Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam - WSP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | Discussionduced transportation and landfill land and improved environmentaround landfill sites. Further benefits may be alsogained if resources are increasingly recovered by anaerobicdigestion of organic waste, and gathering biogas from landfillunder the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).Efficiency of moving up the sanitation ladder: The BCRassociated with moving from pit latrine to septic tank, orto a centralized wastewater treatment system was less than1 in urban areas. In rural areas, moving up the sanitationand hygiene ladder is a common practice, especially whenhousehold are able to upgrade their houses and other infrastructurecomponents. All upgrades have a higher cost thanbenefit, except for moving from a pit latrine to a biogasdigester, or from a septic tank to double-vault compostingtoilet. BCR values of less than 1 associated with moving upthe ladder show the importance of sanitation planning andchoosing carefully during project implementation, sinceswitching to a new sanitation option during the servicelifespan of another is not economically beneficial (accordingto the assumptions of the cost-benefit analysis).Sanitation and tourism: In a previous survey of 8,300tourists conducted in 2005, 74% of respondents consideredVietnam’s environment to be clean and beautiful and66% said that they were satisfied with the sanitation facilityin their accommodation. The tourist survey conducted inthe ESI study found that 58% of respondents gave a lowscore of 1 or 2 (out of 5) for public toilets and 40% of respondentsgive a low score 1 or 2 (out of 5) for toilets at busstations. Some 70% of tourists asked about their concernsregarding sanitation cited tap water (33%) and food (69%)as potential causes of diarrhea. Of the 18% of tourists sayingthat they ‘may’ or are ‘hesitant’ to return to Vietnam,13% cited poor sanitation as a major or contributory reason.While poor sanitation is a general issue that needs tobe tackled to make a visit to Vietnam more enjoyable, it isnot a defining issue for tourists in terms of the enjoymentof their stay or a reason to stop the majority from comingback.Sanitation and business: The ESI survey found differentlevels of importance of environmental sanitation differenttypes of business. The hotel business considered environmentalsanitation conditions to be the most important ofall criteria, as it affects its workforce health, water quality,a pleasant environment for its staff, and the availability ofcheap and good land. The quality of water sources is consideredthe most important criteria for firms working in beverageproduction, and consumer goods. Consulting firmsprefer to select locations where their staff can experience apleasant environment, which should increase competitiveness.Sanitation improvement means more business opportunitiesfor almost all of the firms surveyed.9.1.2 ROBUSTNESS OF RESULTSHealth data: Health data collection was a big challenge.Health record-keeping is not performed well at the lowerlevels of administrations and clinics in Vietnam. Many patientsprefer not to get treatment at local clinics, and insteadvisit central hospitals that are much better equipped. Thisphenomenon makes estimation of area-specific reportingrates difficult for some urban sites.Selection of sampling points for the water quality survey:The water quality survey was made only one time ateach site, hence limiting the ability to attribute findings tothe type of sanitation facilities serving each field site.Project documents of completed projects: Some data inputsfor the cost-benefit analysis model had to be calculatedbased on data from other sources than field surveys. Sincesome of the selected projects had been completed, it wasdifficult to obtain the additional data.Value of time: Access time was estimated based on thehousehold survey, focus group discussion and expert opinion.The time value of 30% of the average hourly incomewas assumed with reference to previous peer-reviewed economicstudies, and was applied in the same way to all urbanand rural sites.Health and solid waste management: No relationshipcould be established between solid waste improvementsand the health status of the community and landfill workers,due to lack of underlying data. Therefore, the healthbenefits of solid waste management improvement were notincluded in the BCR for solid waste management projects.104Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions
Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | Discussion9.2 UTILIZATION OF RESULTS IN DECISIONMAKING9.2.1 POTENTIAL USES OF RESULTSThis study aims not only to improve the sanitation decisionsmade at field sites, but also to assess national policiesin the light of the field level results. Governments need todecide what resources to allocate to sanitation and whichsanitation services to promote. This study provides informationthat has never previously been available in Vietnam.Data on costs, efficiency and program performance couldbe used as a critical driver to support new and fine-tuneexisting sanitation programs and policies. Importantly, theresults from different socio-economic settings and fromdifferent parts of the country all show similar conclusionsin relation to the general efficiency of sanitation options.Therefore, policy makers can be confident that the resultscan be generally applied to the rest of the country.Comparative performance of promising new interventions:New technology options such as small-bore sewerage,low-cost wastewater treatment in ponds or constructedwetland, and improved septic tanks have been well accepted.There was also a case where a combination of low-costand high-tech technologies was applied. The decentralizedwastewater management scheme in rural and peri-urbanareas seem a very promising approach, including clusterwastewater treatment stations that apply low-cost treatmenttechnologies, and combined wastewater collectionnetworks with overflow chambers.Costs of moving ‘up the ladder’: Costs increase whenmoving up the ladder, with the higher options involvinghigher capital and recurrent costs. The centralized wastewatertreatment option in urban areas is the costliest incomparison with those at other sites (that involve only onsitesanitation improvement in the households), becauseit involves substantial investment in collection sewers anddrains, and wastewater and sludge treatment facilities.Public good arguments: Analyzing cost contribution forthe sanitation projects, one finding is that the householditself mainly pays for on-site sanitation options. The appropriatestrategy to encourage household owners to invest insanitation is through soft interventions, such as information,education and communication (IEC) activities, externallysupported technical guidance, regulation enforcement,and micro-financing tools. Beyond the householdlevel, sanitation projects cannot expect a significant contributionfrom households, though community mobilizationplays a crucial role in increasing connection rates. Theappropriate strategy in this case is to utilize foreign loans,grants and other financial initiatives to attract private sectorparticipation.Financial mechanisms are needed to enable low-incomehouseholds to pay for sanitation, in order to achieve universalcoverage and capture the full community-wide benefitsof improved sanitation. Good lessons are provided bysuch models as micro financing or revolving funds operatedthrough local authorities or local women’s unions. Sincemost investment comes from households during the projectperiod, willingness-to-pay should be improved by interventionsbesides hardware activities.A higher BCR value for solid waste management projectscould be achieved when service coverage and communityparticipation are assured. This is crucial for solid wastemanagement planning in both urban and rural areas, wherebig investment and recurrent costs may be barriers for decisionmakers.9.2.2 UP-SCALING SUCCESSFUL CASESTUDIESThe experiences gained during the Three Delta Towns watersupply and sanitation (WS&S) Project in including institutionaldevelopment and community development, capacitybuilding and implementation activities are highly applicable.There is a vital need for the promotion and developmentof strong links and good coordination between watersupply and sanitation companies and community organizationsat all stages of project planning and implementation.Similar lessons have been learnt through efforts to deliverinfrastructure services to the urban poor in the project ‘Expandingbenefits for the poor through urban environmentalimprovements in Tam Ky city’.The Three Cities sanitation project demonstrated a numberof useful technical experiences for dissemination. Theproject has shown a good combination of a high-tech andwww.wsp.org105
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:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92: Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 117 and 118: VI.Costs of Improved Sanitationand
Page 127: Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 141: 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 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?