Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam - WSP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | Costs of Improved Sanitation and HygieneFIGURE 42: TOTAL COST PER RURAL HOUSEHOLD FOR MAJOR ITEMS (VND)Wet pit latrineSeptic tankCluster wastewatertreatmentDouble-vault compostingBiogas digesterCapital (total)Program (total)0 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 12,000,000VNDAnnualAverage annualFigure 41 illustrates the main contributors to economiccost in urban areas, showing clear increases in both capitaland recurrent costs as the ‘sanitation ladder’ is climbed.The centralized wastewater treatment option in urban areasinvolves the highest cost compared to other on-site sanitationoptions, with large investment required for collectionsewers and drains, and wastewater and sludge treatment facilities.Program costs vary from project to project (1.3%to 19.8% of total investment costs), whereas the highestratio of program costs is incurred by centralized wastewatermanagement projects.Figure 42 illustrates the main contributors to economic costin rural areas. It shows that, while there is no significant differencein average recurrent costs for all sanitation options,capital costs do vary. At the household level, a wet pit latrinerequires less investment, and cluster wastewater treatmentinvolves the highest investment cost. The latest treatment optionalso requires the highest annual cost. Septic tanks, double-vaultcomposting toilets, and biogas digesters entail thesame range of average annual costs per household. Programcosts varied from project to project (2.3% to 4.6% of totalinvestment costs).Figure 43 and Figure 44 present the proportions of financialcosts in terms of total economic cost, across allurban and rural sites, respectively. The proportions offinancial cost are high, ranging from 99.4% to 99.5% oftotal costs in urban areas, and 99.3% to 99.9% in ruralareas. Details of financial and economic costs are givenin Annex I. Non-financial costs from programmed sanitationimprovement projects in the current survey madeup a very low proportion of economic costs, and includedunpaid volunteer time and contributions of unusedconstruction materials by households. At national level,there are still number of activities where that proportioncould be much higher, for example, volunteer activitiesby youth.82Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions
Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | Costs of Improved Sanitation and HygieneFIGURE 43: PROPORTION OF TOTAL (ECONOMIC) COSTS THAT ARE FINANCIAL, ACROSS ALL URBAN FIELD SITES (%)Wet pit latrine99.40.6Sanitationoptions,urban sitesSeptic tank99.50.5Centralizedw/w treatment99.40.6FinancialNon-financial0 20 40 60 80 100PercentageFIGURE 44: PROPORTION OF TOTAL (ECONOMIC) COSTS THAT ARE FINANCIAL, ACROSS ALL RURAL FIELD SITES (%)Wet pit latrine99.4 0.6Septic tank 98.61.4Sanitationoptions,rural sitesCluster w/wtreatment99.90.1Double-vaultcomposting99.30.7Biogas digester99.70.3FinancialNon-financial0 20 40 60 80 100Percentage6.3 FINANCING SANITATION AND HYGIENEThe percentage contributions of different financiers to overallcosts are summarized in Figure 45, for urban areas, andFigure 46, for rural areas. In urban areas, the total contributionof the government and donors for centralized wastewatermanagement projects was much higher than contributionsfrom households (76.8% versus 23.2%). In wastewatertreatment projects in Vietnam, besides household contributions,the major funding still comes from official developmentassistance (ODA) sources (grants or loans) in comparisonwith the local and central government contributions(56% versus 20.8%). At sites where the only sanitation improvementwas household sanitation and drainage (but notyet centralized sewerage and drainage), significant contributionscame from households (59.4% to 98%).www.wsp.org83
Page 3:
Economic Assessment ofSanitation In
Page 9:
Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 17:
ForewordTarget 10 of the Millennium
Page 22 and 23:
Glossary of TermsBenefit-cost ratio
Page 24 and 25:
AcknowledgmentsThe Economics of San
Page 27 and 28:
V. National Benefits of Improved Sa
Page 29 and 30:
Table 32. Sanitation coverage, and
Page 31:
Figure 34. What factors were of mos
Page 34 and 35:
Annex Table E1. Level of satisfacti
Page 36 and 37:
Annex Table J1. Site U1 (Dong Thap,
Page 38 and 39:
PopulationSelected Development Indi
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
III.Study MethodsThe study methodol
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71: IV.Local Benefits of Improved Sanit
Page 72 and 73: Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 117 and 118: VI.Costs of Improved Sanitationand
Page 119: Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 127: Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 149 and 150: ReferencesAcharya A, Paunio MK and
Page 152 and 153: ANNEX 1: PROGRAM APPROACH ANALYSIST
Page 166 and 167: ANNEX TABLESANNEX A. STUDY METHODST
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
show all

Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam - WSP

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?