Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam - WSP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | Efficiency of Improved Sanitation and HygieneFIGURE 50: SUMMARY OF AVERAGE BENEFIT-COST RATIOS IN URBAN SITES, SANITATION VERSUS SANITATION WITH HYGIENEOD topit latrineSanitationSanitation + HygieneOD toseptic tankSanitationSanitation + HygieneOD toWWMSanitationSanitation + HygieneBCR idealBCR actualKey: WWM - wastewater management0 2 4 6 8 10BCR values94Table 50 shows that actual benefits per US$1 input fromall sanitation options amounted to more than US$1, witha benefit-cost ratio (BCR) ranging from 2.4 to 6.8. Underthe ideal scenario, higher BCR values ranging from 2.7 to8.6 were found. The highest BCR was found when movingup to on-site pit latrine (ideal 8.6, actual 6.8). Actual benefitsas a proportion of ideal benefits ranged from 78.3%to 90.5%. The most closely matching values between idealand actual were found with centralized wastewater managementsystems (2.4 and 2.7), showing a high rate of capacityutilization. The highest actual and ideal benefits came frommoving from open defecation (OD) to pit latrine. The reasonsfor the differences between ideal and actual benefitsof sanitation interventions are incomplete treatment levelsand under capacity service of facilities, associated with planning,design and construction, and management activities.Hygiene interventions added to health benefits at low cost,and BCRs were higher for sanitation plus hygiene than forsanitation alone (see Figure 50).Different internal rates of return (IRR) have been found.From a starting point of open defecation, the highest IRRwas found from the adoption of an on-site pit latrine (morethan 100%). IRR values were much higher than bank interestrates and those from government bonds, showing thepossibility of mobilizing different financial resources to investin sanitation systems, based on social returns.The actual payback period ranged from less than 1 year(moving from OD to a pit latrine) to 5 years (moving fromOD to a centralized wastewater treatment system). Thisshort payback period is a key finding of this study, makingsanitation a very attractive investment for government andsocial investors.The actual net present value of the sanitation optionscompared to ‘no toilet’ ranged from VND24,356,000(US$1,625) for centralized wastewater management toVND24,925,000 (US$1,750) for a pit latrine.In terms of cost-effectiveness, with respect to health outcomes:• Actual cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY)averted ranged between VND7,099,000 (US$406)for a wet pit latrine and VND20,726,000 (US$1,185)for centralized wastewater management.• Actual cost per case averted ranged fromVND154,000 (US$8.8) for a wet pit latrine toVND1,256,000 (US$71.8) for centralized wastewatermanagement.• Actual cost per death averted ranged fromVND133,608,000 (US$7,640) for a wet pit latrineto VND391,909,000 (US$22,410) for centralizedwastewater management.Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions
Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | Efficiency of Improved Sanitation and HygieneTABLE 51: AVERAGE RURAL AREA EFFICIENCY MEASURES FOR MAIN GROUPINGS OF SANITATION INTERVENTIONS,COMPARED TO “NO TOILET” (OPEN DEFECATION - OD)Efficiency measureScenarioOD to private wetpit (3)OD to septic tank(4, 5)OD tocluster w/wtreatment (6)OD todouble-vaultcomposting (7)OD tobiogasdigester (8)Field sites included R2, R3, R4, R6, R7 R2, R3, R4, R5, R7 R7 R3, R4, R5, R7 R1, R2, R4No. households surveyed 66 400 97 96 59COST-BENEFIT MEASURESBenefits per VND inputInternal rate of return (%)Pay-back period (years)Net present value (VND‘000)COST-EFFECTIVENESS MEASURESCost per DALY averted(VND ‘000)Cost per case averted(VND ‘000)Cost per death averted(VND ‘000)Ideal 8.0 4.2 4.1 6.0 4.5Actual 6.4 3.4 3.6 4.5 4.0Ideal >100 >100% >100% >100% >100%Actual >100 >100% >100% >100% >100%Ideal
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:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 83 and 84: Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 117 and 118: VI.Costs of Improved Sanitationand
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 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?