Can sewerage be considered safe management of human feces?

IF 3.9 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES City and Environment Interactions Pub Date : 2023-08-01 DOI:10.1016/j.cacint.2023.100107
Paul Minier , Fabien Esculier , Bruno Tassin , Konstantinos Chatzis
{"title":"Can sewerage be considered safe management of human feces?","authors":"Paul Minier ,&nbsp;Fabien Esculier ,&nbsp;Bruno Tassin ,&nbsp;Konstantinos Chatzis","doi":"10.1016/j.cacint.2023.100107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Although flush toilets and sewerage are usually considered the height of comfort in 21st-century urban societies and the technical and sanitary culmination of human excreta management, they are increasingly being challenged for their environmental footprint and financial cost. Alternative management methods, broadly termed “source separation”, are being developed to address these issues. However, the widely shared belief in the absolute superiority of sewerage for public health is hindering the development of such systems. In this paper, we briefly re-examine the contribution to public health of sewerage as a means of managing human feces, in both its historical development and current implementation. We suggest that management of feces by sewerage is just one element among others in a systemic change, that it usually occurred much later than the others, and that the epidemiological transition usually attributed to sewerage only was, as a matter of fact, strongly supported by associated improvements in drinking water, health care, hygiene practices and good nutrition. We show that risk control in sewered cities is not based on a barrier between human feces and the environment (what we might call sanitation), but on barriers between a contaminated environment and the different uses of water. We call for a more comprehensive analysis of the effects of sewerage on public health, in present times and historically, not only at the scale of a city but at the broader scale of all impacted communities. We also call for a comparison of these effects with those of other sanitation systems that have much lower environmental footprint.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":52395,"journal":{"name":"City and Environment Interactions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"City and Environment Interactions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590252023000090","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although flush toilets and sewerage are usually considered the height of comfort in 21st-century urban societies and the technical and sanitary culmination of human excreta management, they are increasingly being challenged for their environmental footprint and financial cost. Alternative management methods, broadly termed “source separation”, are being developed to address these issues. However, the widely shared belief in the absolute superiority of sewerage for public health is hindering the development of such systems. In this paper, we briefly re-examine the contribution to public health of sewerage as a means of managing human feces, in both its historical development and current implementation. We suggest that management of feces by sewerage is just one element among others in a systemic change, that it usually occurred much later than the others, and that the epidemiological transition usually attributed to sewerage only was, as a matter of fact, strongly supported by associated improvements in drinking water, health care, hygiene practices and good nutrition. We show that risk control in sewered cities is not based on a barrier between human feces and the environment (what we might call sanitation), but on barriers between a contaminated environment and the different uses of water. We call for a more comprehensive analysis of the effects of sewerage on public health, in present times and historically, not only at the scale of a city but at the broader scale of all impacted communities. We also call for a comparison of these effects with those of other sanitation systems that have much lower environmental footprint.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
污水处理可以被认为是人类粪便的安全管理吗?
尽管抽水马桶和污水处理系统通常被认为是21世纪城市社会的最高舒适度,也是人类排泄物管理的技术和卫生巅峰,但它们的环境足迹和财务成本越来越受到挑战。为解决这些问题,正在制定被广泛称为“源头分离”的替代管理方法。然而,人们普遍认为污水处理对公共卫生具有绝对优势,这阻碍了此类系统的发展。在本文中,我们简要地重新审视了下水道作为一种管理人类粪便的手段,在其历史发展和目前的实施中对公共卫生的贡献。我们认为,通过下水道管理粪便只是系统性变革中的一个因素,它通常发生得比其他因素晚得多,而且通常仅归因于下水道的流行病转变事实上得到了饮用水、医疗保健、卫生习惯和良好营养的相关改善的有力支持。我们表明,下水道城市的风险控制不是基于人类粪便与环境之间的屏障(我们可以称之为卫生设施),而是基于受污染环境与不同用水之间的屏障。我们呼吁对当代和历史上污水处理对公共卫生的影响进行更全面的分析,不仅在城市的规模上,而且在所有受影响社区的更广泛范围内。我们还呼吁将这些影响与其他环境足迹低得多的卫生系统的影响进行比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
City and Environment Interactions
City and Environment Interactions Social Sciences-Urban Studies
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
27 days
期刊最新文献
Climate change hazards and the resilience of coastal cities in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries: A systematic review Health impact assessment of exposure to road traffic noise and air pollution according to pre- and post-densification scenarios in Helsingborg, Sweden Mapping heat-related risks in Swiss cities under different urban tree scenarios Assessing the degree of personal exposure to PM2.5 in growing cities of Rwanda based on time-activity patterns and microenvironments Indoor heat in Amsterdam: Comparing observed indoor air temperatures from a professional network and from a citizen science approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1