Emergency sanitation technologies make up some of the most significant gaps in the water, sanitation and hygiene sector. Major initiatives to address identified gaps may be characterised as donor-funded, top-down processes driven by international or European-based non-governmental organisations. However, local organisations also innovate. To better understand how local organisations innovate for emergency sanitation, the paper presents a case study of an Indonesian NGO who had developed a toilet for use in emergencies. The NGO developed the toilet by modifying an existing non-emergency toilet. The process was unstructured and informal. When testing ideas, for instance, the NGO used their own methods rather than referring to testing protocols recognised by the industry. The NGO surveyed end users, but the respondents did not come from post-disaster settings. Compared to designs developed through international initiatives, the NGO’s design deviated somewhat from internationally recognised standards, for instance, the size of the latrine slab. The paper also discusses differences between the way local and international organisations develop emergency sanitation products. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages in terms of methodology and access to resources and expertise. Therefore, there are potential benefits to the different organisations working more closely.@en

An eSOS (emergency Sanitation Operation System) Smart Toilet experimental prototype, aimed at improving the provision of safe sanitation in emergency settings, was field tested in a temporary settlement in Tacloban City, Philippines. The design, usage, and user acceptance of the toilet were all evaluated. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected through interviews and questionnaires, supported by the research-team’s observations. The survey results indicated that 98% of users (both first-time users and those who tried it a few times) intended to use the toilet again. There were more features that the users liked than disliked. The in-built water supply and user-operated smart toilet features were liked, but the bad smell was disliked. User-operated smart features were an important factor in user acceptance although they were not the main incentives. Key recommendations are to improve the toilet’s design to address the odor and cleanliness issues, make handwashing more convenient, and lower the height of the toilet bowl.@en