I am posting a brief response to a number of replies concerning cultural and religious issues with the use of urine. The latter part of our report considers these issues in brief, but in summary, whilst our report focuses on the physical possibility of urine as a binder in mud brick construction, we spent some time investigating the social implications of its use, and our general conclusion was that whilst a practicable solution, the use of urine hinged entirely on the cultural and religious acceptance of the intended inhabitants of the shelter.
To an extent, our report was done in abstract, taking the problem of water use in any arid location where mud bricks could be built rather than for a specific refugee camp whose cultural and religious makeup was known, but if the use of urine is not acceptable, it would not be implemented.
As for an alternative solution, we considered grey water (post cooking and washing) would be a potential source of post-consumption water for building, and would have less of a stigma attached to its use. There would also be a larger volume of this available. See report for further details.
