Historical aspects

For thousands of years, nearly as long as cultivation has been practiced, human waste has been used in the fields as soil fertiliser. Already early on it was understood that nutrients consumed by humans and animals should be returned back to the soil to help growing crops. It was also understood that human waste, when mixed with

Figure 5: Mind map of ecological sanitation (by the author, edited and published by GDTA 2013).

water sources, ruins the water and spreads disease – humans have a natural instinct to avoid water with an unpleasant odour, and already ancient civilisations enjoyed complex sanitary systems. (Vuorinen et al. 2007.) The first “Western” type toilets were in use in the Indus culture, around the regions of modern Pakistan, about 4500 years ago (Heikura 2007). Furthermore, the first written instructions on composting toilet waste were given as early as during the Qin and Han Dynasty (221-206 BC and 206 BC-220 AD) (Vuorinen et al.2007).

However, some hundred years ago when cities were growing and the amount of waste increased, it was determined that the best solution to discard toilet waste was to transport it out of sight by means of water. Water borne sanitation became popular first in cities, later even amongst the poorer people, and waste bothered the city dwellers no longer. (Vuorinen et al. 2007.) The water closet we know these days was developed by Sir John Harington (1561-1612), and was further improved by Alexander Cummings and Joseph Bramah at the end of the 18^th century. Overall, the water closet has been rather British in its origins. (Heikura 2007.) Nevertheless, already at the time of the development of the modern water closet, the connection of waterborne sanitation and increase in cholera cases near public water wells was understood. The method was considered clean and effortless – and it is still considered as the norm for sanitation facilities, even in countries where fresh water resources are scarce.

It is unfortunate, however, that the sanitation developers of olden days did not realise the implications of diverting human waste into water bodies. Human excreta, rich in nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, is a plentiful resource, but when left untreated it can contaminate vast lakes, rivers and groundwater sources. Today, most developed cities have wastewater treatment facilities, but this is still far from the norm – and even the most modern facilities fail to treat all the waste produced by cities as overflows in pumping stations and by-passes in wastewater treatment plants occur regularly. As a result, nutrients, such as phosphorus, find their way into water bodies, where micro-organisms thrive on the extra nutrients – a process which eventually leads to eutrophication.

Yet, one does not have to travel too many centuries back in time before dwellings without any type of nearby latrines can be found (bear in mind, this is still true today in many parts of the world). Let us examine, for example, Finland, which can

demonstrate the development of sanitation from a developing country to a modern welfare state.

Only 200 years ago indoor toilets, and even outhouses, were a far cry from being a norm, as it was more sensible to use the human excreta as fertiliser on the fields.

Even when toilets emerged, only the richest could have a toilet in their house instead of behind the barn. Barely a hundred years have passed since the appearance of the water closet (WC), and it did not become popular until the 1860s – in fact, it took 20 years to accept the first flush toilet at the turn of the 18^th and 19^th century. (Nygård 2004.) Today, almost every household in Finland has a WC, even though more than 0.5 million people still live out of reach of a municipal sewage network (Helminen et al. 2013). Nevertheless, an ecological option, the dry toilet, has re-introduced itself and is slowly becoming a more acceptable option for sanitation, even in urban environments. This ecological solution not only saves water but also returns nutrients back to nature – much like the defecation methods of people some hundreds of years ago.

Thomas P. Hughes (2000) argues that “history tends to repeat itself in broad patterns, if not in details”, and thus it is possible to anticipate the effects of future technological changes. Bearing in mind this cyclical nature of development, it could be argued that in terms of sanitation we are simply going around in circles. The

“new” ecological sanitation method is not so new after all, although often the idea is sold like one. At the same time, we can see people in developing countries living without proper sanitation, because these people would like to invest in a waterborne toilet which they cannot afford. In fact, they want to go through the same cycle as we did with sanitation: from non-existent to poor sanitation and onwards to water closets, and finally (as well as hopefully) ending up with a hygienic yet ecological dry toilet. But why is it so?

It can be challenging to discover new innovations, or even return to the past.

There are numerous rules, regulations and standards to take into account, which sometimes seem unjust, unclear or simply insane. It may be difficult to see how laws and regulations have come into being and what motivates the decision-makers to maintain such laws.