Economic Effects of Sustainable Sanitation - SuSanA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case Study Kampala incentive for each container. Upfront investments that have to be financed in addition to the investments made for the urine system (system A) were: Faeces-boxes for exchange at the collection points Trucks Drying bed The investments have been calculated with an interest rate of 6.6% and the investment costs for the toilet facilities have not been included in the calculations. The hidden cost‘s contribution to the total costs was in system B just as in system A included with 5%. The scenarios in Table 6 were calculated based on the same N demands as used in Table 5 for system A. Hence the volume of urine and the number of people producing it are not changing. The amount of faeces generated by the individual numbers of people is 92 909, 139 983 and 902 999 kg/month for the scenarios small scale I, small scale II and large scale, respectively. The workload indicator for the urine share of the system remains the same as in Table 5. The workload indicator for the faeces share makes a difference, though. It rises from 0.310 for the small scale I scenario, over 0.467 up to 0.752 for the small scale II and large scale scenario. However, the mechanisms behind this monotonous increase are the same as in the urine system. The income from selling the urine fertiliser is the same as in system A. The income from selling the dried faeces fertiliser bags is 2 860, 4 309 and 27 794 EUR, leading to 7 127, 10,738 and 69 267 EUR total income for the small scale I, - small scale II and - large scale scenario, respectively. The monthly costs of the same scenarios add up to 8 587, 10 076 and 56 917 EUR, resulting in a monthly balance of -1 460, 662 and 12 349 EUR. The small scale I scenario again had to be neglected due to a negative balance. The monthly return on sales is hence calculated as being 6.16% for the small scale II and 17.83% for the large scale scenario. Compared to system A the return on sales is smaller (10.87% for the small scale II and 21.7% for the large scale scenario of system A). Also the investments for system B show differences in relation to system A. Firstly, with 160.022, 163 376 and 843 427 EUR for the three scenarios, the values of system A are higher than for system B. This is influenced by additional investments for the infrastructure for faeces management. Secondly, unlike in system A, the values of the two small scale scenarios are different from each other. The trigger for that is located in the investments for the faeces- boxes that are handed out in exchange. The repayment periods are 20.58 and 5.69 years for the small scale II and the large scale scenario, respectively. The results of this cost calculation also show that the bigger the N demand of the consumers and hence the bigger the system is dimensioned, the higher is the return on sales and subsequently the shorter is the repayment period. Since resulting in a negative balance the return on sales and the repayment period for the small scale I scenario could not be calculated. 64
Table 6: Economic overview of the urine and faeces logistics (system B) Case Study Kampala Small scale I Small scale II Large scale N demand [kg/month] 1 200 1 808 11 663 Urine equivalent [l/month] 398 182 599 927 3 869 995 # Of people producing it 44 242 66 659 429 999 72 Amount of faeces [kg/month] Workload indicator urine 92 909 139 983 902 999 (Bad workload = 0; Good workload = 1) Workload indicator faeces 0.664 1.000 0.992 (Bad workload = 0; Good workload = 1) 0.310 0.467 0.752 Monthly income from urine fertiliser sales [EUR] 4 267 6 429 41 472 Monthly income from the “Faecifert” sales [EUR] 2 860 4 309 27 794 Total monthly income [EUR] 7 127 10 738 69 267 Monthly costs [EUR] 8 587 10 076 56 917 Monthly balance [EUR] -1 460 662 12 349 Monthly return on sales [%] n/a 6.16 17.83 Start-up investment [EUR] 160 022 163 376 843 427 Repayment period [yrs] n/a 20.58 5.69 The proportions of the different components related to the total costs of system B are visualised in Figure 16. The major contributors to the costs of the respective scenarios are the Monthly urea costs (21%, 27% and 31%) 80 , Urine varying transport costs (24%, 20% and 23%), the Urine fix transport costs – monthly depreciation (16%, 14% and 14%) and the Costs of incentives for the jerrycans per month (9%, 11% and 13%). Since not existing in system A, the effect of the urea costs for the sanitisation of the faeces becomes visible. Being the major proportion in this comparison the dependency of the system on synthetic fertiliser and their price variations has to be kept in mind. Similar to system A, the major cost contributors from system B are also approaching stable proportions which can be explained by the effects of economies of scale. The slight variations of all values involved are the consequence of changing workloads. 80 The values in the brackets are related to small scale I, small scale II and large scale, respectively. 65
Page 1:
Diplomarbeit von Enno Schröder Geo
Page 4 and 5:
Summary The present thesis provides
Page 6 and 7:
Contents Summary ..................
Page 8 and 9:
List of Figures Figure 1: Developme
Page 10 and 11:
RUWASS Reform of the Urban Water &
Page 12 and 13:
Introduction Programme (JMP), sanit
Page 14 and 15:
Introduction The introduction gave
Page 16 and 17:
Sanitation: facts and interrelation
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25: Sanitation: facts and interrelation
Page 26 and 27: Sanitation: facts and interrelation
Page 28 and 29: Sustainable sanitation Lower cost
Page 30 and 31: Sustainable sanitation in the chamb
Page 32 and 33: Sustainable sanitation aged 5 to 15
Page 34 and 35: Table 2: Benefits and economic dime
Page 36 and 37: Design backgrounds - The Integrated
Page 38 and 39: 5 Methods Methods Generally, method
Page 40 and 41: Methods The design of the empirical
Page 42 and 43: 1. Expert Level Slum dwellers/landl
Page 44 and 45: Methods the sanitation or agricultu
Page 46 and 47: Methods itself, that is considered
Page 48 and 49: Methods The primary motivation of
Page 50 and 51: Case Study Kampala Figure 12: Kampa
Page 52 and 53: Case Study Kampala awareness regard
Page 54 and 55: Case Study Kampala also other stake
Page 56 and 57: Case Study Kampala application of f
Page 58 and 59: Case Study Kampala Four from eight
Page 60 and 61: Case Study Kampala decentralised on
Page 62 and 63: Table 4: continued Stakeholder grou
Page 64 and 65: Table 4: continued Stakeholder grou
Page 66 and 67: Case Study Kampala Landlord units:
Page 68 and 69: Figure 13: Logistics system for uri
Page 70 and 71: Case Study Kampala scenarios, respe
Page 72 and 73: Private Company Level Case Study Ka
Page 76 and 77: Case Study Kampala Figure 16: Cost
Page 78 and 79: Case Study Kampala Table 7: Sensiti
Page 80 and 81: 6.2.2.6 Conclusion case study Case
Page 82 and 83: 7 Conclusion Conclusion It could be
Page 84 and 85: Conclusion dried faecal matter does
Page 86 and 87: 8 Bibliography Bibliography African
Page 88 and 89: Joensson, H., Stinzing, A. R., Vinn
Page 90 and 91: Bibliography Still, D., A., 2002: A
Page 92 and 93: Bibliography World Urbanisation Pro
Page 94 and 95: 9.2 Interview guidelines Guideline
Page 96 and 97: 9.3 Cost calculations 87 Nutrient v
Page 98 and 99: Logistics systems cost calculations
Page 100 and 101: Working hours per day [h] 10 Intere
Page 102 and 103: Collection point space requirements
Page 104 and 105: Volume storage tank [l] 24.000 Cres
Page 106 and 107: Collection point rent faeces [UGX]
Page 108 and 109: With interest [UGX] 72.000.000 20%
Page 110 and 111: Storage site operators salaries [UG
Page 112 and 113: Overview Costs Urine Collection poi
Page 114 and 115:
Investement Price for all collectio
show all

Economic Effects of Sustainable Sanitation - SuSanA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?