Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam - WSP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

III.Study MethodsThe study methodology in Vietnam follows a standard methodologydeveloped at regional level reflecting establishedcost-benefit techniques (Hutton et al, 2012), which havebeen adapted to sanitation interventions and the Vietnamfield study based on specific research needs and opportunities.As shown in Figure 3, the study consists of a field componentthat leads to quantitative cost-benefit estimates andin-depth study of qualitative aspects of sanitation. Two typesof field-level cost-benefit performance are presented: Output1 reflects ideal performance assuming the intervention isdelivered, maintained and used appropriately, and Output 2reflects actual performance based on observed levels of interventioneffectiveness in the field sites. However, both theseanalyses are partial, given that intangible benefits of sanitationimprovements and other benefits that may accrue outside theCHAPTER 4sanitation improvement site are excluded. Hence Output 3,overall cost-benefit assessment, takes these into account.3.1 TECHNICAL SANITATION INTERVENTIONSEVALUATEDThe sanitation component to be emphasized in the regionalcomponent of the study is human excreta. Interventions toimprove human excreta management will focus on bothon-site and off-site sanitation options; indeed one of thekey aims of this study is to compare the relative efficiency ofthese from the perspective of different indicators. Hygienerelatedpractices are also included. In Vietnam, accordingto the TOR of the study, the scope of sanitation is broaderthan in other countries where ESI was conducted (see Table2), and includes:FIGURE 3: FLOW OF DATA COLLECTED (INPUTS) AND EVENTUAL COST-BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS (OUTPUTS)Input 1:CHAPTER 6Input 2:Field-LevelMonetary BenefitEstimatesField-LevelMonetary CostEstimatesCHAPTER 8Output 1:CHAPTER 7Input 4:Ideal Cost-BenefitField PerformanceField-Level ProgramApproach AnalysisCHAPTER 8ActualOutput 2: Cost-BenefitField PerformanceCHAPTER 4Input 3:CHAPTER 5Intangible(Non-Monetized)Field-Level BenefitsCHAPTER 8Output 3:OverallCost-BenefitAssessmentInput 5:National-LevelBenefits8Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions
Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | Methods• Human excreta not only from households, but alsofrom schools, clinics, hospitals and other publicplaces.• Gray water, sullage and storm water from householdsand from residential areas.• Domestic solid waste from urban and rural areas.• Agricultural waste in rural and peri-urban areas, focusingon animal excreta.• The area of social and cultural environment, wherethe cost and benefit of hygiene and responsibilityrelatedbehavior and interventions are considered,such as hand washing with soap, toilet cleanliness,immediate household environment (rubbish, drainage,mosquito and fly breeding), community areacleanliness, use of untreated feces as fertilizer andwaste reduction.As well as human excreta management, interventions thatjointly address human waste with domestic wastewatermanagement (especially in urban areas) and with animalwaste management (in the case of biogas generation) areconsidered. The study includes modeling of the costs andbenefits of other sanitation improvements, covering solidwaste management, agricultural waste management (biogasdigesters for pig farms) and trade village waste management.To qualify as an economic evaluation study, cost-benefitanalysis compares at least two alternative interventionoptions. It usually includes comparison with the baselineof ‘do nothing’. However, comparing two sanitationoptions will rarely be enough: ideally the analysis shouldcompare all affordable, technically feasible, and culturallyacceptable sanitation options for each setting, sothat a clear policy recommendation can be made basedon the efficiency of a range of sanitation options, amongother factors.Technical sanitation options include all those interventionsthat move households up the sanitation ladder andthus bring benefits. Figure 4 presents a generalized sanitationladder. The upward slope of the ladder reflectsthe assumption of greater benefits as it is climbed, but(generally) with higher costs. The progression shown inFigure 4 is not necessarily true in all settings and henceneeds to be altered based on setting-specific features (e.g.rural or urban, different physical/climatic environmentssuch as soil type or water scarcity).While the study conducts analyses of the costs and benefitsof achieving the MDG targets and beyond, sanitationoptions should not be restricted by ‘unimproved’ and‘improved’ sanitation as defined by the WHO/UNICEFJoint Monitoring Programme (JMP). For example, somehouseholds will be interested in upgrading from one typeof improved sanitation to another, such as from ventilatedimproved pit latrine (VIP) to septic tank, or fromseptic tank to sewerage. Other households need to decidewhether to replace a facility that has reached the end ofits useful life. And under some program approaches (e.g.Community-Led Total Sanitation [CLTS]), householdsare encouraged to move up the ladder, even if it does notimply a full move to JMP-defined ‘improved’ sanitation,such as the use of shared or unimproved private latrines.TABLE 2: SCOPE OF SANITATION INTERVENTIONS COVERED BY THE ESI STUDYLocation Type of waste treated Scope of targeted interventionsUrban Household sanitation (human excreta) + Urban wastewater - Household toilet- Sewerage and drainage system- Personal hygieneRuralUrban solid waste 1Household sanitation (human excreta) + Trade villagewastewaterSolid waste 1Animal waste1Excluding hazardous medical waste, pesticides, herbicides, etc- Solid waste management for households and community- Household toilet- Excreta, wastewater and floodwater management- Personal hygiene- Solid waste management in rural community- Animal waste management for farmswww.wsp.org9
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 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 60: Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 70 and 71: IV.Local Benefits of Improved Sanit
Page 97 and 98:
Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
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?