High acceptance of urine source separation in seven European countries: a review.

Urine source separation (NoMix-technology) is a promising innovation aiming at a resource-oriented, decentralized approach in urban water management. However, NoMix-technology has a sensitive end-point: people's bathrooms. NoMix-technology is increasingly applied in European pilot projects, but the success from a user point-of-view has rarely been systematically monitored. We aim at closing this gap. We review surveys on acceptance, including reuse of human urine as fertilizer, from 38 NoMix-projects in 7 Northern and Central European countries with 2700 respondents. Additionally, we identify explanatory variables with logistic regression of a representative Swiss library survey. NoMix-technology is well accepted; around 80% of users liked the idea, 75-85% were satisfied with design, hygiene, smell, and seating comfort of NoMix-toilets, 85% regarded urine-fertilizers as good idea (50% of farmers), and 70% would purchase such food. However, 60% of users encountered problems; NoMix-toilets need further development. We found few differences among countries, but systematic differences between public and private settings, where people seem more critical. Information was positively correlated with acceptance, and, e.g., a good mood or environmentally friendly behavior. For future success of NoMix-projects, we recommend authorities follow an integral strategy. Lay people will then find the NoMix-concept appealing and support this promising bathroom innovation.

[1]  Nicholas Ashbolt,et al.  Microbial risk assessment of source-separated urine used in agriculture , 2002, Waste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA.

[2]  T A Larsen,et al.  Waste design and source control lead to flexibility in wastewater management. , 2001, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[3]  T. A. Larsen,et al.  Soft Paths in Wastewater Management – The Pros and Cons of Urine Source Separation , 2007 .

[4]  J Lienert,et al.  Real-life efficiency of urine source separation. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[5]  T. Heberer Occurrence, fate, and removal of pharmaceutical residues in the aquatic environment: a review of recent research data. , 2002, Toxicology letters.

[6]  Magnus Bengtsson,et al.  Actors and interpretations in an environmental controversy: the Swedish debate on sewage sludge use in agriculture , 2004 .

[7]  John Davies,et al.  Sustainable Disposal of Domestic Sanitary Waste , 2005 .

[8]  Willi Gujer,et al.  Urea hydrolysis and precipitation dynamics in a urine-collecting system. , 2003, Water research.

[9]  Louise Emilia Dellström Rosenquist A psychosocial analysis of the human-sanitation nexus , 2005 .

[10]  Håkan Jönsson,et al.  Source separation of urine , 1999 .

[11]  Florian G. Kaiser,et al.  Assessing general ecological behavior : a cross-cultural comparison between Switzerland and Sweden , 2000 .

[12]  V. Smil PHOSPHORUS IN THE ENVIRONMENT: Natural Flows and Human Interferences , 2000 .

[13]  Tove A. Larsen,et al.  Wastewater management in Kunming, China: a stakeholder perspective on measures at the source , 2006 .

[14]  Thomas Martens,et al.  Designing environmental campaigns by using agent-based simulations: strategies for changing environmental attitudes. , 2008, Journal of environmental management.

[15]  J Lienert,et al.  How farmers in Switzerland perceive fertilizers from recycled anthropogenic nutrients (urine). , 2003, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[16]  Ted Gardner,et al.  URINE-SEPARATION AND REUSE TRIAL , 2008 .

[17]  J Lienert,et al.  Young users accept NoMix toilets--a questionnaire survey on urine source separating toilets in a college in Switzerland. , 2006, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[18]  R. Rosenberg,et al.  Spreading Dead Zones and Consequences for Marine Ecosystems , 2008, Science.

[19]  Max Maurer,et al.  Monitoring the removal efficiency of pharmaceuticals and hormones in different treatment processes of source-separated urine with bioassays. , 2006, Environmental science & technology.

[20]  John Shenot,et al.  Promoting Source Reduction Behavior , 1993 .

[21]  B. Escher,et al.  Pilot experiments with electrodialysis and ozonation for the production of a fertiliser from urine. , 2007, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[22]  J. Corbett Altruism, Self-Interest, and the Reasonable Person Model of Environmentally Responsible Behavior , 2005 .

[23]  Barbara A. Knuth,et al.  User satisfaction in large-scale, urban dry sanitationprograms in Mexico , 2005 .

[24]  M Maurer,et al.  Treatment processes for source-separated urine. , 2006, Water research.

[25]  A Mels,et al.  Technology selection and comparative performance of source-separating wastewater management systems in Sweden and The Netherlands. , 2007, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[26]  Daniel Hellström,et al.  A study of a urine separation system in an ecological village in Northern Sweden , 1997 .

[27]  Anna Burström,et al.  Dubbelspolande urinsorterande toaletter , 1998 .

[28]  M. Borsuk,et al.  Charting a path for innovative toilet technology using multicriteria decision analysis. , 2008, Environmental science & technology.

[29]  Tove A. Larsen,et al.  Separate management of anthropogenic nutrient solutions (human urine) , 1996 .

[30]  Judit Lienert,et al.  Considering user attitude in early Development of environmentally friendly technology: a case study of NoMix toilets. , 2006, Environmental science & technology.

[31]  S. Hills,et al.  Washroom behaviour and users' perceptions of "novel" water-efficient appliances , 2004 .

[32]  Janusz Niemczynowicz,et al.  Experiences with dry sanitation and greywater treatment in the ecovillage Toarp, Sweden , 1997 .

[33]  M. B. Beck,et al.  A New Planning and Design Paradigm to Achieve Sustainable Resource Recovery from Wastewater. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[34]  A. Wachtler,et al.  The road not taken: how traditional excreta and greywater management may point the way to a sustainable future , 2007 .

[35]  Justyna Czemiel Berndtsson,et al.  Experiences from the implementation of a urine separation system: Goals, planning, reality , 2006 .

[36]  T A Larsen,et al.  Investigating consumer attitudes towards the new technology of urine separation. , 2003, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[37]  P. Gleick Global Freshwater Resources: Soft-Path Solutions for the 21st Century , 2003, Science.

[38]  M. Maurer,et al.  Source separation: will we see a paradigm shift in wastewater handling? , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[39]  B. Mattsson,et al.  Environmental impact of wheat production using human urine and mineral fertilisers – a scenario study , 2007 .

[40]  Christoph Humborg,et al.  Hypoxia in the Baltic Sea and basin-scale changes in phosphorus biogeochemistry. , 2002, Environmental science & technology.

[41]  Tove A. Larsen,et al.  PILOT PROJECTS IN BATHROOMS: A NEW CHALLENGE FOR WASTEWATER PROFESSIONALS , 2007 .