Our class experiment in which we carried water with technologies commonly used in developing nations, including the trump line, Q-drum, and traditional head carry method, helped me understand how physically taxing it is to transport water over even short distances. During the water carrying experiment, my head, arms, neck, and lower back all ached. I found myself wishing that there was a product, like a backpack, that would allow me to carry water on my back, thereby reducing the physical strain on my body.
WaterWear, a product developed by Greif and Impact Economics, draws on this exact idea. WaterWear is a collapsable backpack intended to reduce the physical burden of carrying water, while offering a safe alternative to unsafe, contaminated water containers. I see many pros and cons to this technology.
Pros:
- Collapsable (can be shipped in large quantities)
- Removable liner for easy cleaning
- Adjustable straps
- Reduces burden on head, neck and arms (distributes weight more evenly)
- Protected spout to keep water clean
- Allows for free hands
- Allows for faster movement
- Don't need help to use
- Could wear on front or back
Cons:
- Somewhat expensive (~ $10?)
- Non-local materials (polypropylene)
- Burden on upper back
- Can only hold 5.3 US gallons
It appears that the pros of the WaterWear pack outweigh the cons that I have identified. I see the most important pros of this product to be its collapsibility, as compared to other bulky devices like the Hippo Roller, the reduced burden on the head, neck, and arms, and the ability to clean it easily, unlike the Q-drum that is virtually impossible to clean.
My first concern with the WaterWear pack is that it expensive and is constructed from materials that cannot be sourced by the underserved communities that would receive this technology. Thus, these communities would be indefinitely reliant on the manufacturer for this product. Though the backpack costs about $10, I do not have a good conception of whether this is a price that impoverished individuals would be willing or able to pay for this technology. Compared to other items we have discussed, like the d.light Solar Lantern that costs ~$20, $10 does not seem totally unreasonable. Lastly, while I believe that this pack would likely reduce neck pain in individuals accustomed to carrying water on their heads, I think this pack could potentially be improved by splitting the pack into two smaller bags, one for the front and the other for the back. This system would more evenly distribute weight across the body, so the carrier wouldn't need to learn forward as much, a posture that strains the back.
Despite my hesitancy to proclaim the benefits of this technology, the real evidence as to whether the WaterWear pack is successful must come from testing the product in the field with real people. According to the video on the PackH2O website, testers have embraced the packs "with enthusiasm." One Kenyan woman in the video stated that the pack made carrying water easier, faster, and less painful. Thus, it does seem like this pack has great potential. I just wonder if it is possible to design a cheaper backpack with locally sourced materials. If I had $10,000 to dedicate to addressing water issues, I would direct my money to this product only after I was sure that the packs were something that the receiving community wanted, and also if I could not find another more affordable technology with the same range of benefits.
Learn more about the WaterWear pack here.
I agree that compared to the other products, this appears to have less cons. I made the same points about the better hygiene of the WaterWear pack compared to the Q-Drum. Although not a lot is known about this product aside from the provided article, it definitely appears to be a viable option.
ReplyDelete