Solar disinfection of drinking water : Effectiveness in peri-urban households in Siddhipur Village, Kathmandu Valley, Nepal

The study examined pH, turbidity, and fecal contamination of drinking water from household water storage containers, wells and taps, and the Godawari River, and tested the effectiveness of solar disinfection (SODIS) in reducing levels of fecal contamination from household containers. Second, the study investigated the relationship between use of SODIS and reported episodes of diarrheal illness in the participating households. Third, using the Health Belief Model as a framework, the study collected qualitative data about the acceptability of SODIS and about perceived susceptibility to diarrhea, and perceived benefits and barriers to adopting SODIS. Forty households from Siddhipur Village in the Kathmandu Valley participated in the study from March to July, 2002. The study included a baseline survey of health and water quality, training in how and why to use solar disinfection, and two follow-ups. The results showed: 1. Water from all sources is contaminated with fecal coliform bacteria. 2. There is less contamination in water from the household containers than from wells and taps. 3. SODIS did significantly reduce the level of fecal contamination. 4. SODIS was not adopted by most households in this study. Due to the low level of adoption it was not possible to test for a reduction in episodes of diarrhea among households using SODIS. 5. The level of education and awareness about water and sanitation was low. One recommendation is to examine the entire water distribution system for the village and identify specific points of potential contamination. The riparian zone upstream from the intake for the village reservoir and the areas around the taps and wells in the village should be protected from human and animal waste. Education about water and sanitation should be provided to the primary food preparers, as well as information and training on other simple methods for household disinfection. A SODIS program integrated into the school curriculum would involve the children and relieve the women of this additional workload. Additional research is needed to determine the effectiveness of SODIS in the shorter, colder winter days and at higher altitudes before final recommendations can be made for general use in Nepal

Recycling knowledge, attitudes and behavior for on-campus and off-campus students in organized living groups at Oregon State University

The purpose of this study was to examine Oregon State University students' self-reported knowledge, attitudes, and behavior about recycling. Students living in on-campus and off-campus organized living groups were mailed a four-page survey with questions about their recycling activities, their attitudes about recycling, their opinions of the effectiveness of the campus recycling program, and their demographic information. The study population included all students living in OSU's residence halls, cooperatives, and fraternity and sorority houses. Three hundred fifteen surveys were mailed, and 237 were returned, for an overall response rate of 75%. The results showed that: 1) Based on the criteria used to distinguish between recyclers and non-recyclers, 95% of the sample were recyclers, with women reporting recycling behavior at a higher level than men. 2) There were no significant differences in attitudes about recycling between recyclers and non-recyclers. Recyclers, however, are more likely than non-recyclers to make purchases based on their concern for the environment. 3) Most OSU students who recycle spend less than 30 minutes per month recycling, and it appears to be a well-established pattern in their lives. More than 50% of the students recycle on a daily or a weekly basis. 4) OSU students recycle all materials except plastics at high rates, ranging from 76% for glass to 87% for paper. Plastics were recycled by 64% of the students who recycle. 5) Students recycle at residences and in classrooms and offices on the OSU campus, and report the least recycling activity at the Memorial Union. OSU students mainly use the curbside collection service for off-campus recycling. 6) OSU students receive information about recycling from a wide variety of sources, including school, home, and the media. One recommendation based on this study is that Campus Recycling provide education about materials re-processing and about the importance of purchasing products with recycled content to close the three-sided recycling loop, as well as to introduce the concept of source reduction. Another recommendation is that organized housing groups name a recycling coordinator who will educate and motivate the residents of the housing group to recycle. Eighty-one percent of the respondents reported television as a source of information about recycling. Additional research is needed to identify the time slots and programs watched by students if this media will be used for future educational interventions about recycling. Finally, because this survey dealt only with recycling of non-hazardous materials, additional research is needed to gather information on disposal of hazardous materials like batteries, automobile fluids, and household paint and cleaners

CO2 and H2O: Understanding Different Stakeholder Perspectives on the Use of Carbon Credits to Finance Household Water Treatment Projects.

Background Carbon credits are an increasingly prevalent market-based mechanism used to subsidize household water treatment technologies (HWT). This involves generating credits through the reduction of carbon emissions from boiling water by providing a technology that reduces greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change. Proponents claim this process delivers health and environmental benefits by providing clean drinking water and reducing greenhouse gases. Selling carbon credits associated with HWT projects requires rigorous monitoring to ensure households are using the HWT and achieving the desired benefits of the device. Critics have suggested that the technologies provide neither the benefits of clean water nor reduced emissions. This study explores the perspectives of carbon credit and water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) experts on HWT carbon credit projects. Methods Thirteen semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with key informants from the WASH and carbon credit development sectors. The interviews explored perceptions of the two groups with respect to the procedures applied in the Gold Standard methodology for trading Voluntary Emission Reduction (VER) credits. Results Agreement among the WASH and carbon credit experts existed for the concept of suppressed demand and parameters in the baseline water boiling test. Key differences, however, existed. WASH experts’ responses highlighted a focus on objectively verifiable data for monitoring carbon projects while carbon credit experts called for contextualizing observed data with the need for flexibility and balancing financial viability with quality assurance. Conclusions Carbon credit projects have the potential to become an important financing mechanism for clean energy in low- and middle-income countries. Based on this research we recommend that more effort be placed on building consensus on the underlying assumptions for obtaining carbon credits from HWT projects, as well as the approved methods for monitoring correct and consistent use of the HWT technologies in order to support public health impacts

CO2 and H2O: Understanding Different Stakeholder Perspectives on the Use of Carbon Credits to Finance Household Water Treatment Projects.

BackgroundCarbon credits are an increasingly prevalent market-based mechanism used to subsidize household water treatment technologies (HWT). This involves generating credits through the reduction of carbon emissions from boiling water by providing a technology that reduces greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change. Proponents claim this process delivers health and environmental benefits by providing clean drinking water and reducing greenhouse gases. Selling carbon credits associated with HWT projects requires rigorous monitoring to ensure households are using the HWT and achieving the desired benefits of the device. Critics have suggested that the technologies provide neither the benefits of clean water nor reduced emissions. This study explores the perspectives of carbon credit and water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) experts on HWT carbon credit projects.MethodsThirteen semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with key informants from the WASH and carbon credit development sectors. The interviews explored perceptions of the two groups with respect to the procedures applied in the Gold Standard methodology for trading Voluntary Emission Reduction (VER) credits.ResultsAgreement among the WASH and carbon credit experts existed for the concept of suppressed demand and parameters in the baseline water boiling test. Key differences, however, existed. WASH experts' responses highlighted a focus on objectively verifiable data for monitoring carbon projects while carbon credit experts called for contextualizing observed data with the need for flexibility and balancing financial viability with quality assurance.ConclusionsCarbon credit projects have the potential to become an important financing mechanism for clean energy in low- and middle-income countries. Based on this research we recommend that more effort be placed on building consensus on the underlying assumptions for obtaining carbon credits from HWT projects, as well as the approved methods for monitoring correct and consistent use of the HWT technologies in order to support public health impacts

CO₂ and H₂O: Understanding Different Stakeholder Perspectives on the Use of Carbon Credits to Finance Household Water Treatment Projects

<div><p>Background</p><p>Carbon credits are an increasingly prevalent market-based mechanism used to subsidize household water treatment technologies (HWT). This involves generating credits through the reduction of carbon emissions from boiling water by providing a technology that reduces greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change. Proponents claim this process delivers health and environmental benefits by providing clean drinking water and reducing greenhouse gases. Selling carbon credits associated with HWT projects requires rigorous monitoring to ensure households are using the HWT and achieving the desired benefits of the device. Critics have suggested that the technologies provide neither the benefits of clean water nor reduced emissions. This study explores the perspectives of carbon credit and water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) experts on HWT carbon credit projects.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Thirteen semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with key informants from the WASH and carbon credit development sectors. The interviews explored perceptions of the two groups with respect to the procedures applied in the Gold Standard methodology for trading Voluntary Emission Reduction (VER) credits.</p><p>Results</p><p>Agreement among the WASH and carbon credit experts existed for the concept of suppressed demand and parameters in the baseline water boiling test. Key differences, however, existed. WASH experts’ responses highlighted a focus on objectively verifiable data for monitoring carbon projects while carbon credit experts called for contextualizing observed data with the need for flexibility and balancing financial viability with quality assurance.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Carbon credit projects have the potential to become an important financing mechanism for clean energy in low- and middle-income countries. Based on this research we recommend that more effort be placed on building consensus on the underlying assumptions for obtaining carbon credits from HWT projects, as well as the approved methods for monitoring correct and consistent use of the HWT technologies in order to support public health impacts.</p></div

Description of steps for projects to obtain carbon credits for a household water treatment project.

<p>(A) Step 1: The project has to submit a Project Design Document (PDD) to Gold Standard for review (B) Step 2: Within the PDD the project developer must provide detail on the project location and baseline characteristics of end-users of the HWT. The characteristics of technology users include the baseline technology in use (type of stove/fuel) and user practices (time spent cooking/boiling water). (C) Step 3: A third party entity conducts stakeholder interviews and confirms that if the project were to move forward as proposed planned emissions reductions would be achieved. (D) Step 4: The project technology is installed and ready for use. (E) Step 5: A third party designated operational entity (DOE) periodically collects monitoring data on indicators of fuel and filter user throughout the stated life of the project. These indicators are used to calculate project level emissions. (F) Step 6: The project level emissions are subtracted from the baseline emissions and carbon credits are issued based on the difference.</p

Household water treatment projects applying for carbon credits using Gold Standard.

<p>Includes projects that have made documents publically available in the Markit Environmental Registry.^{1, 4}</p><p>¹ This information was current as of February 2015 and only reflects the available information on the Markit Environmental Registry. The authors recognize this information may have been updated or changed since the time of publication.</p><p>² Emissions reductions are estimated based on all project technologies, which may include technologies other than water treatment devices.</p><p>³ This project includes six projects with an estimated 10,000 emissions reduction per project per year.</p><p>⁴ Project statuses in the Markit Environmental Registry are categorized as “Listed”, “Validated”, “Registered”, or “Issued”. A “Listed” project is in its earliest stages as a Gold Standard (GS) applicant after submission of a Local Stakeholder Consultation Report and completion of a GS pre-feasibility assessment. A project becomes “Validated” after a series of stakeholder consultations and feedback as well as an audit from an independent UN-accredit auditor, called a Designated Operational Entity (DOE). After a final document review by the GS, the project is then “Registered”. Finally, after another DOE audit and a GS review to verify project emissions reductions, the project is “Issued” CO₂ credits.</p><p>Household water treatment projects applying for carbon credits using Gold Standard.</p

Background information on study participants, by area of expertise, type of organization and position.

<p>*One expert self-identified as both expert in WASH and carbon credit development, and one expert holds positions at both a University and a carbon credit development firm and is therefore included in both counts.</p><p>Background information on study participants, by area of expertise, type of organization and position.</p

Key quotes from study key informants.

<p>Key quotes from study key informants.</p