Designing for Change: Toilets and Composting Toilets (Essay Sample)

DESIGNING FOR CHANGE: TOILETS AND COMPOSITING TOILETS
By (Name)
The Name of the Class (Course)
Professor (Tutor)
The Name of the School (University)
The City and State
The Date
Contents
TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Introduction PAGEREF _Toc452498576 \h 3
Discussion PAGEREF _Toc452498577 \h 4
Sustainability PAGEREF _Toc452498578 \h 4
Designer claims PAGEREF _Toc452498579 \h 7
Improvements PAGEREF _Toc452498580 \h 9
Better alternatives PAGEREF _Toc452498581 \h 11
What I would do differently PAGEREF _Toc452498582 \h 13
Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc452498583 \h 14
Bibliography PAGEREF _Toc452498584 \h 15
Introduction
Despite toilets playing a major and irreplaceable role in modern times, most people rarely think about them. Studies indicate that the designs of toilets have come along way since the adoption of civilization (Celestina, 2011). In addition, the evolution of toilets and their respective designs owes a great deal to the consistent need to protect and conserve water. As Johnson and Lynch (2013, p. 1047) indicate, these two intertwined needs have pushed manufacturers to come up with different designs all of which have in some way been altered in ways that make each succeeding design better in than the previous. According to Koolhaas andBoom (2014), the conventional toilets consume up to 8600 gallons of water per flush and most people still prefer to use these designs. Although research has established that current echelons of poverty plaguing the globe have caused 78% of the world’s populace to hold such a preference, other studies point out that lack of proper and accurate information on the subject of water usage by such conventional designs is the main reason why modern designs have not been widely used (Jacobson & Mullaly, 2011). Nevertheless, Koloski-Ostrow (2015, p. 84) believes that the preference for various designs is purely a result of a family’s lifestyle as opposed ton prices and information.
Additionally, studies suggest that apart from the two reasons are not solely responsible for the evolution of toilet designs. For instance, Koolhaas and Boom (2014) argue that conditions at the site like lack of ample water may greatly dictate the kind of design chosen causing people to go for later native designs (Morgan, 2008). These designs as Morgan (2008) suggests comprise of composting toilets, incinerating, oil flush, and chemical toilets. However, it is as important to note that each design differs from the rest because of the measure of toilet design sustainability (Sanford & Bosch, 2013, p. 43). This concept was introduced by Morgan (2008) and later defined by Planet (2016) as the incorporation of toilet designs in to sanitation to cater for fiscal viability, technical soundness, social acceptnce, and the need for a sound environment. More importantly, toilet design in terms of sustainability must be able to pave way for the achievement of enhanced sanitation. Additionally, Koolhaas and Boom (2014) opine that toilet and composite toilet designs in order to measure up to the demands of sustainability must focus on the deign to ensure that user experience, waste collection procedures, treatment, and disposal are well addressed (Morgan, 2008, p. 66). This paper will critically analyze the designs embedded in conventional toilet and compositing toilets in terms of their sustainability, improvements, better alternatives, and possible measures that can be incorporated in to the designs if re-designing was to take place.
Discussion
Sustainability
Numerous studies have been conducted to try and ascertain whether the two products are sustainable. According to Morgan (2008, p. 67), it is important to appreciate the fact that both toilets and compositing toilets are products of Sustainable Development (SD). Sustainable development is a term often used to connote the ability to satisfy today’s needs without having to endanger the capacity of subsequent generations concerning meeting their own (Winkler, 2011). It is therefore vital to appreciate the fact that both designs exhibit value for SD.
As Senior (2014, p. 23) argues, the reason why both designs are emanate from SD efforts owes to the need for designers to reduce the echelons of water consumption over the years. Consequently, both designs have the ability to ensure this only that the compositing toilets do a far much better work. For instance, the designing of toilets has been excellent over the years since manufacturers have been able to move steadily from designs that use up to 3.4 gallons to modern ones that use at least 1.5 gallons per single usage (Senior, 2014, p. 23). Nevertheless, Winkler (2011) believes that these reductions do not reflect across all toilet designs. Conversely, despite having fallen short in terms of SD efforts in the water reduction arena, toilets have been designed to fit numerous consumer preferences as reflected by the varying family lifestyles (Yasuno & Sakurauchi, 2010, p. 739).
On the other hand, compositing toilets manufacturers have come with designs that not only reduce the use of water but ones that totally face out the water requirement. As Celestina (2011) suggests, this makes the design more appealing in terms of sustainable development and sustainability because the fact that the design uses no water reflects major changes in environmental conservation (Koloski-Ostrow, 2015, p. 85). Furthering the aspect of sustainability in dealing with compositing toilets, scholars have purported that unlike toilets the former design fits well in remote spots because in such locations conventional onsite structures may not be practical (Jacobson & Mullaly, 2011). On the other hand, the design for normal toilets surpasses the one for compositing toilets because whereas the former are expensive and installed at high prices toilets are cheap and affordable for the masses thus making them more sustainable (Morgan, 2008). On the contrary, Planet (2016) argues that without paying regards to the issue of costs compositing toilets are far more sustainable considering that their design does not require flushing for the process of recycling to begin as opposed to toilets that may require to be flushed repeatedly to clean the bow (Planet, 2016). As most scholars have opined means that the compositing toilets design is far more sustainable than normal toilets.
Despite the aforementioned reflectors of sustainability as attached to compositing toilet designs, research indicates that sustainability is as well hindered by the fact that they require high echelons of commitment and responsibility to maintain as opposed to normal toilet designs that are easy and convenient to use (Yasuno & Sakurauchi, 2010, p. 740). In addition, the lack of water usage as stated earlier is a great hindrance towards sustainability because compositing toilet designs as opposed to normal toilets may present users with tedious and unpleasant work while removing the wastes in cases where installation was faulty. On the other hand, normal toilets capture the essence for sustainability because water makes it possible for the removal of the end product to be easier and more convenient (Senior, 2014, p. 24). Below are images for the two designs as derived from Winkler (2011).
A compositing toilet unit/design (Winkler, 2011)
A toilet unit/ design (Winkler, 2011)
Designer claims
Literature indicates that it is important for potential clients to consider the legitimacy, accuracy, honesty, and correctness of both toilet and compositing toilet manufacturers and retailers before bending to any preference (Morgan, 2008, p. 66). Designers of toilets purport that the most recent design called ultra-lo-flow toilets has the ability to reduce water usage to at least 0.7 gallons and at the same time reduce disposal of waste water (Planet, 2016). However, a recent study conducted to ascertain the accuracy of this assertion indicated almost similar but somewhat dissimilar results. A visit to sites where the units had been installed inclusive of parks, hotels, hostels, restaurants, and schools revealed that the results suggested by the manufacturers were only true in three of these areas- hotels, parks, and restaurants (Koolhaas & Boom, 2014). According to Jacobson and Mullaly (2011), this suggests that the designer claims were not as accurate as ought to be and that the designers either through misleading research or intention provided inaccurate claims. Despite this inaccurate designer claim, the manufacturers have one true and accurate claim- that the design is most suitable for locales where precincts limit the capacity of sewage disposal (Celestina, 2011). In a research carried out to ascertain the argument, Sanford and Bosch (2013, p. 45) visited such sites and actually found out that the design has made it possible for urban areas constructors to overcome the issue of sewage capacity and still provide commendable facilities (Winkler, 2011).
Manufacturers and retailers of compositing toilets have also made the claim that their products have the capacity to recycle human waste and thus avoid endangering the environment with an efficiency level of 100% (Morgan, 2008, p. 67). This bold assertion has since attracted numerous investigations to ascertain its accuracy and honesty. However, studies indicate that the although the design is able to do as suggested the efficiency levels fall short of the stated mark by almost 30% (Yasuno & Sakurauchi, 2010, p. 740). This as Planet (2016) puts it is mainly because of installation errors that hinder the suggested 100% efficiency in recycling. Conversely, Koloski-Ostrow (2015, p. 86) believe that this variation in performance derives from the availability of varying sizes of compositing toilet units arguing that smaller ones may not have the capacity to recycle large loads. Addit...