Economic Effects of Sustainable Sanitation - SuSanA
Economic Effects of Sustainable Sanitation - SuSanA
Economic Effects of Sustainable Sanitation - SuSanA
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Table 2: Benefits and economic dimension <strong>of</strong> sustainable sanitation. Personal-level perspective (compiled from Hutton, 2001; Hutton et al., 2007; Rosemarin et al. 2008)<br />
Effect<br />
category<br />
Effect description<br />
Health Less morbidity and mortality<br />
Socioeconomic<br />
<strong>Economic</strong><br />
dimension?<br />
Yes. However,<br />
not included due<br />
to lack <strong>of</strong> data.<br />
Examples <strong>of</strong> averted costs<br />
person/year in Africa in EUR<br />
Saved health care costs Yes 0.46<br />
Saved transport costs to health service Yes 0.03<br />
Saved expenditure for food/drinks Yes 0.12<br />
Saved opportunity costs <strong>of</strong> time: Time gained due to less<br />
sickness (adults and school children), saved carer time<br />
(for children under 5 yrs.)<br />
Saved opportunity costs <strong>of</strong> time due to improved access<br />
to facilities<br />
Yes 1.86<br />
Fertiliser value Yes 4.59<br />
Improved environmental quality<br />
-<br />
<strong>Sustainable</strong> sanitation<br />
Comments Source<br />
Can for instance be measured in DALYs. Data was not<br />
available<br />
30% cases <strong>of</strong> diarrhoea would visit a health facility<br />
where<strong>of</strong> 8.2% are hospitalised the average <strong>of</strong> 5 days.<br />
50% <strong>of</strong> people visiting a health facility use transport<br />
involving costs.<br />
The cases that visit a health facility or are hospitalised<br />
have to pay for food and drinks.<br />
The GNI is taken as reference. Adults (15< yrs.) gain 2<br />
days (100% GNI), school children (5-15 yrs.) gain 3 days<br />
(100% GNI), infants (5>) gain 5 days (50% GNI)<br />
Yes 20.99 4.24 day are saved due to better access (100% GNI)<br />
Yes. However,<br />
not measured<br />
-<br />
Average value <strong>of</strong> nutrients excreted per person and year<br />
in Uganda with 50% atmospherical losses <strong>of</strong> nitrogen.<br />
Can for instance, be measured by<br />
applying the willingness to pay approach.<br />
Hutton et al. 2007,<br />
p. 484<br />
cf. Hutton et al.,<br />
2007, p. 485;<br />
Mulligan et al., 2005<br />
cf. Hutton et al.,<br />
2007, p. 485<br />
cf. Hutton et al.,<br />
2007, p. 485<br />
cf. Hutton et al.,<br />
2007, p. 486<br />
cf. Hutton et al.,<br />
2007, p. 492<br />
Joensson et al.,<br />
2004; Drechsel et<br />
al., 2004<br />
Hutton, 2001<br />
Social Increased privacy Not measurable - -<br />
Rosemarin et al.,<br />
2008, p. 34<br />
Increased dignity Not measurable - -<br />
Rosemarin et al.,<br />
2008, p. 34<br />
Improved safety Not measurable - -<br />
Rosemarin et al.,<br />
2008, p. 34<br />
Perceived environmental quality improved Not measurable - - Hutton, 2001, p. 344<br />
Gender<br />
Relief for women, as they are mostly engaged with<br />
water, sanitation and hygiene in a family and suffer<br />
under unimproved sanitation (e.g. large distance)<br />
Not measurable - -<br />
Rosemarin et al.,<br />
2008, p. 34<br />
Political<br />
Potential to raise votes (among others, from women,<br />
since they are <strong>of</strong>ten engaged with water sanitation and<br />
hygiene and represent half <strong>of</strong> the votes)<br />
Not measurable - -<br />
Rosemarin et al.,<br />
2008, p. 34<br />
Total averted costs per person and year (not comprehensive) 28.06<br />
Total costs <strong>of</strong> providing universal basic access to water supply and<br />
sanitation<br />
6.42<br />
BCR 4.37<br />
24