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: [email protected]
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?