Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam - WSP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

List of FiguresFigure 1. Percentage of households with a latrine, by ecological region .......................................... 2Figure 2. Types of toilet in households where construction, operation and maintenancestandards are met............................................................................................................ 3Figure 3. Flow of data collected (inputs) and eventual cost-benefit assessments (outputs) .............. 8Figure 4. Representation of the sanitation “ladder“ ........................................................................ 10Figure 5. Options for household wastewater management ............................................................ 11Figure 6. Options for improved solid waste management............................................................... 11Figure 7. Locations of the Vietnam Study surveyed sites ............................................................... 15Figure 8. Overview of methods for estimating field-level benefits of improved sanitation ................ 20Figure 9. Comparison of health status between selected study sites (cases) ................................. 35Figure 10. The relative risk reduction associated with fecal–oral and helminth-related diseasesfrom different sanitation improvement scenarios.............................................................. 41Figure 11. Health costs averted by improved sanitation options ...................................................... 41Figure 12. Map of typical rural area (R7, Lai Xa village, Hanoi sub-urban) with sampling pointsfor water quality analysis ................................................................................................. 43Figure 13. Pathogenic parameters of surface water quality, rural sites (R1 to R9) ............................. 44Figure 14. Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)parameters of surface water quality, rural sites (R1 to R9) ............................................... 44Figure 15. Extent of isolation of human excreta at urban field sites (%) ............................................ 45Figure 16. Extent of isolation of human excreta at rural field sites (%) .............................................. 46Figure 17. Average water access (%) in all surveyed sites ................................................................ 47Figure 18. Average monthly water treatment cost (VND) in all surveyed sites.................................... 48Figure 19. Reasons cited for using water sources – rural versus urban (%)....................................... 49Figure 20. Household water treatment practices (%) ....................................................................... 49Figure 21. Average household water treatment costs, by method and urban/rural location(VND/m 3 , 2008) .............................................................................................................. 50Figure 22. Level of satisfaction of households with improved and unimproved toilets........................ 55Figure 23. Reasons to get a toilet for those currently without one .................................................... 56Figure 24. Concerns of those practicing open defecation (% of respondents) .................................. 57Figure 25. How people dispose of organic waste (% of respondents) .............................................. 58Figure 26. How people dispose of solid (inorganic) waste (% of respondents).................................. 58Figure 27. Animal excreta around the living area (% of respondents)................................................. 59Figure 28. Proportion of households with improved toilet but unimproved sanitation practices (%) .. 59Figure 29. Open defecation practice by location of field site (% of respondents) .............................. 60Figure 30. Perceptions of the state of environmental sanitation, by option type ............................... 61Figure 31. Importance of environmental sanitation state, by option type........................................... 62Figure 32. SWM practices and perceptions (from household interviews) .......................................... 63Figure 33. Householder views on whether government should make SWM a priority (%).................. 64xxviiiEconomic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions
Figure 34. What factors were of most concern? (three responses per respondent) .......................... 69Figure 35. Causes of tourists’ catching diarrhea, perceived by respondent ...................................... 69Figure 36. Tourists’ intention to return to Vietnam ............................................................................ 69Figure 37. Reasons for tourists’ hesitancy to return to Vietnam ....................................................... 69Figure 38. Importance of environmental sanitation conditions for locating the company................... 71Figure 39. Proportion of urban households selecting different sanitation options (%)........................ 79Figure 40. Proportion of rural households selecting different sanitation options (%)........................... 80Figure 41. Total cost per urban household for major items (VND) ..................................................... 81Figure 42. Total cost per rural household for major items (VND) ....................................................... 82Figure 43. Proportion of total (economic) costs that are financial, across all urban field sites (%) ...... 83Figure 44. Proportion of total (economic) costs that are financial, across all rural field sites (%)......... 83Figure 45. Proportion of urban sanitation costs financed from different sources (%).......................... 84Figure 46. Proportion of rural sanitation costs financed from different sources (%)............................ 84Figure 47. Proportion of rural households selecting different sanitation options, by asset quintile...... 85Figure 48. Incremental costs of moving up the sanitation ladder, at urban sites (perhousehold, VND, 2009) .................................................................................................. 87Figure 49. Incremental costs of moving up the sanitation ladder, at rural sites (VND, 2009) ............. 87Figure 50. Summary of average benefit-cost ratios in urban sites, sanitation versus sanitationwith hygiene ................................................................................................................... 94Figure 51. Summary of average cost-benefit ratios at rural sites, sanitation versus sanitationwith hygiene ................................................................................................................... 96Figure 52. Economic performance moving up the sanitation ladder (urban) .................................... 97Figure 53. Economic performance moving up the sanitation ladder (rural) ....................................... 98Figure 54. Benefit-cost ratios for all survey sites in urban and rural areas ........................................ 100Figure 55. Benefit-cost ratios for solid waste management improvement projects .......................... 101Figure 56. Change in sanitation practices in project beneficiary towns............................................. 115Figure 57. Reduction of waterborne disease frequency in Lai Xa between 2001 and 2006.............. 123www.wsp.orgxxix
Page 3: Economic Assessment ofSanitation In
Page 9: Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 12 and 13: Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
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: Table 32. Sanitation coverage, and
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 46 and 47: III.Study MethodsThe study methodol
Page 60: Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 70 and 71: IV.Local Benefits of Improved Sanit
Page 80 and 81:
Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
VI.Costs of Improved Sanitationand
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
ReferencesAcharya A, Paunio MK and
Page 152 and 153:
ANNEX 1: PROGRAM APPROACH ANALYSIST
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
ANNEX TABLESANNEX A. STUDY METHODST
Page 168 and 169:
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?