefore few and far between. In the end, local authorities and

34 | FINDINGS : SITE ANALYSIS

! ! ! ! ! residents are often forced to cooperate with the !!! ! !!!

MCC due to the mere threat of eviction, and the ! !! ! !

85 ! ! promise of improved infrastructure. !!! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!! !!! !! !!!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !!!!!!! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! !!! ! !!! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!! ! !! !!!! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! !!!!! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!! ! !! !

SALISBURYLINE ! !! !

KATOTO ! !

!!

RESIDENTIAL MAP : Traditional Authority : Disputed86 : Mzuzu City Council :

!

! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !

H ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!! ! !!! ! ! !!! !

PAT ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !

E ! ! ! !

T ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

STA !! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! !!! !!! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! !!!!!!! ! !

GE !!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! !

N ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

U ! ! ! ! !!!!

T !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! !! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ORMER ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!!

F ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!! ! !!! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! !!! !!! !!! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !!!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!!!! !!! ! !!! ! !! !! !!! ! !!! !!!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! !! !!!! !!!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !!! !! !! !! ! !!!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! !!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!!!! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!

!

!

Fig. ? : Spheres of Political Influence: Perceived v. Actual

35 | FINDINGS : SITE ANALYSIS

FINDINGS How do the previously developed metrics of sanitation access and health compare between Salisburyline and the adjacent formal community of Katoto?

HEALTH METRICS :

!

! ! ! ! ! !!!

Health metrics provide a study in how well sanitation infrastructure keeps human waste out of contact with drinking water. A number of studies were considered involving the total counts of Escherichia coli.

A study in Salisburyline on well water showed that levels of fecal coliform Escherichia coli per 100mL were “too numerous to count� indicating a high probability of infection from the studied wells. Comparative studies on the E. coli content of piped water in similar areas showed zero traces of the bacterium.87 Well water taken from similar high density marshy contexts nearby showed that 26 of 27 wells had E. coli counts higher than recommended levels of 0 coliforms/100mL, ranging from 129-920 coliforms/100mL.88 Broader studies of Mzuzu show that coliform counts radically differ between ground water and municipal piped water. All 30 of the studied wells contained coliforms, while 20 contained E. coli bacteria. This is in comparison to a 50% positive detection rate for municipal water. The levels of E. coli varied significantly as well. Only 25% of the total municipal water samples contained over 2 coliforms/100mL, while 50% of wells tested contained over 7 coliforms/100mL.89 Piped water is available in Salisburyline through both direct connections and communal taps.

However, cost, along with issues of access often forces people to dig shallow wells in order to obtain water for daily activities.90 The City Council recommends that there be 30 meters between wells and pit latrines; however, more commonly, this is less than 10 meters of distance.91

36 | FINDINGS : SITE METRICS

SALISBURYLINE KATOTO

! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! !!!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !

!

!!

RESIDENTIAL MAP : Well Water (2014)92 :

!

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !!!! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !!!!! !!!! ! ! !! !!!! !!! ! !! !! !!! !!!!!! ! !!! !!! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

H ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !

PAT ! !! ! !! !! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !

E ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !

T !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !

STA ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! !!!

GE !!!!! ! ! ! !!!!! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

N ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

U ! ! !! !!

T !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ORMER ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! F ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! !!! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!!!!! !!! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!!! ! !!! ! !! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !!! !! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !!!!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!!!!!!! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! !!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!!!! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !!! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

Fig. ? : Water Access Comparison

37 | FINDINGS : SITE METRICS

FINDINGS How do the previously developed metrics of sanitation access and health compare between Salisburyline and the adjacent formal community of Katoto?

SANITATION DISPARITIES :

The disparity in sanitation access between formal and informal communities can be easily visualized by comparing access in Salisburyline to that in Katoto Estate just to its south.

Every household in Katoto has access to sanitation in at least some form. Of the 425 households located there, only 9 have access to only a pit latrine, a total of 2% of the total households. The other 98% has direct access to a septic tank and some form of draining service for it.93 Salisburyline, on the other hand, has limited access to developed sanitation infrastructure. of the 1,521 households, 32 lack access to any form of toilet at all, over 2%. Of the remaining 98%, 1,473 households have access only to a pit latrine, composing 97% of the total households.

The remaining 1% of households in Salisburyline have access to a septic tank.94 The use of pit latrines in Salisburyline is especially hazardous because of the high water table and frequent flooding.95 Most pit latrines are also created by individuals in the community with little to no regulation or rules in place. This also complicates the process of desludging, meaning that human waste remains in possible contact with ground water.96 SANITATION MAP : Access to improved sanitation97 : No access or pit latrine only98 :

38 | FINDINGS : SITE METRICS

SALISBURYLINE KATOTO

! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!! !!! !! !!!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !!!!!!! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! !!! ! !!! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!! ! !! !!!! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! !!!!! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !

!!

!

! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! ! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !

H ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!! ! !!! ! ! !!! !

PAT ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !

E ! ! ! !

T ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

STA !! ! !! !! !! ! !! !! !!! !!! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! !!!!!!! ! !

GE !!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! !

N ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

U ! ! ! ! !!!!

T !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! !! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ORMER ! ! ! !! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !!!

F ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !!! ! !!! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! !! !!! !!! !!! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !!!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!!!! !!! ! !!! ! !! !! !!! ! !!! !!!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! !! !!!! !!!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !!! !! !! !! ! !!!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!!!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! !!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !!!!! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!

!

!

Fig. ? : Sanitation Access Comparison

39 | FINDINGS : SITE METRICS

40 | FINDINGS : SANITATION SYSTEMS

FINDINGS What possible sanitation systems are available for implementation in Salisburyline, and how do they interact with both the metrics and cultural constraints previously defined?

SYSTEM STUDIES :

The following pages detail a series of sanitation systems that could be feasible within the context of Salisburyline. A few specific criteria were emphasized in order to ensure that specific systems were feasible at the minimum. Analysis of systems is broken down into five stages of use according to WHO/UNICEF criteria: toilet, containment/storage, conveyance, treatment, and end use/disposal.99 Each stage will be judged based on the following criteria.

Any sanitation systems that require sewer connections as their primary forms of conveyance are immediately rejected. Currently, the city of Mzuzu lacks a sewer system,100 and because of geographic conditions within the city and housing conditions within Salisburyline, widespread sewer systems would be costly, ineffective, and invasive.

Furthermore, Mzuzu lacks the sewage treatment capability associated with sewer systems to make this a viable end of use option.

Sanitation systems are also determined based on overall comparative land use, looking at toilet, containment/storage, and treatment. Given the density of the urban condition in informal settlements such as Salisburyline, sanitation systems that rely on large scale fecal sludge ponds or similarly large land use for treatment would be unfeasible without significant disruptions.101 Large toilet housing facilities would also have large impacts on individuals currently living in the community. While off site containment, storage, and treatment would allow for a larger use of the land, there are also disadvantages to needing

41 | FINDINGS : SANITATION SYSTEMS

transport off site.

Because of this, the emphasis is on systems that rely on in situ treatment. The density of the settlement makes transport difficult for the machinery necessary to empty and transport human waste;102 conveyance of waste out of site is a difficult endeavor. However, at the same time, access points could be created with the development of road infrastructure, so the study is not limited to only these conditions.

Furthermore, sanitation that can be managed on an individual basis instead of requiring outside maintenance would be ideal. The cost of needing non-private management of facilities, specifically the draining of storage and containment units, at a high frequency, would be prohibitive for many members of the community.103 Individual or community maintenance would be more economically and socially viable.

Systems that rely on low water use are prioritized due to the lack of adequate water infrastructure in the area surrounding Salisburyline.104 This is a factor in both toilet selection, emphasizing ones that are either waterless or pour flush, and containment/treatment, which should not require large quantities of water in order to function safely and effectively.

Finally, sanitation systems need to be secure from water infiltration due to the high water table on site. This impacts containment/storage, treatment, and end use/disposal strategies.

FINDINGS What possible sanitation systems are available for implementation in Salisburyline, and how do they interact with both the metrics and cultural constraints previously defined?

SYSTEM :

Double Ventilated Improved Pit System

OVERVIEW A variation on the pit latrine seen commonly in Mzuzu, this system employs the use of two separate pits that allows for continuous use. As each of the pits fills over the course of a year or two, it is covered, and the other one used in its stead. By the time the second one is filled, the first pit will have had time to degrade into humus, a solid soil-like material which can then be removed and used as a soil conditioner. The process then theoretically repeats in a perpetual cycle with each pit being filled and emptied in succession.105 Several variations on the system are available, each with different benefits and detriments.

The toilet can be any of a number of waterless types including urine diverting, although it can not be a flush toilet of any kind due to the aerobic decomposition needed to ensure safe degradation of waste.106 Decomposing pits can be located either within the ground or above, depending on water conditions in the local area; in either case a maximum depth of 1.5m is recommended in order to ensure the possibility of removal. Alternatively, composting can be implemented, although these require significantly higher levels of complex construction and maintenance.107 ADVANTAGES Mzuzu City Council’s policy on sanitation puts much of the onus of responsibility for dealing with sanitation provisions on the individual.108 This system has the potential for self-sufficiency and

42 | FINDINGS : SANITATION SYSTEMS

economic agency given that it relies completely on individual actors to maintain it. Furthermore, the humus developed as a byproduct of the system can be used either as fertilizer for personal use or as a means of economic capital.

The system is also ideal for dense communities like Salisburyline since it does not require heavy machinery to empty. Furthermore, since it is a permanent installation, it takes up far less space over time than a standard one-use pit latrine.

Because it uses no additional water in any stage of its use,109 it is also ideal for areas such as Salisburyline, which have intermittent and unreliable water access at any given time.110 By raising the system above the ground, it is also reactive to the flooding and water-logging, which is a common condition in Salisburyline. It also removes contact of groundwater with human waste and excreta.

DISADVANTAGES The system requires a moderate amount of previous knowledge in order to function properly. The pits can not be used concurrently or it is no longer effective as a longterm strategy; an alternating schedule must therefore be maintained. In order to remain clean and functional, small amounts of maintenance are required throughout the year.

The system requires that humus be removed by hand or shovel at least once a year.

Flooding and contamination could potentially be a problem if it is ill-maintained or set into the ground, the easier of the two to construct.111

TOILET :

CONVEYANCE :

Hand-powered Transport

Humus/Compost

TREATMENT :

END USE/DISPOSAL :

43 | FINDINGS : SANITATION SYSTEMS

Soil Conditioner

Double Pit Latrine

Humus

Fossa Alterna

Humus

Composting Chamber Compost

CONTAINMENT/STORAGE :

Feces/Urine

Other Organics

Dry Toilet

FINDINGS What possible sanitation systems are available for implementation in Salisburyline, and how do they interact with both the metrics and cultural constraints previously defined?

SYSTEM :

Waterless System with Urine Diversion

OVERVIEW This system is similar to the previous one, in that it continues to rely on a waterless system that empties into a pit. However, with the addition of urine diverting toilets, a different process for managing waste extraction is needed. By keeping feces dry from the beginning rather than mixing it in with other human or organic waste, it allows for the feces to dry over time and become suitable as a soil conditioner. To maintain a dry environment, any container for feces must be watertight, and there must be a regular application of lime or ash.

Likewise, by keeping urine separate, it can be used as a high nutrient fertilizer once it has been transported off-site. Depending on distance, this can be conducted either by human-powered or motorized transport.112 A variation on this system exists that combines a urine diverting toilet with the two pits seen in the previous system. This allows for continuous use and overall less maintenance. Furthermore, since the recommended waiting time for feces to dry is six months at minimum, it allows for continual use without need for an additional sanitation system.113 ADVANTAGES There are several advantages to using a system like this in the context of Salisburyline. The primary one is that is does not require a high amount of training or knowledge in order to maintain properly.114 Given that Mzuzu City Council does not provide any sanitation services to the community,115 the need for self-sufficiency

44 | FINDINGS : SANITATION SYSTEMS

is crucial. By providing products back to the user in the form of soil conditioners,116 it also creates greater economic self-sufficiency while giving a return on investment for anyone using it.

The system also operates relatively well in dense communities as well, as long as communal soak ponds are implemented. Because it is a permanent installation on site, it takes up far less space that a typical pit latrine that would need to move repeatedly. It also requires far less water than other more water intensive systems.117 With Salisburyline’s intermittent water supply,118 this would be ideal.

It also has the advantage of being entirely watertight by design. Because of Salisburyline’s high water table, infiltration and flooding are constant concerns for the community. By using a system that has been designed, and in fact only operates when watertight, this limits the chances of water contamination on site.119 DISADVANTAGES The largest disadvantage the system has is its need for more careful and standardized construction in order to function properly. Because it needs to be a watertight system located above the ground, there is a much higher level of skill required to build it than a traditional pit latrine.120 There is also some maintenance that needs to be performed regularly, both emptying the pits when they become full, and ensuring that the pit is covered in ash or lime as it fills up.121

TOILET :

Urine

Humus

Dehydration Vault

CONVEYANCE :

END USE/DISPOSAL :

45 | FINDINGS : SANITATION SYSTEMS

Motorized Transport

Soak Pit

Soil Conditioner

Urine

Dried Feces

Composting Chamber Compost

Anal Cleansing Water

TREATMENT :

Hand-powered Transport

Storage Tanks

Urine

CONTAINMENT/STORAGE :

Feces

Lime/Ash

Urine Diverting Toilet

Application

FINDINGS What possible sanitation systems are available for implementation in Salisburyline, and how do they interact with both the metrics and cultural constraints previously defined?

SYSTEM :

Biogas System with Sludge and Digestate Production OVERVIEW This system relies on a biogas reactor system to collect waste and convert it to sludge and usable biogas. It can take on a variety of different waste including human and animal excreta, kitchen and food waste, and various other organics.122

and 38°C, although higher temperatures can increase efficiency and reduce overall pathogen survival. Overall, the hydraulic retention time, i.e. the time for waste to spend in the reactor, is estimated at 15 days for warm climates and 25 days for more temperate climates.125

Toilets leading to a biogas reactors are typically water using whether automatic flush or pour flush. The biogas reactor itself acts as storage and partial storage, converting the collected waste into various usable products including biogas for heating, lighting, and cooking, sludge for soil conditioning, and manure for the same. However, waste needs to be periodically removed from the biogas reactor to make room for more, as not all of it becomes usable product. This would typically be accomplished through the use of mechanical pumps, which would transport the resulting slurry to outside treatment, and would only be required every 5 to 10 years depending on the size and number of users.123

ADVANTAGES The system produces a variety of products for use by the users including biogas and sludge for fertilizing purposes. In a region where most people use charcoal or firewood as their primary source of fuel,126 access to free biogas would be economically and environmentally preferable.

The system can operate at a variety of scales ranging from individual households to large-scale industrial purposes. Its construction can also vary significantly between scales and can include brick, precast concrete, or plastic. The construction of the reactor can either be underground or above ground depending on the context.124 Gas and digestate production works best at higher temperatures. Below 15°C, both are inefficient, with limited production of both.

Biogas reactors are typically run at between 30

46 | FINDINGS : SANITATION SYSTEMS

Biogas systems tend to be low maintenance if correctly installed, and only need to be emptied every 5-10 years.127 Furthermore, its ability to be placed underground reduces overall land area required to house it, and its construction can include a number of different materials depending on context. Perhaps, most importantly, the biogas reactor is resistant to water infiltration.

DISADVANTAGES The system faces a number of challenges in Mzuzu and Salisburyline. Skilled construction is required, and a decent amount of land area and machinery especially if for individual households.

Biogas and sludge must be continually used in order to prevent overflow or overly high pressures. Gas production is significantly low below 15°C, which Mzuzu drops below during the winter. Mismanaged gas and sludge can also lead to significant health concerns.128

CONTAINMENT/STORAGE :

Cistern Flush Toilet Blackwater

Pour Flush Toilet Blackwater

Other Organics

TOILET :

Sediment Effluent

Biogas Reactor

CONVEYANCE :

Sludge

Sediment Effluent

Human-powered Transport

Treatment Pond

END USE/DISPOSAL :

47 | FINDINGS : SANITATION SYSTEMS

Soil Conditioner

Fuel Source

Sediment Effluent

Treatment Pond

Biogas

TREATMENT :

Surface Disposal

48 | FINDINGS : CASE STUDIES

FINDINGS What case studies exist for the implementation of sanitation infrastructure in urban informal settings?

CASE STUDY :

Participatory Slum Upgrading & Studio Planning in Salisburyline - Mzuzu LOCATION : Salisburyline, Mzuzu, Malawi YEAR : 2012-2014 GROUPS : Center for Community Organization & Development (CCODE), Federation of the Rural and Urban Poor, Urban Research Institute (URI), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), UN Habitat, Association of African Planning Schools (AAPS) OVERVIEW This study was intended to gather research on existing participatory urban planning in informal settlements. Specifically, the study looked at Salisburyline and its relationship to the Participatory Slum Upgrading Programme (PSUP) developed by UN Habitat. PSUP is designed in accordance with UN Millennium Goal 7, to improve the lives of 100 million people living in slums by 2020 through three phases of development: participatory urban profiling, detailed proposals based on context, implementation of project proposals. Mzuzu, and specifically Salisburyline, was chosen as a pilot.

Salisburyline was chosen for a variety of reasons.

The fact that most people own the homes and land they live in and there is significant participation in the formal economy were initial drivers. It is the community’s relationship to water, however, that drew the most attention. Because of its location in a marshy area, it continues to be frequently waterlogged with little drainage. The high water table also leads to contamination from pit latrines and other waste. Furthermore, transportation is impacted when roads flood.

49 | FINDINGS : CASE STUDIES

PROCESS A planning studio consisted of a collaboration between CCODE and the Federation of the Rural and Urban Poor working under the direction of the AAPS with a direct connection to PSUP’s plans for the area in order to give the project some validity. The studio kept in constant contact with the community, which it divided into eight clusters to facilitate communication. Two of these clusters were then chosen for interventions with the input and consent of those living there.

OUTCOMES Problems with money hampered implementation of the projects. Overlapping promises, funding misunderstandings, and slow bureaucratic processes meant that by 2014, no money had been provided, even though over $1,000,000 had been promised. This, in turn, caused a loss of trust in the community, making community based resource mobilization an unlikely scenario.

It also further precluded the expansion of the initial project to the remaining six clusters in the community. While some drains and road leveling has occurred, the large portion of the project has not been realized.129 TAKE-AWAYS Implementation of any planning project requires juggling a multitude of stakeholders. Ensuring the goodwill and support of the community is of paramount importance in addition to having concrete funding for the project. Furthermore, scaling of any given project is often a more complicated task than it appears.

50 | FINDINGS : CASE STUDIES

FINDINGS What case studies exist for the implementation of sanitation infrastructure in urban informal settings?

CASE STUDY :

Promoting Eco-sanitation in Informal Settlements LOCATION : Kenya, multiple sites in several cities YEAR : 2013-Present GROUPS : Umande Trust OVERVIEW In a series of related projects, the Umande Trust focused on bringing basic hygiene and sanitation services to underprivileged informal settlements through the construction of so-called “biocentres.” Each “bio-centre” is made up of a biosanitation facility that converts waste into bio-gas and manure, and additional space for offices, housing, and business spaces.

The intention of the project was to provide a community hub, while creating opportunities for employment, housing, and sanitation. It is meant as a comprehensive response to problems normally faced by residents of informal communities: lack of sanitation, clean water, and decent housing.

PROCESS Design for the facility is entirely community based, with community members having significant input throughout the design process in what their needs are and how they could be addressed.

Existing community groups are the keystones of this design development, with a specific group being chosen to lead the overall development.

There are specific criteria for choosing these groups to ensure a smooth process; groups must have existed for at least six months and have revenue streams outside of the project itself.

51 | FINDINGS : CASE STUDIES

The group then leads most of the rest of the project themselves with guidance from Umande Trust. The selected group is in charge of all fund allocations (with oversight), and construction plans. Funding typically comes from a combination of local sources of revenue and outside actors. Facilities typically cost between $10,000 and $50,000. Workshops are periodically run for training and design purposes throughout the process.

OUTCOMES Management of the facilities is given back to the community group after loans from the Umande Trust are recovered through its operation, roughly $7,200 annually. The group gains benefits from owning the facility, but everyone in the community directly benefits from its installation. Improved sanitation services are provided to residences in the immediate vicinity, along with cooking fuel and manure. The facility also provides opportunities for housing and businesses. Currently 86 “biocentres” are in operation.130 TAKE-AWAYS The key to successful infrastructure implementation is integration into the existing community. Development of the centres relies on community input and needs, and provides necessary services to the community beyond sanitation. This gives the community a stake in the continued functioning of the facility.

This project provides an example of sanitation infrastructure that is not only economically and socially sustainable, but environmentally as well.

52 | FINDINGS : CASE STUDIES

FINDINGS What case studies exist for the implementation of sanitation infrastructure in urban informal settings?

CASE STUDY :

Financial Inclusion Improves Sanitation & Health (FINISH) LOCATION : Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanzania YEAR : 2018-Present GROUPS : Amref Health Africa OVERVIEW The FINISH model for sanitation was originally developed in India in 2009.131 The system has since been adapted by other organizations including Amref Health Africa which is focusing on development in Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, and Tanzania.132 The system is based around the idea of the “four diamonds,� a characterization system for different groups of stakeholders: communities, businesses, financiers, and government. When these four domains work together toward the goal of sanitation infrastructure development, it creates more inclusive development that is integrative and realistic.133 Therefore, in essence, FINISH is a public-private partnership whose primary goal is increasing sanitation access among lower income communities.

Amref Health Africa has a few more specific goals relating to their operation in Sub-Saharan Africa.

In total Amref is hoping to reduce diarrheal disease transmission by 5% in communities, create compost for use by the communities, reduce overall medical expenditures in lowincome areas, and increase the dignity of women.

The system is also intended to create greater economic opportunities related to these facilities; Amref estimates that for every dollar put into the projects, four dollars will be generated.134

53 | FINDINGS : CASE STUDIES

PROCESS Implementation begins by approaching stakeholders within the community. The communities themselves are approached regarding the initial demand for sanitation.

Businesses are approached to develop new and improved products and services that directly benefit the project. Financiers and entrepreneurs provide necessary funding and jump start the program. Governments create demand for better sanitation through policy and laws.135 OUTCOMES Current developments by Amref are located solely in Kenya, although there are several more in progress. Because of the relative newness of the program in this context, there is little concrete data on how well it functions overall. While Amref provides plenty of projections based on how FINISH has worked out in India,136 at the moment, there are few measurable outcomes in Kenya.

Estimates by FINISH itself in both Kenya and India include providing access to sanitation to nearly 3.5 million people by 2018, meaning roughly 1 million toilets. Furthermore, roughly 10 million work days had been created using mostly funding from local sources of revenue; less than 5% of initial funding came from outside sources.137 TAKE-AWAYS Community-oriented design that engages multiple stakeholders and organizations provides the opportunity for the integration of sanitation into other community-based systems.

FINDINGS What are successful methods of implementation seen in prior case studies?

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT :

The greatest takeaway from all of the previous case studies is community engagement as the central tenet of design and implementation.

While all three of the case studies had aspects of community engagement, the latter two projects forfeited much of their decision-making to the community itself, allowing for a greater sense of community ownership of the design as opposed to the projection of an outside force.

In the case of CCODE’s intervention in Salisburyline, the community was engaged throughout various stages of the project, but the initiative was originally proposed and developed by outside agencies, including CCODE, the Federation of the Rural and Urban Poor, and Mzuzu University.138 Community members were viewed more as consultants rather than true collaborators, and while they were given opportunities for their voices to be heard, their was never any effort made to truly integrate them into the design process. In the end, promises were made that could not be delivered upon, leading to community frustration and hostility toward further implementation.139 Because the community members were not directly tied to the process, many were either unaware or skeptical of the reasons behind its slow implementation.

This extended to a lack of transparency regarding the use of resources both in terms of money and supplies.140 That being said, the part of the project that succeeded the most was the part managed and developed by the community. Around 10%

54 | FINDINGS : IMPLEMENTATION

of project funds were funneled directly into the community for improvements with organizational oversight. In total, eight culverts and six crossover slabs were constructed, increasing vehicular mobility within the community. However, other intended improvements beyond this including a manure shed were canceled or not completed.141 This is in contrast to the other two case studies explored in which communities and community organizations were allowed to take the lead on interventions. FINISH for example, engages stakeholders at multiple levels from both public and private organizations to ensure necessary sources of funding and local business support in addition to community engagement. The project also creates tangible economic benefits in the communities it acts on; for everyone one dollar spent on infrastructure, four dollars are generated within the community.142 Umande Trusts projects are entirely community based, with community-generated designs.

Development only begins after a community organization is recognized who will be able to take over management of the facility after Umande leaves. All money and funds for the project are funneled through this organization with Umande only providing oversight and guidance. These funds typically come from both local and external actors which interweaves the facility with the community that surrounds it. Once complete, the facility provides both resources for the community in the form of biogas and manure, and economic opportunities.143

ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE :

Another key implementation strategy is interweaving economic development with sanitation development. This not only creates a collective interest within a community for ensuring the success of a project, it also ensures the ability of households or communities to maintain and develop the project in the future without continued outside intervention.

This is something the CCODE intervention in Salisburyline struggled with. The organization relied fully on outside funding for the implementation of its project.144 However, when this money did not materialize, or was misused, depending on the source, community frustrations with the participating organizations became such that completing the project even with funding was a near impossibility.145 Most of the funds were also cycled through various organizations before reaching the actual community intervention, increasing inefficiencies and the possibility of corruption or management.146 Both FINISH and the Umande Trust have had more success by overseeing the funding for interventions rather than directly managing it. Likewise, by emphasizing local investment, there is less of a chance that funds will be lost in bureaucratic processes. By creating economic opportunities in tandem with sanitation and tying them together, sanitation systems can be maintained in the future.147 FINISH, for example, focuses on bringing economic investment into the communities

55 | FINDINGS : IMPLEMENTATION

that immediately surround the new sanitation development. This is achieved by engaging local financial institutions, through the giving of loans to local infrastructure development and sanitationbased businesses. The program itself does not pay for any individual toilets or sanitation, but rather incorporates existing investment opportunities in the area. In addition to this, training is provided to members of the community in the fields of construction, masonry, and sanitation services.148 In essence, the program is intended to create a cyclical system within communities that can be self-sustaining.

Umande Trust’s system of development takes a similar approach. It first identifies an organization with roots in the local community that has some form of stable income or financial capital. This organization is then used as the center-point for any future development: all funds are funneled through the organization, all design decisions are left up to the organization, and at the end of construction, all future income from the intervention goes directly to it. Umande Trust provides guidance and oversight throughout the process, along with some initial capital, but does not spearhead implementation. The community organizations are largely left up to their own devices to establish infrastructure, which increases the likelihood that they will be stable in the future.149 Economic independence is an important step in future self-actualization of community needs and is therefore necessary for sustainable development.

56 | FINDINGS : IMPLEMENTATION

FINDINGS What are successful methods of implementation seen in prior case studies?

IMPORTANCE OF SCALE :

What works at one level of implementation does not always work at larger or smaller scales. It is important to consider all scales of development to ensure that the project is both replicable and expandable in the future. Furthermore, it is important to select a suitable scale for initial interventions to ensure it is completed in due course.

CCODE’s intervention in Salisburyline began by dividing the community into eight individual clusters of housing, each managed by their own cluster committee. The goal was to eventually complete planning for all eight clusters, but only two were chosen to pilot the project at first.

Studies were conducted of these two clusters, and community members were brought in to consult on the project. However, at the time of planning and implementation, there was no secured funds or resources to actually create the full extent of the proposed project. This in turn led to a breakdown in trust, as other clusters were far less willing to use time and energy on a project that would most likely not be realized.150 Both FINISH and Umande Trust’s interventions rely on discrete interventions that are replicable at a community scale. Sanitation infrastructure is only considered when there is funding and resources available to complete them within the given context. In the case of FINISH, sanitation interventions are at varying scales, either individual or community based.151 Since each project is individually implemented and managed, there is little risk of one project impacting another.

57 | FINDINGS : IMPLEMENTATION

SYNTHESIS

CONCLUSIONS :

Salisburyline is at the intersection of several complex systems of rapidly evolving issues. Any sanitation system must carefully navigate these in order to be considered a viable option. The goal of any intervention should be meeting overall access and health goals, but this in turn leads to a series of overlapping criteria based on other factors unique to the community in order to achieve longterm success.

Any intervention must take into consideration the density and informality of the site as its primary characteristic. This impacts several aspects of the system in its implementation and layout. Because of the urban density seen in the site, vehicular transport may not be a viable option. Therefore, systems that rely on heavy machinery to remain serviceable are unlikely to be successful. Likewise, systems that don’t rely on large-scale interventions would also be better, given the overall lack of space in the community and continued densification. Current patterns of densification also mean that interventions need to be replicable and expandable over time, as the settlement continues to expand.

The geography of the site also plays a large part in implementation. Because of the high water table, threat of flooding, and continued expansion into waterlogged areas, any system of sanitation must be water-resistant and resilient. Since a major goal is the elimination of groundwater contamination in order to reduce waterborne illness, any system that is not sufficiently sealed and resilient to flooding and groundwater would

58 | SYNTHESIS : CONCLUSIONS

be less than ideal.

Sanitation systems that are low maintenance or rely fully on individual maintenance are also a priority. Again, given the dense, waterlogged, and at times impassable site conditions, a frequent need for outside assistance is not an option. Furthermore, the cost of outside draining or a similar service from private enterprises is prohibitive for many residents in the area.

To achieve this, there must be existing incentives for individuals to maintain sanitation infrastructure at an acceptable level to prevent future issues.

These could be economic, resource, or community based. These factors must also be fully selfsufficient to prevent the need for significant continued outside investment. In other words, systems of future maintenance and development need to be self-sufficient and sustainable, without the need for outside catalysts.

However, site conditions across the settlement vary significantly, whether spatially, politically, or socially. Therefore, any proposed system must be able to vary between different locations within the community with different site specific requirements. Salisburyline will need to be broken down into smaller clusters of understanding in order to determine what interventions would be most effective. This also creates distinct units that can be completed over a series of installations rather than trying to implement everything all at one time. Gradual implementation increases the chance of overall completion.

CONSIDERATIONS :

1) Small-scale site implementation

Reacts to a high density urban environment with high rates of perceived ownership Site variably impassable to vehicular traffic

2) Construction possible by community

Site largely inaccessible to heavy machinery Economically infeasible to use paid services or outside help

3) Low maintenance

Ensures maintenance and repair of existing infrastructure by individuals

4) Resistance to ground water infiltration

Reduces ground water contamination exposure to waterborne disease

5) Replicability and expandability

Works with rapid ongoing densification of existing informal site without overarching guidelines

and

Adaptability to changing site conditions

6) Contextualization to different sites

Diversity of different site condition across different locations within Salisburyline

7) Scalability of implementation/discrete units

Allows for individual completed in sequence

interventions

to

be

Demonstrates concrete development

8) Economic development

59 | SYNTHESIS : DESIGN CRITERIA

Ties sanitation to economic output, increasing overall resilience

SYNTHESIS

CONSIDERATIONS :

SYSTEM 1 :

SMALL-SCALE SITE IMPLEMENTATION

Ideally suited to high density environments given its permanence and low land use

CONSTRUCTION POSSIBLE BY COMMUNITY

Construction is straightforward and can be completed using local materials and techniques

DOUBLE VENTILATED IMPROVED PIT SYSTEM :

Depending on design, may require machinery to construct LOW MAINTENANCE

Limited maintenance, emptying required once every year Switching between the two pits is necessary on a regular schedule in order to continue service

RESISTANCE TO GROUND WATER INFILTRATION

Vulnerable to ground water infiltration especially if set into the ground; above ground construction limits access and requires more complex systems of composting

REPLICABILITY AND EXPANDABILITY

Easily replicable, can be made of several different materials using a variety of construction methods Does not get in the way of existing densification

CONTEXTUALIZATION TO DIFFERENT SITES

Similar to replicability, can be introduced in a variety of contexts without significant changes

SCALABILITY/DISCRETE UNITS

Each installation is fully independent from all others, allowing for gradual development over time while showcasing results

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Provides some economic or product-based return on investment; large scale implementation would saturate the market

60 | SYNTHESIS : DESIGN CRITERIA

SYSTEM 2 :

SYSTEM 3 :

Ideally suited to high density environments given its permanence and low land use

Low land use for individual households but requires common space for bioreactor; bioreactor is underground

May require motorized transport of urine

May require mechanized extraction rarely, every five years

Construction requires some technical knowledge to make system watertight; requires some outside material

Requires outside direction in order to construct properly; could rely on locally available techniques and materials in order to construct

WATERLESS SYSTEM WITH URINE DIVERSION :

BIOGAS SYSTEM WITH SLUDGE AND DIGESTATE PRODUCTION :

Can be constructed with a variety of materials and methods Limited maintenance, emptying required every six months

Low maintenance, but needs to be performed in order to prevent hazards to health; emptying of digestate

Education on urine diversion, anal cleansing water, and adding lime or ash to feces would be required

Continuous release of gas is a requirement for function

Ground water infiltration is low due to inherent watertightness; may be vulnerable to high floods

Fully resistant to flooding, and high water table through inherent watertightness

Maintenance to maintain watertightness

Does not get in the way of existing densification

Easily replicable using modular system; may require outside assistance and materials Additional houses can be added to a system over time Limits density of site, and requires some open space

Similar to replicability, can be introduced in a variety of contexts without significant changes

Similar to replicability, can be introduced in a variety of contexts without significant changes

May require motorized transport of urine

Functions best in lower density environments

Each installation is fully independent from all others, allowing for gradual development over time while showcasing results

Scaled at a community level, meaning longer construction times

Easily replicable, can be made of several different materials using a variety of construction methods

Functions best in lower density environments Provides some economic or product-based return on investment; large scale implementation would saturate the market

61 | SYNTHESIS : DESIGN CRITERIA

Provides significant economic and product benefits from biogas and digestate; even with large scale implementation, returns will remain significant

62 | SYNTHESIS : DESIGN PROPOSAL

SYNTHESIS

DESIGN PROPOSAL :

Each of the three sanitation systems explored has strengths and weaknesses depending on the criteria they are being judged by. Because of the diversity of site conditions within Salisburyline, choosing a single system to supply the entire community would damage intra-community dynamics and create less than optimal sanitation access.

Therefore, in order to determine what would work best for Salisburyline as a whole, feasibility studies will be conducted for each of the three systems, culminating in a sample implementation for all three within context.

63 | SYNTHESIS : DESIGN PROPOSAL

64 | SYNTHESIS : EXPECTED OUTCOMES

SYNTHESIS

EXPECTED OUTCOMES :

The goal of the project is to eventually create a comprehensive system of sanitation across Salisburyline that increases overall access to sanitation within the community to 100% and reduces exposure to E. coli due to water contamination to 0.

The final outcome of this project is a series of interventions using three different sanitation systems to meet the needs of the community.

Where one system is lacking in a given Salisburyline site, one of the other two systems can certainly make up for it. Rather than trying to force a single system into every different part of the settlement, using three systems allows for adaptation for different site contexts.

The varying systems will also create a greater ability for individual communities to selfactualize and achieve their own goals in the future, by creating economic and infrastructure development within Salisburyline.

In the far future, this system of implementation could hopefully be implemented across community boundaries in other informal settlements outside of Salisburyline, or even outside of Mzuzu. Many of the informal settlements currently growing in Mzuzu will face the same problems before long, and implementing a similar methodology of developing sanitation infrastructure could be beneficial in the future. Because of the flexibility of the systems and the generally small scales of implementation, it could theoretically create a patchwork of installations across larger scales.

65 | SYNTHESIS : EXPECTED OUTCOMES

DESIGN Double Ventilated Improved Pit System

SYSTEM DETAILS :

OVERVIEW Three different variations on the double ventilated improved pit system were developed to better meet the needs of a variety of contexts. However, all three have several things in common. They all consist of two pit latrines adjacent to one another that should be used cyclically as they fill. Each focuses on using locally available materials and construction techniques so that the building can both be built and sustained by the community.

The use of wood is mitigated as much as possible due to the ongoing problem of deforestation in Malawi. All provide ventilation to the in-use pit and access panels for emptying.

Sizing for the pits themselves was determined based on estimated total waste per person per year at 40-60L152 with an estimated per household size of 4.5.153 Dimensions of the structure were also based on locally varied materials. Locally available SSB bricks, for example, were determined to be locally available at 100x150x450mm in size, and this acted as a module for parts of the three variations.

Beyond these commonalities, the three different systems have been designed with the goal of meeting specific major challenges to its implementation.

GROUND LEVEL PERMANENT ENCLOSURE This is the most standard model for a double ventilated improved pit system. Relatively straightforward in construction, the enclosure is located at ground level, increasing accessibility

66 | DESIGN : SYSTEM 1

to the differently-abled and elderly. Both pit holes are located within the same permanent structure making the process of switching between the two is relatively straightforward; only the vent pipe, toilet, and hole cover need to be moved.

However, this variation does offer some drawbacks. The structure is permanent and is therefore ill-suited to people only living in Salisburyline for a short time. The largest issue is water infiltration especially in parts of the community with high water tables.

RAISED PERMANENT ENCLOSURE The raised enclosure helps mitigate the problem of water infiltration by lifting the building off the ground. This also provides ease of access when removing waste using the side panels. The similar structure retains similar advantages to the first design. However, it achieves this by limited access by the use of stairs, increasing concrete content, and increasing footprint while still losing pit volume.

GROUND LEVEL PORTABLE ENCLOSURE This option is much more cost-effective than the first two, and also allows most of the enclosure materials to be fully reclaimed at the end of its lifespan or when people move on. The corrugated metal also does not require sealing or treatment.

It does require significantly more maintenance and planning than the other two, though. Every time, there’s a shift in pit usage, the full structure needs to be moved.

Opt. 1 : Ground Level Permanent Enclosure Corrugated Metal Roof

Roof Framing

Filler SSB Block (nom. 100x150x450mm) Toilet & Pedestal Cover for Unused Hole Pit Cover Fly Screen

PVC Vent Pipe

Pit Cover

SSB Foundation

67 | DESIGN : SYSTEM 1

DESIGN Opt. 2 : Raised Permanent Enclosure Corrugated Metal Roof

Roof Framing

Filler SSB Block (nom. 100x150x450) Toilet & Pedestal Cover for Unused Hole Fly Screen

Concrete Slab PVC Vent Pipe

Pit Access

SSB Pedestal

68 | DESIGN : SYSTEM 1

Opt. 3 : Ground Level Portable Enclosure Corrugated Metal Roof

Metal Framing Toilet & Pedestal Unused Hole

Concrete Slab Pit Cover SSB Foundation PVC Vent Pipe

69 | DESIGN : SYSTEM 1

M XIMU

: 10

M MIN : 2 M

MA

MINI

MUM

: 15 M

LE

70 | DESIGN : SYSTEM 1

R TE WA

B TA

DESIGN Double Ventilated Improved Pit System

SYSTEM CONSTRAINTS :

Several considerations need to be taken into account when locating a double ventilated improved pit system.

Most importantly, location needs to reduce the risk of groundwater contamination as much as possible. It is recommended that there be a minimum distance of 2 meters between the base of the pit itself and the depth of the water table.154 Linear distance between the pit and direct water sources is a bit harder to determine.

Sources vary on what distance is considered safe, ranging from 10 meters155 to 48 meters.156 Mzuzu City Council recommends 30 meters between the two; given the density of the site, though, this is largely unfeasible.157 Looking at soil types and soil infiltration rates, the Water Engineering and Development Centre (WEDC) recommends a minimum distance of 15 m.158 This is, of course, a minimum requirement, and opportunity to increase this distance will be utilized.

However, simultaneously, the latrine should be placed close to the house. This not only creates a sense of ownership for the house it serves, it also increases overall accessibility for the residents of the house. Proximity to the house will come second to distance from existing sources of water, but the goal is to keep it as close as possible.

The final constraint is the location of other adjacent houses. The latrine should not hinder the daily lives of neighbors or obstruct any adjacent houses. Furthermore, the latrine should always be closer to its associated house than another.

71 | DESIGN : SYSTEM 1

DESIGN Waterless System with Urine Diversion

SYSTEM DETAILS :

OVERVIEW Three different variations on the waterless system with urine diversion were developed to better meet the needs of a variety of contexts. There are a few things that remain consistent throughout all three variations, though. The basis of the design is the urine-diverting toilet, which separates urine and feces into two different containment systems. The key with this is that the feces must remain relatively dry in order to correctly cure and remain innocuous. This also means that the entire system must be watertight from the start, and is therefore better suited to areas with a high water table. All three also provide a system similar to the double ventilated improved pit, with two pits being switched between cyclically.

Sizing was slightly different for these than a typical double ventilated pit due to the addition of lime, sand, or ash over time. Estimated total waste per person per year was set at 100L159 while household size remained at 4.5.160 Dimensions of the structure were also based on locally varied materials. Locally available SSB bricks, for example, were determined to be locally available at 100x150x450mm in size, and this acted as a module for different parts of the structure.

Beyond these commonalities, the three different systems have been designed with the goal of meeting specific major challenges to its implementation.

RAISED PERMANENT ENCLOSURE The enclosure is raised off the ground to reduce

72 | DESIGN : SYSTEM 2

exposure to moisture and allow for the use of SSB bricks. While this does limit accessibility, it makes cleaning and accessing both the collected urine and dried feces much easier from ground level. Similar to tis double VIP counterpart, the intention of this design is to also make switching between the two pits as easy as possible; only the vent, toilet, and cover need to be moved.

GROUND LEVEL PERMANENT ENCLOSURE This design is intended to be more accessible while still maintaining watertightness. Construction requires far less masonry, at the cost of an increased use of concrete. Maintenance will be needed in order to preserve the watertightness of the pit. Emptying the pit and urine tanks will also be significantly harder due to the location of the access panels.

RAISED DIVIDED PORTABLE ENCLOSURE By dividing the double pit into two separate enclosures, the structure is able to fit in thinner spaces resulting from denser housing development. This design is more ideal for a denser part of Salisburyline. The enclosure also allows for the reclamation of materials at end of use for other construction projects. By raising the structure on a pedestal, it maintains the easily accessible panels seen in the first variation.

However, significant maintenance will need to be conducted over time including moving the enclosure between the two locations.

Furthermore, it is much more closed than the other two.

Opt. 1 : Raised Permanent Enclosure Corrugated Metal Roof

Roof Framing

Filler SSB Block (nom. 100x150x450) Urine Diverting Toilet

Fly Screen Pipe for Urine

Concrete Slab PVC Vent Pipe

Urine Access Pit Divider Urine Container Concrete Base SSB Pedestal

73 | DESIGN : SYSTEM 2

DESIGN Opt. 2 : Ground Level Permanent Enclosure Corrugated Metal Roof

Roof Framing

Filler SSB Block (nom. 100x150x450) Urine Diverting Toilet

Fly Screen Pipe for Urine

Concrete Slab Urine Access Pit Access PVC Vent Pipe Urine Container Divider Concrete Foundation

74 | DESIGN : SYSTEM 2

Opt. 3 : Raised Divided Temporary Enclosure Corrugated Metal Roof

Metal Framing

Urine Diverting Toilet

Pipe for Urine PVC Vent Pipe Pit Divider Concrete Slab Pit Access Urine Access

Concrete Base

75 | DESIGN : SYSTEM 2

Biogas Reactor Overflow Outlet Chamber Cover Slab

Biogas Chamber Biogas Outlet

Cover Slab Inlet Chamber

Mixing Tank Inlet Pipe

Outlet Gas Valve SSB Block (10x15x45cm) Base Slab Inlet

76 | DESIGN : SYSTEM 3

DESIGN Biogas System with Sludge and Digestate Production

SYSTEM DETAILS :

OVERVIEW Biogas reactors all operate in a similar pattern regardless of overall design. There are three main components to any reactor: an inlet, the reactor itself, and an overflow/outlet for draining.

The mouth for the outlet must be lower than both the toilets the reactor services and the inlet itself in order to prevent backups and overflows in a different direction. Sizes for all of these components are determined based on calculation involving total waste per day and the lowest possible hydraulic retention time (HRT), a measure of how long waste remains in the reactor.

For Salisburyline, the design was primarily constructed out of locally manufactured sealed SSB bricks. While other materials could be used, such as concrete, this would be significantly costlier, require an even greater amount of outside help, and create even larger disruptions within the community during construction.

SSB blocks are set at 100x150x450mm in size, and this acts as a second determiner for sizing. Pipes entering the inlet from surrounding houses could be constructed of either PVC or metal depending on local availability. Gas pipes will be made of non-cupric metal to reduce the likelihood of theft.

Latrines can be designed using a variety of materials or construction techniques and are entirely user-dependent. Common materials seen currently on site are brick, SSB, wood, and corrugated steel, and these will most likely form the backbone of construction.

77 | DESIGN : SYSTEM 3

DESIGN Latrine Example : Corrugated Metal

78 | DESIGN : SYSTEM 3

Latrine Example : Brick

79 | DESIGN : SYSTEM 3

6 households, 27 people, 5.4m3, 1m ht. x 1.31m r.

8 households, 36 people, 7.2m3, 1m ht. x 1.51m r.

10 households, 45 people, 9.0m3, 1m ht. x 1.69m r.

12 households, 54 people, 10.8m3, 1m ht. x 1.85m r.

80 | DESIGN : SYSTEM 3

DESIGN Biogas System with Sludge and Digestate Production

SYSTEM CONSTRAINTS :

Sizing for biogas reactors will be based on a number of intersecting factors. Assuming that organic waste is added to the reactor at a concentration of 8 kg. out of every 100 kg. total, assuming the lowest daily average temperature for the year is 15° in Mzuzu, hydraulic retention time within the reactor is 80 days at the most.161 Calculating the volume of the reactor itself is therefore determined by calculating the total amount of waste collected per day and multiplying it by 80, the worst case scenario for retention. For the purposes of this calculation, average waste per capita is estimated at 1 kg/day. This can, in turn be used to calculate gas output, total sludge retention over time, and production of digestate to be collected and disposed of.

Depending on the layout of the site in which it is constructed, multiple inlets may need to be added in order all surrounding residences to have access to it. This will need to be planned in the beginning of construction, as changing the layout of the reactor is not possible after it is completed. The inlet should also remain within close proximity of each individual latrine in order to prevent backups and blockages. To maintain a steep enough angle, toilets should be no more than 8 meters from the reactor inlet.

Providing gas back to the inhabitants will need to be designed on a case by case basis due to complex nature of the pipes and fixtures that must be installed. This could be in the form of a centralized kitchen or a more distributed format.

81 | DESIGN : SYSTEM 3

DESIGN

EXISTING BUILT ENVIRONMENT :

There are varying levels of built environment density within Salisburyline varies depending on location within the settlement. Higher density areas are mostly concentrated around major transportation pathways along the south, east, and a section of the northern border. The highest density areas are located in the center of the settlement running along the a northsouth corridor and the southeastern corner of the settlement. Part of this is because of the tributaries of the Lunyanga River along the northeastern and western sides of Salisburyline, the areas of lowest density.

However, it is also important to determine which buildings on site are residential buildings and which ones are nonresidential units including for storage, commercial, and other purposes.

While the density of the overall site is important, understanding how residential units relate to each other is also vital for determining the different systems ideal for a given location.

The variation in site conditions means that the three different selected systems will behave differently in different parts of the settlement. In order to better understand how these sites work in Salisburyline, six sites will be chosen, with two sites for each system.

82 | DESIGN : SITE SELECTION

0m

83 | DESIGN : SITE SELECTION

50m

100m

200m

400m

DESIGN

SITE A : Waterless with Urine Diversion

SITE B : Biogas System

SITE SELECTION :

Two sites were selected for each of the three chosen systems within the confines of the settlement. The sites were chosen entirely based on the strengths and weaknesses of the respective systems. Each site has a minimum of seven housing units over a site area of between 750 m.2 and 3,500 m.2 depending on both system type and total number of residences.

The sites for double ventilated improved pit system (VIP) is located on land that has the lowest chance of flooding due to its vulnerability for water infiltration. Furthermore, sites are located in areas of high density that are impassable to machinery and vehicles because of its relatively simple constructability.

Sites for the waterless system with urine diversion are chosen in a similar way, except the system’s resistance to water infiltration allows it to be placed in a greater variety of locations throughout Salisburyline. The two sites chosen here, therefore, are located closer to the tributaries of the Lunyanga River on the north and east of the settlement.

The biogas system has very specific site conditions necessary for its implementation. While it’s fully watertight and therefore can be placed in essentially any geographic condition, sites need access to a centralized open location for the biogas reactor itself. Furthermore, the site needs at least some sort of access to transportation in order to move materials onto the site. The two sites are located near major roads on the site.

84 | DESIGN : SITE SELECTION

SITE C : Double Ventilated Improved Pit

0m

85 | DESIGN : SITE SELECTION

50m

100m

200m

400m

DESIGN

SITE A :

Biogas System with Sludge and Digestate Production Site A is located in the northern section of Salisburyline, where flooding is often most impactful, which is a good reason for a biogas reactor to be located in this area. The system serves six houses on the site, ranging in floor area from between 45m2 and 70m2, relatively large compared to a typical house in the settlement.

The center of the site is located roughly 20m from a major transportation route through the settlement, meaning vehicular access is guaranteed to the site.

The orientation of the site also lends itself to the implementation of a biogas reactor. The six households are all located around a central open space, which has enough space to hold the system itself. At the same time the site is dense enough that the houses are all located within 8m of the central reactor.

Sizing for the reactor is based on the total of six households with an estimation of 4.5 people per household for a total of 27 being serviced by this system. Based on an average total of 1kg of total organic waste per person per day, the total amount of water needed to dilute it to 8%, and a maximum average retention time of 80 days,162 the volume of the reactor needs to be at least 5.4m3.

Green Space Line of Ownership

Based on biogas production rates for human and organic waste,163 total biogas production will be between 2.322m3/day during the summer and 1.35m3/day during the winter. This means the biogas containment unit is sized at 2.161m3.

87 | DESIGN : IMPLEMENTATION

Pipe to Reactor New Installation

DESIGN

88 | DESIGN : IMPLEMENTATION

89 | DESIGN : IMPLEMENTATION

90 | DESIGN : IMPLEMENTATION

DESIGN

SITE B :

Waterless System with Urine Diversion Again, located in the northern part of Salisburyline where flooding is a significant issue. Located adjacent to a major roadway, the site contains 11 houses in total. Site boundaries have been dictated based on existing physical and spatial boundaries on the site.

The site is ideal for a waterless system with urine diversion due to its watertightness and adaptability to different site conditions. Since this site has a wide variety of spatial densities, the different variations available for this kind of system allow it to function across the entire site.

Two of three variations are utilized on the site based on the individual house’s needs. A standard model set up on a pedestal is used where space allows for access. In areas where this is unfeasible, the variation that is on ground level with concrete chambers underground is used.

Emphasis is placed on avoiding blocking existing pathways within the site. The other focus is to keep every toilet within 4m of the house it serves, avoiding long distances in order to use it.

Sizing for each individual units takes into consideration the average household size of 4.5 people. Each pit can hold a household’s yearly production of solid waste without needing changing. The containers that hold the separated urine will need to be emptied every two-three weeks whether being used for fertilizer, sold to others for the same purpose, or dumped off site once it is full.

91 | DESIGN : IMPLEMENTATION

DESIGN

92 | DESIGN : IMPLEMENTATION

93 | DESIGN : IMPLEMENTATION

94 | DESIGN : IMPLEMENTATION

DESIGN

SITE C :

Double Ventilated Pit Latrine Site C is located along Salisburyline’s southern border with the formal community of Katoto. The former tung estate path that acts as the border has become a major road through this part of Mzuzu. In total, 11 houses are served by this system, with the boundaries being determined by existing site conditions including dense green space.

This site was chosen for the double VIP system largely because of these site conditions. Double VIPs need to be kept isolated from groundwater and water sources, an achievable goal in this location due to the lower water table. The system can be adapted to both dense and not dense conditions.

The same standard variation of this system is used throughout the site. Neither the pedestal variation nor the corrugated metal one provide any additional known advantages in this specific site, although this could change depending on the needs of individual households.

Similar to the previous installation, a priority is placed on not blocking existing circulation paths and also providing toilets in close proximity to their users. Households are again assumed to be an average of 4.5 people, and sizing is therefore based on this as well. Each pit can last upward of three years assuming normal rates of waste production. By this time, the waste in the first pit would have cured to the point of being innocuous and can be removed to be used as a soil conditioner.

95 | DESIGN : IMPLEMENTATION

DESIGN

96 | DESIGN : IMPLEMENTATION

97 | DESIGN : IMPLEMENTATION

98 | CONCLUSIONS : ANALYSIS

CONCLUSIONS

REFLECTION :

Sanitation system development in contexts such as these is an incredibly complex endeavor.

Everything from soil type to political governance needs to be considered in order to ensure sanitation access now and in the future.

I have taken a very academic approach to the project so far and found as much information on Salisburyline and sanitation as I could. However, what is currently lack from this project is the spatial and contextual understanding that can only come from interacting with the community and space in which they reside. Understanding metrics and figures at a macro-level within the settlement is helpful, but only by understanding individual needs can equal sanitation access be provided.

One of the biggest keys to a successful implementation is community engagement, and unfortunately that was not an option for this project. Any future development of a sanitation system would need to start at a ground-up level within the community itself.

Overall, I learned a lot about informal settlements, sanitation development, and the complex nature of interconnected systems.

99 | CONCLUSIONS : ANALYSIS

ENDNOTES 1

Manda, Situation of Urbanisation in Malawi.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5

Manda, “Situation of Urbanisation in Malawi.”

6

IndexMundi, Malawi Country Profile, (2018).

7

Malawi National Statistics Office, 2018 Malawi Housing and Population Census Report, (2019).

8 Yasuhiro Hayashi, “Low-income Groups and Living Environment in the Cities of the Republic of Malawi: A Direct Survey about Formal and Informal Settlements,” L’Architettura Delle Città, no. 3-5 (2014).

9

Narae Choi, Somik V. Lall, Roland White, Michael John Webster, Hyoung Gun Wang, Malawi Urbanization Review: Leveraging Urbanization for National Growth and Development (English), (Washington, D.C., World Bank Group, 2016).

10 Malawi NSO, 2018 Malawi Housing and Population Census Report

25 Ibid.

26 Malawi NSO, 2018 Malawi Housing and Population Census Report.

27 Ibid.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid.

30 Manda, Situation of Urbanisation in Malawi.

31 Malawi NSO, 2018 Malawi Housing and Population Census Report.

32 Centre for Community Organisation and Development, “Participatory Slum Upgrading and Studio Planning in Salisburyline — Mzuzu,” CCODE, (2013).

33

Mtafu Almiton Zeleza Chinguwa Manda, “Understanding the Context of Informality: Urban Planning under Different Land Tenure Systems in Mzuzu City, Malawi,” University of Cape Town, p. 42, 107-118, 139-178 (2019).

34 Ibid.

35 CCODE, “Participatory Slum Upgrading.”

11 Malawi National Statistics Office, 2008 Malawi Housing and Population Census Report, (2010).

36 John Chirwa, “Ugly Face of Urban Poverty,” (2014).

12 Malawi NSO, 2018 Malawi Housing and Population Census Report.

38 CCODE, “Participatory Slum Upgrading.”

13 Ibid.

14 United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights, (New York, United Nations, 2019).

15 United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision, (New York, United Nations, 2019).

16 Mtafu A.Z. Manda, Situation of Urbanisation in Malawi Report, (2015).

17 Fred Nankuyu. Malawi: Mzuzu Urban Profile, (Mzuzu, 2011).

18 Manda, Situation of Urbanisation in Malawi.

19 Malawi NSO, 2018 Malawi Housing and Population Census Report.

20 Ibid.

21 Mtafu A.Z. Manda, Water and Sanitation in Urban Malawi: Can They Meet the Millennium Development Goals? A Study of Informal Settlements in Three Cities, Human Settlements, (2009).

22 Nankuyu. Mzuzu Urban Profile.

23 S. G. B. Williams, “The Beginnings of Mzuzu with some Biographical Notes of some Vipya Tung Project Managers,” The Society of Malawi Journal 22, no. 1 (1969).

24 Nankuyu. Mzuzu Urban Profile.

100 | ENDNOTES

37 Manda, “Understanding the Context of Informality.”

39 Manda, “Understanding the Context of Informality.”

40 Revenue Development Foundation, “Property Surveys Conducted in Late 2014 of 39,000 Residential Buildings” Mzuzu City, Malawi, (2014).

41 Manda, “Understanding the Context of Informality.”

42 Revenue Development Foundation, “Property Surveys Conducted in Late 2014.”

43 General Assembly Resolution 70/1, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, A/RES/67/97, (2015).

44 Ibid.

45 World Health Organization, Annex 2: Safely Managed Sanitation Services, (2016).

46 Richard Steele and Cecilia Silva Venturini, Progress on Household Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene 2000-2017: Special Focus on Inequalities, (2019).

47 WHO, Annex 2.

48 Steele and Venturini, Progress on Household Drinking Water.

49 General Assembly Resolution, Transforming Our World.

50 Ibid.

51 Ibid.

52 Global Task Force on Cholera Control, Cholera Country Report: Malawi, (2010).

53 World

Health

Organization,

Water

Resources

Development and Vector-borne Diseases in Malawi: Report of a National Seminar, Blantyre, Official Record (1999).

81 Ibid.

54 Iturriza-Gómara, Jere, Hungerford, et al., “Etiology of Diarrhea Among Hospitalized Children in Blantyre, Malawi, Following Rotavirus Vaccine Introduction: A Case-Control Study,” (2019).

83 Ibid.

55 Ibid.

86 Ibid.

56 Prince Kaponda, Suresh Muthukrishnan, et. al., “Drinking Water Quality and Human Dimensions of Cholera Patients to Inform Evidence-Based Prevention Investment in Karonga District, Malawi,” Water Supply 19, no. 7 (2019).

87 Manda, Water and Sanitation in Urban Malawi.

57 Rochelle Holm, Philip Wandschneider, et. al., “Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: A Case Study of the Complexity of Water Quality Health Risks in Malawi,” Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition 35 (1), (2016).

58 Manda, “Understanding the Context of Informality.”

59 Chirwa, “Ugly Face of Urban Poverty.”

60 Manda, “Understanding the Context of Informality.”

61 Chirwa, “Ugly Face of Urban Poverty.”

62 Stern Mwakalimi Kita. “Urban Vulnerability, Disaster Risk Reduction and Resettlement in Mzuzu City, Malawi,” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 22: 158–66 (2017).

63 Mwayi Mkandawire, “Trash Accumulates in Mzuzu Markets as Dumping Site Remains Closed,” (2020).

64 Kita, “Urban Vulnerability, Disaster Risk Reduction.”

65 Ibid.

66 Malawi News Agency, “Mzuzu Residents Refuse to Relocate from Disaster Areas,” (2017).

67 CCODE, “Participatory Slum Upgrading.”

82 Ibid.

84 CCODE, “Participatory Slum Upgrading.”

85 Manda, “Understanding the Context of Informality.”

88 Elijah M.M. Wanda, and Golden Msilimba, “Microbial and Geochemical Quality of Shallow Well Water in Highdensity Areas in Mzuzu City in Malawi,” (2013).

89

Holm, Wandschneider, et. al., “Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.”

90 Manda, Water and Sanitation in Urban Malawi.

91

Holm, Wandschneider, et. al., “Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.”

92 Revenue Development Foundation, “Property Surveys Conducted in Late 2014.”

93 Revenue Development Foundation, “Property Surveys Conducted in Late 2014.”

94 Ibid.

95 CCODE, “Participatory Slum Upgrading.”

96 Daniel C. Nyirenda and Rochelle Holm, “Faecal Sludge Management in Peri-urban Malawi: Investigating the Policy Gaps,” (2017).

97 Revenue Development Foundation, “Property Surveys Conducted in Late 2014.”

98 Ibid.

99 Steele and Venturini, Progress on Household Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene.

68 Chirwa, “Ugly Face of Urban Poverty.”

100 Manda, Water and Sanitation in Urban Malawi: Can They Meet the Millennium Development Goals?.

69 Revenue Development Foundation, “Property Surveys Conducted in Late 2014.”

101 Nyirenda and Holm, “Faecal Sludge Management.”

70 Manda, “Understanding the Context of Informality.”

71 Ibid.

72 Ibid.

73 Hayashi, “Low-income Groups and Living Environment.”

74 Revenue Development Foundation, “Property Surveys Conducted in Late 2014.”

75 Manda, Situation of Urbanisation in Malawi.

76 Manda, “Understanding the Context of Informality.”

77 CCODE, “Participatory Slum Upgrading.”

78 Manda, “Understanding the Context of Informality.”

79 CCODE, “Participatory Slum Upgrading.”

80 Manda, “Understanding the Context of Informality.”

101 | ENDNOTES

102 Ibid.

103 Holm, Kamangira, Tembo, et. al., “Sanitation Service Delivery in Smaller Urban Areas.”

104 Manda, “Understanding the Context of Informality.”

105 Elizabeth Tilley, Lukas Ulrich, Christoph Lüthi, Phillippe Reymond, and Christian Zurbrügg. Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies: 2nd Revised Edition, (2016).

106 Ibid.

107 Ibid.

108 Nyirenda and Holm, “Faecal Sludge Management.”

109 Tilley, Ulrich, Lüthi, et. al. “Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies.”

ENDNOTES (CONT.) 110 Manda, “Understanding the Context of Informality.”

144 CCODE, “Participatory Slum Upgrading.”

111 Tilley, Ulrich, Lüthi, et. al. “Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies.”

145 Manda, “Understanding the Context of Informality.”

112 Ibid.

113 Ibid.

114 Ibid.

115 Nyirenda and Holm, “Faecal Sludge Management.”

146 Ibid.

147 Amref Health Africa, “African Sanitation Revolution.”

148 Ibid.

149 World Habitat, “Promoting Eco-sanitation.”

150 CCODE, “Participatory Slum Upgrading.”

116 Tilley, Ulrich, Lüthi, et. al. “Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies.”

151 Amref Health Africa, “African Sanitation Revolution.”

117 Ibid.

152 Tilley, Ulrich, Lüthi, et. al. “Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies.”

118 Manda, “Understanding the Context of Informality.”

119 Tilley, Ulrich, Lüthi, et. al. “Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies.”

120 Ibid.

121 Ibid.

122 Ibid.

123 Ibid.

124 Ibid.

125 Ibid.

126 Malawi NSO, 2018 Malawi Housing and Population Census Report 127 Tilley, Ulrich, Lüthi, et. al. “Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies.”

128 Ibid.

129 CCODE, “Participatory Slum Upgrading.”

130 World Habitat, “Promoting Eco-sanitation in Informal Settlements,” (2016).

153 Malawi NSO, 2018 Malawi Housing and Population Census Report 154 Tilley, Ulrich, Lüthi, et. al. “Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies.”

155 Webber, Roger, Communicable Disease Epidemiology and Control: a Global Perspective, Wallingford: CABI, (2009).

156 Kiptum, Clement Kiprotich, and Julius Musyoka Ndambuki, “Well Water Contamination by Pit Latrines: A Case Study of Langas,” International Journal of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering 4, no. 2 (2012): 35–43.

157 Holm, Wandschneider, et. al., “Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.”

158 Reed, Bob, “Guide 23: Latrine Pit Design,” London: Water Engineering and Development Centre (WEDC), (2014).

159 Tilley, Ulrich, Lüthi, et. al. “Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies.”

131 Finish Mondial, “Home,” (2020).

160 Malawi NSO, 2018 Malawi Housing and Population Census Report

132 Amref Health Africa, ”African Sanitation Revolution - Financial Inclusion Improves Sanitation & Health (FINISH),” (2020).

161 Local Government Engineering Department (LGED), “Design of Biogas Plant,” Dhaka, (2012).

133 Finish Mondial, “Home”.

134 Amref Health Africa, “African Sanitation Revolution.”

135 Finish Mondial, “Home.”

136 Amref Health Africa, “African Sanitation Revolution.”

137 Finish Mondial, “Home.”

138 CCODE, “Participatory Slum Upgrading.”

139 Ibid.

140 Manda, “Understanding the Context of Informality.”

141 Ibid.

142 Amref Health Africa, “African Sanitation Revolution.”

143 World Habitat, “Promoting Eco-sanitation.”

102 | SECTION TITLE

162 Ibid.

163 Ibid.

103 | SECTION TITLE

BIBLIOGRAPHY 2008 Malawi Housing and Population Census Report. 2008 Malawi Housing and Population Census Report § (2010).

2018 Malawi Housing and Population Census Report. 2018 Malawi Housing and Population Census Report § (2019).

Amref Health Africa. ”African Sanitation Revolution - Financial Inclusion Improves Sanitation & Health (FINISH)”. Lever for Change, 2020.

Centre for Community Organisation and Development. “Participatory Slum Upgrading and Studio Planning in Salisburyline — Mzuzu.” Case Study 5 Mzuzu. CCODE, September 2013.

Chirwa, John. “Ugly Face of Urban Poverty.” The Nation, mwnation.com, July 8, 2014.

Choi, Narae; Lall, Somik V.; White, Roland; Webster, Michael John; Wang, Hyoung Gun. 2016. Malawi urbanization review: leveraging urbanization for national growth and development (English).

Washington, D.C. : World Bank Group.

Finish Mondial. “Home.” Finish Mondial, January 31, 2020.

General Assembly Resolution 70/1, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, A/RES/67/97, September 25, 2015.

Global Task Force on Cholera Control (World Health Organization). Cholera Country Report: Malawi.

Global Task Force on Cholera Control, 2010.

Hayashi, Yasuhiro. 2014. “Low-income groups and living environment in the cities of the Republic of Malawi. A direct survey about formal and informal settlements” L’architettura delle città - The Journal of the Scientific Society Ludovico Quaroni.

Holm, Rochelle H, Alinafe Kamangira, Mavuto Tembo, Victor Kasulo, Hastings Kandaya, Peter Gijs Van Enk, and Alex Velzeboer. “Sanitation Service Delivery in Smaller Urban Areas (Mzuzu and Karonga, Malawi).” Environment and Urbanization 30, no. 2 (March 2018): 597–612.

Holm, Rochelle, Philip Wandschneider, Allan Felsot, and Golden Msilimba. 2016. “Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: a Case Study of the Complexity of Water Quality Health Risks in Malawi.” Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition 35 (1).

IndexMundi. “Malawi.” Malawi - Country Profile - 2018, January 20, 2018.

Iturriza-Gómara, Miren, Khuzwayo C Jere, Daniel Hungerford, Naor Bar-Zeev, Kayoko Shioda, Oscar Kanjerwa, Eric R Houpt, et al. “Etiology of Diarrhea Among Hospitalized Children in Blantyre, Malawi, Following Rotavirus Vaccine Introduction: A Case-Control Study.” The Journal of Infectious Diseases 220, no. 2 (2019): 213–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiz084.

Kaponda, Prince, Suresh Muthukrishnan, Rory Barber, and Rochelle H. Holm. “Drinking Water Quality and Human Dimensions of Cholera Patients to Inform Evidence-Based Prevention Investment in Karonga District, Malawi.” Water Supply 19, no. 7 (May 2019): 2079–87. https://doi.org/10.2166/ ws.2019.086.

Kiptum, Clement Kiprotich, and Julius Musyoka Ndambuki. “Well Water Contamination by Pit Latrines: A Case Study of Langas .” International Journal of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering 4, no. 2 (February 2012): 35–43.

Kita, Stern Mwakalimi. 2017. “Urban Vulnerability, Disaster Risk Reduction and Resettlement in Mzuzu City, Malawi.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 22: 158–66.

Malawi News Agency. “Mzuzu Residents Refuse to Relocate from Disaster Areas.” The Nation.

Mwnation.com, August 28, 2017.

104 | SECTION TITLE

Manda Mtafu A.Z. 2009. Water and Sanitation in Urban Malawi: Can They Meet the Millennium Development Goals? A Study of Informal Settlements in Three Cities, Human Settlements Working Paper Series Water No. 7, IIED, London.

Manda, Mtafu A.Z. 2015. Situation of Urbanisation in Malawi Report, Situation of Urbanisation in Malawi Report.

Manda, Mtafu Almiton Zeleza Chinguwa. University of Cape Town, 2019.

Mkandawire, Mwayi. “Trash Accumulates in Mzuzu Markets as Dumping Site Remains Closed.”

Malawi24. Malawi24.com, February 4, 2020.

Msilimba, Golden, and Elijah M.m. Wanda. “Microbial and Geochemical Quality of Shallow Well Water in High-Density Areas in Mzuzu City in Malawi.” Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 66 (2013): 173–80.

Nankuyu, Fred. 2011. Malawi: Mzuzu Urban Profile, Malawi: Mzuzu Urban Profile.

Nyirenda, Daniel C., and Rochelle Holm. 2019. “Faecal Sludge Management in Peri-urban Malawi: Investigating the Policy Gaps”.

Reed, Bob. 2014. “Guide 23: Latrine Pit Design.” London: Water Engineering and Development Centre (WEDC).

Revenue Development Foundation. “Property Surveys Conducted in Late 2014 of 39,000 Residential Buildings.” Mzuzu City, Malawi, 2014.

Steele, Richard, and Cecilia Silva Venturini (World Health Organization & United Nations Children’s Fund). Progress on Household Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene 2000-2017: Special Focus on Inequalities. New York: World Health Organization & United Nations Children’s Fund, 2019.

Tilley, Elizabeth, Lukas Ulrich, Christoph Lüthi, Phillippe Reymond, and Christian Zurbrügg.

“Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies: 2nd Revised Edition.” Dübendorf: Swiss Federal institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag), 2016.

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2019). World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/423). New York: United Nations.

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2019). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/420). New York: United Nations Webber, Roger. Communicable Disease Epidemiology and Control: a Global Perspective. Wallingford: CABI, 2009.

Williams, S. G. B. “THE BEGINNINGS OF MZUZU WITH SOME BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES OF SOME VIPYA TUNG PROJECT MANAGERS.” The Society of Malawi Journal 22, no. 1 (1969): 46-50.

World Habitat. “Promoting Eco-sanitation in Informal Settlements.” World Habitat. World Habitat Awards 2016, 2016.

World Health Organization, National Seminar, Blantyre, Malawi. Water Resources Development and Vector-borne Diseases in Malawi: Report of a National Seminar, Blantyre, Malawi.8-13 November 1998. Official Record. 1999.

World Health Organization. Annex 2: Safely Managed Sanitation Services. World Health Organization, October 27, 2016.

105 | SECTION TITLE