Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam - WSP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | MethodsTABLE 3: SANITATION, WASTEWATER AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS IN VIETNAMNoABCDON-SITE DRY SANITATION OPTIONS0 Open defecation1 Dry pit latrine2 Ventilated improved pit latrine (VIP)3 Hanging latrine + composting pit in flood areas (VIPF)4 Single vault composting toilet5 Double vault composting toilet5 Three vault toilet (co-composting of feces with organic waste)6 OthersON-SITE WET SANITATION OPTIONS0 Open defecation1 Wet pit latrine2 Pour-flush toilet + infiltration pit3 Septic tank + infiltration pit4 Biogas digester5 OthersOFF-SITE SANITATION OPTIONS0 Open defecation1 Public toilet + sanitation facilities such as B1, B2, B3, B4, C2Sanitation Options2 On-site wet sanitation facilities (mostly septic tanks) + combined/separate sewerage + cluster/decentralized wastewatertreatment system at community scale3 Separate sewerage + wastewater treatment system4 OthersSOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT0 No solid waste management at all1 Collection and dumping in unsanitary landfill2 Collection and dumping in sanitary landfill3 Collection, recycling, composting of organics, dumping of remains in sanitary landfill4 The same as D3, plus waste separation (at source)5 The same as D3, plus incineration for energy recovery6 Others12The solid waste management projects have been studiedwith the goal of finding evidence of the qualitative andquantitative benefits of each. Among the main challengesto developing cost and benefit calculations for the differentimprovement scenarios was the limited information onthe relationship between solid waste management improvementand health indicators.The following scenarios for the solid waste improvementprojects have been considered in the study, based on thecategories shown in Table 3:1) No solid waste management at the household scaleat all. Solid waste is discharged and dumped anywhere.From time to time, the local authority sendstrucks to take the dumped solid waste away. However,these actions do not reflect systematic or sufficientattempts to manage solid waste.2) Solid waste is collected regularly by the local cooperativeor community, or the local authority, transportedand dumped in unsanitary landfills nearby.3) Solid waste is collected regularly by the local cooperativeor community, or the local authority, trans-Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions
Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | Methodsported and dumped in sanitary landfills in the area.4) Solid waste is collected and separated at source orat the treatment plant. Part of the organic waste iscomposted for fertilizer production. The inorganicfraction of the waste in dumped in sanitary landfills.Combustible materials can be incinerated for energyrecovery. Hazardous waste is collected separately,transported and treated.The current study conducted surveys at four sites with solidwaste management projects. The scenario evaluated foreach site is shown in Table 4.TABLE 4: SCENARIO FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENTPROJECTS IN THE SURVEYED SITESSite (identifier)ScenariosBac Giang (U6) 1 g 2Hanoi (U7) 2 g 4Nghe An (U8) 1 g 3Bac Giang (R6) 1 g 2For scenario definitions, refer to Table 3, label D3.2 COSTS AND BENEFITS EVALUATEDSanitation costs serve as the denominator in the calculationsto estimate the cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness ratios.Summary cost measures include total annual and lifetimecosts, cost per household and cost per capita. For financingand planning purposes, this study disaggregates costs foreach sanitation option by capital, program and recurrentcosts; by financial and economic costs 3 ; by financier; andby wealth quintile. The incremental costs of moving up thesanitation ladder are assessed.To maximize the usefulness of economic analysis for diverseaudiences, the benefits of improved sanitation and hygieneare divided into three categories.1. Household direct benefits: are incurred by householdsmaking the sanitation improvement. Theseactual or perceived benefits will drive the decisionby the household to invest in sanitation, and guidechoice of sanitation improvement. These benefitsmay include: health impacts related to householdsanitation and hygiene; local water resource impacts;access time; intangible impacts; house prices; andthe value of human excreta reuse.2. Local level external benefits: are potentially incurredby all households living in the environmentwhere households improve their sanitation. However,some of these benefits may not be substantial until acritical mass of households has improved their sanitation.These benefits may include: health impactsrelated to environmental exposure to pathogens (e.g.water sources, open defecation practices on land); theaesthetics of environmental quality 4 ; and usability oflocal water sources for productive activities. Given thechallenges in designing studies to distinguish householdfrom local external benefits, the quantitativebenefit-cost analysis groups these benefits together.Tentative conclusions are made, based on availableliterature, and on the likely relative proportions ofprivate and external benefits.3. Wider scale external benefits: result from improvedsanitation at the macro-level. They may include improvementsin: water quality for productive uses;tourism; local business impact; and foreign directinvestment. They can either be linked to coverage inspecific areas or zones (e.g. tourist areas or industrialzones), or to the country in general (e.g. the investmentclimate). As well as improved management ofhuman excreta, other contributors to environmentalimprovement such as solid waste management andwastewater treatment are considered.Therefore, this study distinguishes the economic analysisresults between local community impacts where the sanitationand hygiene improvements take place, and nationallevel impacts. Table 5 shows the monetary and non-monetaryimpacts included in the current study.While this study focuses on household sanitation, the importanceof institutional sanitation also needs to be highlighted.For example, improved school sanitation affectsdecisions about children (especially girls) starting or stayingin school to the end of secondary level, and workplace sanitationaffects decisions by the workforce (especially women)to take or continue work with a particular employer. Theseimpacts are incremental over and above the first three outlinedabove. However, these impacts are outside the scopeof this present study.3In essence, financial costs are cash outlays, while economic costs include other inputs such as household labor.4Aesthetic impacts of a degraded environment include unpleasant sights, smells and atmosphere.www.wsp.org13
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 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 101 and 102:
Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
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?