Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam - WSP

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