School of Civil EngineeringFACULTY OF Engineering

Climate and Cost in Urban Sanitation (CACTUS) Workshop

30th October, UNC Water and Health 2018

Workshop Agenda

8.30-8.45 Welcome – Introductions

8.45–9.45 Introduction to CACTUS – Presentation, Q&A

9.45–10.00 Introduction to Group work

10.00–11.00 Group work

(please feel free to pick up a cup of tea or coffee)

11.00–11.45 Reporting back from Group work

11.45–12.00 Wrapping up, any last questions, next steps

12.00 Close

Introductory Talk Outline

1Climate And CosT in Urban Sanitation (CACTUS): who we are and what we do

2

The costing, climate and welfare approach

•Description of the model

•Secondary data collection

•Primary data collection

3Conclusions

The Team

Overall Aim: To establish the real costs of urban sanitation systems, to aid decision-makers in citywide sanitation

planning

User Interface (Costing Tool)

Integrating Module (e.g. AHP)

Cost ComponentClimate

ComponentWelfare

Component

BMGF-Funded CACTUS Project

CACTUS Components1. Lifecycle Cost: assessment for functional sanitation

infrastructure (from collection to treatment)

2. Climate: estimate of water use, energy use and GHGemissions in different urban sanitation systems

3. Welfare: assessment of skilled, unskilled and unpaidwork in different urban sanitation systems

4. Complex decision-making: integrate multipleperspectives in a comprehensive manner AnalyticalHierarchical Process (AHP)

1. Target Costing tool

Pre-feasibility study Trade-off

Primary Requirements

Secondary Requirements

1. Ball Park estimation

2. Semi-analytic estimation

3. Analytic estimation (cost = quantity x unit cost)

Parametric Estimation

The Main Challenge: Fragmentation of the Sanitation Value Chain

Direct

Containment

Real price

Sealed tank

Real price

Infiltrating pit

Real price

Container

Real price

Mechanical

Real price

Emptying

$/unit $/emptying events$/unit$/m3

$/ km’40 years

Transport

Manual

Real price

Pipe (e.g. Simplified Sewerage)

Real cost + compare w. water

Pipe (e.g. Conventional Sewerage)

Real costs + compare w. water

Road Mechanicalcomparable

Road Manual

SWM

Treatment

Composting FS

Real cost + SWM

Ponds + Wetlands

Real costs

Anaerobic Digestions

SWM + Real costs

Aerated systems

Real costs

$/m3/km$/ km’40 years

$/m3

40 years

There are multiple business models for sanitation

There is no standard for costing in sanitation

Municipal Service Operator

Network operatorUtility Household

Household Farmers

NGOWater

CompanyHousehold

Water CompanyHousehold FarmersPrivate Service

Farmers

Underlying Assumption1. Assumption 1: integrated service along the sanitation value chain

2. Assumption 2: Adopt the perspective of the operator managing the value chain

3. Assumption 3: Consider a functional Sanitation Value Chain: from the collection until the safe disposal (or reuse) of the faecal sludge

Customer Equipment: BuyOperations: Make

Equipment: BuyOperations: Make

Equipment: BuyOperations: Make

Physical Asset: BuyOperations: Make

Image from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

11

maintenance

Direct operations

Indirectoperations

administrations

Fuel Electricity

MAKEEndogenous/ Internal

Operations and management

BUYExogenous/ external

Construction and supply of goods and services

Water ManufacturedEquipment

Otherconsumables

Construction and installation of plants, facilities and related infrastructure

Otherservices

Full vertical integration along the sanitation value chain

FinancingTaxes

EXCLUDEDfrom the Analysis

Cost of licenses and administrative permits

- Subsidies- Transaction costs along the sanitation Value chain. E.g. emptying fees, collection fees.- Revenue streams

No Vertical integration along the construction, production and manufacturing supply chains

Underlying Assumptions

Cases derived from the Literature (in USD 2016)CAPEX

Min Max Unit Country Remarks

Collection & Containment113 2986 per unit

India, Thailand, Senegal, Bangladesh, Ghana, Burkina Fas

Mostly toilet + septic tank (proper)/sealed tank

11.4 528 per unit Kenya Infiltrating Pit27 350 per unit Kenya, Peru, Ghana, Container

13 46Annualised per HH per

connectionBolivia, Senegal, Colombia household connection to sewer line

Emptying 360 7500 per unit Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, BangladeshDiaphragm pump, MAPET, Vacuutug,

Gulper (Mechanised emptying)

Transport

200 1500 per m' Senegal, Bangladesh, US Sewer PVC

46.2 302 annualised per HH Senegal, Colombia Conventional sewer

118 173 annualised per HH Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia Simplified sewer

7500 19000 per unit BangladeshTruck/tanker without desludging

pumpEmptying & Transport 20700 31000 per unit Thailand, Malaysia, Senegal Truck capacity 2.5 - 10 m3

Treatment

6540 46000 per m3 capacity Thailand, Senegal FSTP

12.6 74.9 annualised per HH Senegal,Bolivia Aerated System

248 1464 per person Rural France Ponds & WetlandsOPEX

Min Max Unit Country RemarksCollection & Containment Assumed none – unless water consumption estimated

Emptying 8.8 21.5 Per 1000 Lt Kenya, Tanzania MAPET and Gulper

Transport

0.08 0.19 Per km per vehicle Bangladesh (rural)Transport by truck/tanker excluding

labour

66.43 annualised per HH Senegal Conventional sewer

31.65 annualised per HH Bolivia Simplified sewerEmptying & Transport 14750 45000 Per truck per year Thailand, Senegal

Treatment3.7 10.9 annualised per HH Thailand, Senegal Anaerobic Digestion

4.28375 64.6069565 annualised per HH Senegal,Bolivia Aerated System

FEES & CHARGESMin Max Unit Country Remarks

Collection & Containment 0.12 162 HH per year Philippines, Senegal, Malaysia Sanitation tax paid by HHEmptyingTransport 62 Senegal Connection fee to sewer

Emptying & Transport 7 152 HH per yearIndia, Thailand, Malaysia, Senegal, Bangladesh,

Ghana, Burkina Faso, Kenya, Haiti, Peru, UgandaEmptying fee, incl. CBS

systemTreatment 2 73.2 Per truck Uganda, Malaysia Discharging fee to FSTP

Costs in Comparable unit of measure

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

51

101

151

201

251

301

351

401

Dir

ect

Seal

ed

Infi

ltra

tin

g p

it

CB

S to

ilet

Man

ual

Mec

han

ical

Vac

uu

m t

ruck

Ro

ad M

ech

anic

al

Pip

e (S

S)

Pip

e (C

S)

An

aero

bic

Dig

esti

on

Aer

ated

Sys

tem

Co

mp

ost

ing

Po

nd

s &

Wet

lan

ds

Containment Emptying Transport Treatment

n

USD

20

16

Annualised Cost per Household

Cost Range n

Notes: Sum of CAPEX and OPEX20% error barsData points are often incomplete, some only CAPEX, only OPEX, or only fees/charges, or without information on service coverage (number of households)Assumptions were applied to convert data points various unit of measures to $ annualised cost per household

Cases derived from the Literature: Structure adopted

Collection and Containment

Emptying and Transport

Treatment

CAPEX

• TOT Capex• TOT Capex per household• Annualised Capex

• TOT Capex• TOT Capex per household• Annualised Capex

• TOT Capex• TOT Capex per household• Annualised Capex

Capital Maintenance• TOT Cap. Maintanance• TOT Cap. Maintanance per

household

• TOT Cap. Maintanance• TOT Cap. Maintanance per

household

• TOT Cap. Maintanance• TOT Cap. Maintanance per

household

OPEX• TOT Opex• Opex per household

• TOT Opex• Opex per household

• TOT Opex• Opex per household

TOT

• TOT Cost “Collection and Containment” (e.g. 30 years period)

• TOT Cost “Collection and Containment” per household

• Annualised Cost “Collection and Containment” per household

• TOT Cost “Emptying and Transport” (e.g. 30 years period)

• TOT Cost “Emptying and Transpor” per household

• Annualised Cost “Emptying and Transport” per household

• TOT Cost “Treatment” (e.g. 30 years period)

• TOT Cost “Treatment” per household

• Annualised Cost “Treatment” per household

Costing Study Cases(Dakar – On-site System)

Item Value Unit of Measure Item Value Unit of Measure Item Value Unit of Measure

Sanitation Service Technology Septic Tank/ Cesspool Pit Categorical Technology Vacuum Truck Categorical Technology Anaerobic Baffle Reactors + Sand Bed Categorical

Service Life 50 Year Capacity 10 m3 Capacity (nominal) 100 m3/day

Households Served 4,150 Household Service Life 15 Year Service Life 30 Year

Households Served 4,150 Household Households Served 4,150 Household

CAPEX TOT 2,075,000 $2011 TOT 30,000 $2011 TOT 654,000 $2006

TOT per household 500 $2011/Household TOT per household 7 $2011/Household TOT per household 158 $2006/Household

Annualised 113,662 $2011/Year Annualised 2,890 $2011/Year Annualised 42,544 $2006/Year

Annualised per household 27 $2011/(Year*household) Annualised per household 0.70 $2011/(Year*household)Annualised per household 10 $2006/(Year*household)

CAPITAL MAINTENANCE TOT - $2011 TOT 30,000 $2011 TOT - $2006

TOT per household - $2011/Household TOT per household 7 $2011/Household TOT per household - $2006/Household

OPEX TOT - $2012 TOT 1,320 $2012 TOT 45,256 $2012

TOT per household - $2012/Household TOT per household 0 $2012/Household TOT per household 11 $2012/Household

Full Cost single technology TOT 2,075,000 $2012 TOT 73,200 $2012 TOT 2,011,680 $2012

TOT per household 500 $2012/Household TOT per household 18 $2012/Household TOT per household 485 $2012/Household

TOT annulised 113,662 $2011/Year TOT annulised 4,210 $2011/Year TOT annulised 87,800 $2006/Year

TOT annualised per household 27 $2011/(Year*household) TOT annualised per household 1 $2011/(Year*household)TOT annualised per household 21 $2006/(Year*household)

Full Cost Sanitation system TOT 4,159,880 $2012

TOT per household 1,002 $2012/Household

TOT annulised 205,672 $2011/Year

TOT annualised per household 50 $2011/(Year*household)

Collection and Contaiment Emptying and Transport Treatment

Polishing the dataItem Value Unit of Measure Source Item Value Unit of Measure Source Item Value Unit of Measure Source

Sanitation Service Technology Septic Tank/ Cesspool Pit Categorical Data Technology Vacuum Truck Categorical Data Technology Anaerobic Baffle Reactors + Sand Bed Categorical Data

Service Life 50 Year Data Capacity 10 m3 Data Capacity (nominal) 100 m3/day Data

Households Served 4,150 Household Data Service Life 15 Year Data Service Life 30 Year Data

Households Served 4,150 Household Data Households Served 4,150 Household Data

Item per household 1 Septic Tank/ Household Assumption Number of trucks 1 Data People Served 41,500 People Data

People Served 41,500 People Data People Served 41,500 People Data

CAPEX TOT 2,075,000 $2011 Calculated TOT 30,000 $2011 Calculated TOT 654,000 $2006 Calculated

TOT per household 500 $2011/Household Calculated TOT per household 7 $2011/Household Calculated TOT per household 158 $2006/Household Calculated

Annualised 113,662 $2011/Year Calculated Annualised 2,890 $2011/Year Calculated Annualised 42,544 $2006/Year Calculated

Annualised per household 27 $2011/(Year*household)Calculated Annualised per household 0.70 $2011/(Year*household)Calculated Annualised per household 10 $2006/(Year*household)Calculated

Construction cost 500 $2011/Septic Tank Data Purchase cost (on the road) 30,000 $2011/unit Data

Construction Cost 2,075,000 $2011 Missing Information Direct Cost of Equipment 30,000 $2011 Assumption Construction Cost $2006 Missing Information

Land ? $2011 Missing Information Garage $2011 Missing Information Land $2007 Missing Information

Design ? $2011 Missing Information Other Costs $2011 Missing Information Other Costs $2008 Missing Information

Construction Cost ? $2011 Missing Information TOT CAPEX 30,000 $2011 Calculated TOT CAPEX 654,000 $2006 Data

Legal and administrative expenses ? $2011 Missing Information Year 2011 Year Calculated Year 2006 Year Data

Financing ? $2011 Missing Information

Other expenses ? $2011 Missing Information TOT CAPEX (real) 30,000 $2011 Calculated TOT CAPEX (real) 654,000 $2011 Calculated

TOT CAPEX 2,075,000 $2011 Calculated Year 2016 Year Assumption Year 2016 Year Assumption

Year 2011 Year Calculated

TOT CAPEX (real) 2,075,000 $2011 Calculated

Year 2016 Year Assumption

CAPITAL MAINTENANCE TOT - $2011 Calculated TOT 30,000 $2011 Calculated TOT - $2006 Calculated

TOT per household - $2011/Household Calculated TOT per household 7 $2011/Household Calculated TOT per household - $2006/Household Calculated

Number of re-investment 0 Adimensional Calculated Number of re-investment 1.0 Adimensional Calculated Number of re-investment - Adimensional Calculated

Tot Capital Investment - $2011 Calculated Tot Capital Investment 30,000 $2011 Calculated Tot Capital Investment - $2006 Calculated

OPEX TOT - $2012 Calculated TOT 1,320 $2012 Calculated TOT 45,256 $2012 Calculated

TOT per household - $2012/Household Calculated TOT per household 0 $2012/Household Calculated TOT per household 11 $2012/Household Calculated

Maintenance ? $2012 Missing Information Fuel 21,420 $2012 Data Fuel/Energy 3,480 $2012 Data

Water ? $2012 Missing Information Labour 22,380 $2012 Data Labour 17,846 $2012 Data

Other costs ? $2012 Missing Information Maintenance $2012 Missing Information Overheads 23,930 $2012 Data

Tot OPEX - $2012 Missing Information Overheads 1,320 $2012 Data Tot OPEX 45,256 $2012 Calculated

Year 2012 Year data Tot OPEX 45,120 $2012 Calculated Year 2012 Year Data

Year 2012 Year Data

TOT OPEX (real) - $2016 Calculated TOT OPEX (real) 45,256 $2016 Calculated

Year 2016 Year Assumption TOT OPEX (real) 45,120 $2016 Calculated Year 2016 Year Assumption

Year 2016 Year Assumption

Full Cost single technology TOT 2,075,000 $2012 Calculated TOT 73,200 $2012 Calculated TOT 2,011,680 $2012 Calculated

TOT per household 500 $2012/Household Calculated TOT per household 18 $2012/Household Calculated TOT per household 485 $2012/Household Calculated

TOT annulised 113,662 $2011/Year Calculated TOT annulised 4,210 $2011/Year Calculated TOT annulised 87,800 $2006/Year Calculated

TOT annualised per household 27 $2011/(Year*household)Calculated TOT annualised per household 1 $2011/(Year*household)Calculated TOT annualised per household 21 $2006/(Year*household)Calculated

Full Cost Sanitation system TOT 4,159,880 $2012 Calculated

TOT per household 1,002 $2012/Household Calculated

TOT annulised 205,672 $2011/Year Calculated

TOT annualised per household 50 $2011/(Year*household)Calculated

Collection and Contaiment Emptying and Transport Treatment

LEGEND

Data

Assumption

Calculated

Missing Information

Construction cost 500 $2011/Septic Tank Data

Construction Cost 2,075,000 $2011 Missing Information

Land ? $2011 Missing Information

Design ? $2011 Missing Information

Construction Cost ? $2011 Missing Information

Legal and administrative expenses ? $2011 Missing Information

Financing ? $2011 Missing Information

Other expenses ? $2011 Missing Information

TOT CAPEX 2,075,000 $2011 Calculated

Year 2011 Year Calculated

Detailed data and information

For each cost Voice(i.e. Capex, Opex, Capital

Maintenance)

Clear indication of the source of each data

Annualised Household Cost (AHHC)

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

Dakar (Sewersystem)

Dakar (FSM) Nonthaburi (FSM) Cochabamba(Sewer System)

TOT annualised per household

10

0%

0% 6% 94

%

48

%

52

%10

0%

0% 34

%

66

%

50

%

50

%

10

0%

0%

82

%

18

%

54

%

46

%

73

%

27

% 79

%

21

%

75

%

25

%

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

CAPEX OPEX CAPEX OPEX CAPEX OPEX

Collection&Containment

Emptying & Transport Treatment

Dakar FSM Nonthaburi FSM Dakar Sewer Cochabamba Sewer

$1

1

$1

1

$4 $

7

$6

6

$6

5

$6

$3

2

$4

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

Collection&Containment

Emptying &Transport

Treatment

Dakar FSM Nonthaburi FSM

Dakar Sewer Cochabamba Sewer

Data Collection Protocol

Input Resources

Output Sanitation

Service

Full Cost (Capex, Opex)Per Sanitation Service Provided

CAPEX OPEX

CAPEX OPEX

Direct Cost

Indirect Cost

Full Cost

Calculating the cost of resources

Manual emptying and transport

A B C D E

Item+Description UM Empting Transportation Interim Storage

1 Material Treated m3/year

2 Households served household/year

3 Area Served m2 (*Map)

4 Distance Km/year

5 Average Distance Km/ day

6 Storage Capacity m3 F G

CAPEX (Currency-year) OPEX (Currency/year)

7 Labour $2018

8 Phisical Asset and Equipments $2018

9 Consumables (e.g. fuel) $2018

10 Management/ Administration $2018

11 Financing $2018

12 Taxes $2018

13 Fees and Licenses $2018

Serv

ice

Res

ou

rces

(D

irec

t

Ind

ust

rial

Co

st)

Ind

irec

t C

ost

Vo

ices

Direct OPEX

Indirect CAPEX

Indirect OPEX

Input Resources

Output Sanitation Service

Resource allocation(black box) Direct

Capex

E.g. Bangladesh

Faridpur

Practical Action

Cost Data

Dhaka

DSK

Cost Data

WaterAid WSUP

SWEEP (Private)

Cost Data

Khulna

SNV

Cost Data

Fieldwork Case Studies (Bangladesh)

DSK (NGO), Dhaka

WSUP-SWEEP (PPP), Dhaka

Practical Action (NGO), Faridpur

TOT Annualised Cost ($2016) 30,401 117, 395 37,495

per FS volume ($2016/m3) 28 25 32

per # Trips ($2016/trips) 55 9 27

per Containments ($2016/Containments)

58 2 Unknown

Costing Takeaways

• Secondary data is sparse and difficult to model

• We can make comparable estimates

• The cost is always arbitrary (based on assumptions andfilling key data gaps)

ANY QUESTIONS?

2. Climate Component

Average environmental characteristics of FS in pit latrines across Kampala, Uganda. Modified from Nakagiri, et al. (2017)

Direct Emissions

N2O Category

A

nitrification in the upper layers of the pits, not much denitrification is predicted to occur at the bottom

B

simple latrines, where the conditions are predicted to be slightly less aerobic in the upper layers of the sludge

Caccount for both denitrification and some nitrification

D

increased nitrification in VIPs and more denitrification occurring deeper within the pits

Esimple latrines with less nitrification occurring at the surface

Fseptic tanks in warmer climated countries

Gcomposting latrines designed for arobic decompositions and open defecation practices

Predicted Emissions of Each Individual Storage Technology per User (kgCO2e/cap/year)

OSS Technologies (correspond to CH4 type)

Septic Tank

Anaerobic environment. Half of BOD settles in tank.

Latrine Type 1

Household latrines in dry climate, with ground water table well below bottom of pit

Latrine Type 2

Communal latrines in dry climate, ground water table well below bottom of pit, Many users, higher volume of FS leading to a more anaerobic environment. These latrines are often poorly maintained.

Latrine Type 3

Wet climate/flush water use, ground water table higher than latrine. These types of latrine have more anaerobic conditions.

Latrine Type 4

UD and composting toilets, aerobic environments. Regular sediment removal for fertiliser. Bucket latrines may also fall into this category providing waste is correctly disposed of.

Open Sewer

Stagnant open sewers are often the site for illegal emptying of waste. They are heated by the sun which can lead to ideal conditions for methanogenesis however depending on the depth the sludge the top layers may be in aerobic conditions which would inhibit methane production.

• Indirect emissions from construction and emptying/transportation

- Superstructure was assumed of same dimension and material (bricks and concrete)

- One way trip of truck, and average distance from Schoebitz et al. 2017

Further Calculation

ANY QUESTIONS?

3. Welfare Component• Gaps Identified

• HR gaps in sector• Work Typology • Skilled• Unskilled• Unpaid

• Key Outputs

I. Estimate numbers of unskilled, skilled and unpaid workers in differenturban sanitation systems (preliminary mapping)

II. Work typology for urban sanitation (case studies e.g. Bangladesh)

III. Identify priority areas for decision-makers

Variation between and within urban sanitation systems

WASH Subsidies, Redbud 4.15pm

TOMORROW

Preliminary Mapping

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

System A (on-site manual)

System B (on-site CBS)

System C (on-site human-powered)

System D (on-site mechanical)

System E (off-site e.g. SSS)

Skilled, Unskilled and Unpaid Work in Urban Sanitation

Skilled Workers Unskilled Workers Unpaid Workers

(Number of workers per system i.e. 1 = 1 worker)

SANITATION SYSTEM ContainmentConveyance / Emptying &

Transport TreatmentManagement / Administration SYSTEM TOTAL

SYSTEM A: ON-SITE (Manual) NON-FUNCTIONAL

Number of Workers 3 5 0 0 8

1. Demographic Profile

1.1. Average Age: 58

1.2. Gender Ratio: 100% Male

1.3. Religious Affiliation: 90% Hindu; 10% Muslim

1.4. Average Household Income (per month): 100 USD

2. Level of Skill: 100% Unskilled

3. Work Profile

3.1. Informal

3.2. Casual (day labour)

3.3. Employer: None

4. Exposure to Hazards: High

5. Job Satisfaction: Low-Medium

Population Served (HHs) 500

Area Served (sq. km) 2

Volume of Sludge (m3) 400

Technology Type PLSTs; Buckets; Spades; Triwheeler

SYSTEM B: ON-SITE (Human-Powered)

Number of Workers 3 5 2 1 11

1. Demographic Profile

1.1. Average Age: 35

1.2. Gender Ratio: 100% Male

1.3. Religious Affiliation: 60% Hindu; 40% Muslim

1.4. Average Household Income (per month): 10000 BDT

2. Level of Skill: 100% Semi-Skilled

3. Work Profile

3.1. Formal (certified)

3.2. Casual (day labour)

3.3. Employer: NGO

4. Exposure to Hazard: Medium

5. Job Satisfaction: Medium

Population Served (HHs) 4000

Area Served (sq. km) 5

Volume of Sludge (m3) 1000

Technology Type PLSTs; Gulper; MAPET and Cart; Transfer Station

Work Typologies

SANITATION SYSTEM Containment

Conveyance / Emptying & Transport Treatment

Management / Administration SYSTEM TOTAL

SYSTEM A: ON-SITE (Manual) NON-FUNCTIONAL

Number of Workers 3 5 0 0 8

1. Demographic Profile

1.1. Average Age: 58

1.2. Gender Ratio: 100% Male

1.3. Religious Affiliation: 90% Hindu; 10% Muslim

1.4. Average Household Income (per month): 100 USD

2. Level of Skill: 100% Unskilled

3. Work Profile

3.1. Informal

3.2. Casual (day labour)

3.3. Employer: None

4. Exposure to Hazards: High

5. Job Satisfaction: Low-Medium

Population Served (HHs) 500

Area Served (sq. km) 2

Volume of Sludge (m3) 400

Technology Type PLSTs; Buckets; Spades; Triwheeler

SYSTEM B: ON-SITE (Human-Powered)

Number of Workers 3 5 2 1 11

1. Demographic Profile

1.1. Average Age: 35

1.2. Gender Ratio: 100% Male

1.3. Religious Affiliation: 60% Hindu; 40% Muslim

1.4. Average Household Income (per month): 10000 BDT

2. Level of Skill: 100% Semi-Skilled

3. Work Profile

3.1. Formal (certified)

3.2. Casual (day labour)

3.3. Employer: NGO

4. Exposure to Hazard: Medium

5. Job Satisfaction: Medium

Population Served (HHs) 4000

Area Served (sq. km) 5

Volume of Sludge (m3) 1000

Technology Type PLSTs; Gulper; MAPET and Cart; Transfer Station

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

On-Site (Manual FSM) On-Site (Mechanical FSM) Off-Site (Simplified Sewers)

Job Creation and Job Loss

Skilled Work Unskilled Work Unpaid Work

Job Loss

Job Creation

Trade-Offs(N

um

ber

of

wo

rker

s p

er s

yste

m i.

e. 1

= 1

wo

rker

)

ANY QUESTIONS?

4. Complex Decision-MakingWhich one is the best car?

Analytic hierarchy process (AHP)

Information is decomposed into a hierarchy of criteria and alternatives

Both qualitative and quantitative criteria can be compared using informed judgments to derive weights and priorities

The information is then synthesized to determine relative rankings of alternatives

Thomas L. Saaty (July 18, 1926 – August 14, 2017)

Most suitable Sanitation

infrastructure

Cost/Economics

Capital cost

Cost Uncertainty

Life cycle cost

…

Environment

CO2 Production

Usage of Natural

resources

…

Social/welfare

Job positions created

Job position lost

Quality of the job

…

5. Online Interface

• Create a user-friendly online interface

• Similar to SFD, for example: sfd online

Selection grid – limits or guides possible options

Produce a familiar final output /graphic

ANY QUESTIONS?

Data Collection Plans (2018/19)Country Cities / Towns Sanitation System Partners

Kenya Nairobi; Kisumu On-site FSM; CBS

WSUP / Acquire

CBSA/EY

Ghana Accra CBS

WSUP / Acquire

CBSA/EY

Zambia Lusaka Shared sanitation; on-site FSM

WSUP / Acquire

CBSA/EY

Mozambique Maputo LSHTM/ GT

Senegal Dakar Conventional and condominial sewersONAS

Madagascar Various FSM

WSUP/ H4O

CBSA/EY

Bangladesh Khulna FSM SNV

Sri Lanka Colombo Sewers and FSM WB

India Various FSM

IRC WASH/

Practical Action

Malaysia All Septic systems National regulator

United Kingdom Various Sewers

National regulator/

water cos.

Brazil All Various including Condominial sewersNational regulator

Colombia All Various, mostly sewers National regulator

Bolivia El Alto ++

Condominial Sewers

CBS

Aquatuya

CBSA/EY

Data Collection Plans (2018/19)Country Cities / Towns Sanitation System Partners

Kenya Nairobi; Kisumu On-site FSM; CBS

WSUP / Acquire

CBSA/EY

Ghana Accra CBS

WSUP / Acquire

CBSA/EY

Zambia Lusaka Shared sanitation; on-site FSM

WSUP / Acquire

CBSA/EY

Mozambique Maputo LSHTM/ GT

Senegal Dakar Conventional and condominial sewersONAS

Madagascar Various FSM

WSUP/ H4O

CBSA/EY

Bangladesh Khulna FSM SNV

Sri Lanka Colombo Sewers and FSM WB

India Various FSM

IRC WASH/

Practical Action

Malaysia All Septic systems National regulator

United Kingdom Various Sewers

National regulator/

water cos.

Brazil All Various including Condominial sewersNational regulator

Colombia All Various, mostly sewers National regulator

Bolivia El Alto ++

Condominial Sewers

CBS

Aquatuya

CBSA/EY

We want you!!

Conclusion• The CACTUS project is about complex decision-making in Urban Sanitation

• The result of the study will be a ball park comparison between alternativeurban sanitation systems (with equal benefits) in terms of: cost, welfare andclimate impacts

• The results could help decision makers select the sanitation system that bestmatches their expectations in terms of sanitation service, cost, welfare andclimate impact

• The CACTUS project could be used as a support tool for decision-makers tonegotiate and clarify priorities in citywide sanitation planning

GROUP WORK

CACTUS ‘World Café’

5 Tables / 5 Topics

Costing I

Climate

WelfareAHP

Online Interface

Sally

Giorgio

Barbara

Andy

Fiona

Costing I

1. What is the most useful unit of measure for urbansanitation costing (cover the entire system)?

2. What are the likely cost drivers by sanitation valuechain and by cost type?

3. How to navigate missing cost data to make up a fullcost estimate?

Climate

1. What are the critical research gaps to increasereliability of GHG emissions estimate?

2. To what extent should climate impact drive theselection of sanitation system?

Welfare

1. We are focusing on employment. What other aspectsof ‘welfare’ could we focus on in future?

2. How can we estimate the number (and type) of jobsrequired for different ‘functional’ urban sanitationsystems?

AHP / Complex Decision-Making

1. Which are the key elements in the Life Cycle Costs,Welfare and Climate?

2. How would you quantify each of them?

Online Interface

• Who is it for?

• What key characteristics should be in the user-interface?

5 Tables

• Each table has a different CACTUS theme / problem, with1-2 key questions for discussion

• In groups, rotate around the different tables (10 minutesat each, then swap when signalled)

• Respond to earlier group comments

• Feedback at end of session – key points for each table

DISCUSSION / FEEDBACK

Follow UpFollow Up

• Are interested on the results of the study?

• Do you want to get involved?

SURVEY LINK & MAILING LIST

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/8PLS6B9

*Your feedback would be much appreciated!*

Please contact: b.e.evans@leeds.ac.uk

Acknowledgments: The project is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

QUESTIONSCOSTING

• What is the most useful unit of measure for urban sanitation costing (cover the entire system)?

• What are the likely cost drivers by sanitation value chain and by cost type?

• How to navigate missing cost data to make up a full cost estimate?

CLIMATE

• What are the critical research gaps to increase reliability of GHG emissions estimate?

• To what extent should climate impact drive the selection of sanitation system?

WELFARE

• We are focusing on employment. What other aspects of ‘welfare’ could we focus on?

• How can we estimate the number (and type) of jobs required for different ‘functional’ urbansanitation systems?

AHP

• Which are the key elements in the Life Cycle Costs, Welfare and Climate?

• How would you quantify each of them?

INTERFACE

• Who is it for?

• What key characteristics should be in the user-interface?