Sustainability assessment of sanitation options in Vietnam: planning with the future in mind

Abstract

This paper describes a participatory deliberative planning methodology employed in Can Tho, Vietnam to assess sanitation infrastructure options for a new peri-urban area with an expected population of 278,000 people. The study compared four options across a range of scales from centralised to decentralised treatment systems, and also included an innovative resource recovery option with urine collection and reuse in local agriculture. The study was undertaken in close collaboration with the local water utility, a local university, and several city government departments. In the sustainability assessment process key city stakeholders ranked the four options against criteria in five areas: (i) technical and risk, (ii) social and health, (iii) environmental, (iv) economic and financial, (v) city future. Stakeholders were provided with detailed information about each option, including quantitative data such as costs and energy use, and qualitative data against areas such as social acceptability. The assessment made evident the trade-offs between these five areas, and after their prioritisation, stakeholders agreed on the option that combined centralised treatment for the densely populated area to be inhabited earlier, and decentralised treatment for the remaining area. The methodology provided a robust way for stakeholders to engage in informed decision-making on this important planning issue.

Generation of sanitation system options for urban planning considering novel technologies

“…This strongly highlights the multicriteria aspect of sanitation systems planning (Zurbrügg et al 2009) and the importance of trade-offs and stakeholder preferences (e.g. Lennartsson et al 2009, Motevallian and Tabesh 2011, Willetts et al 2013).…”

DMsan: A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework and Package to Characterize Contextualized Sustainability of Sanitation and Resource Recovery Technologies

“…Expert stakeholder types include pit latrine emptiers, water and sanitation employees, government agencies, and researchers. The 14 unique stakeholder combinations were identified in literature (columns labeled A–N): A, B, C, ,,, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, ,, L, ,, M, , and N . For example, one paper included stakeholders defined in combination A (end-users, farmers, pit latrine emptiers, and water and sanitation employees), and four papers included stakeholders defined in combination C (water and sanitation employees, government agencies, and researchers).…”

Sanitation potpourri: Criteria for planning mix of sanitation systems for citywide inclusive sanitation

“…An initial set of criteria presented in Table S3 were identified through the literature review presented in Spuhler et al (2020), i.e., (Ashley et al, 2008; Balkema et al, 2002; Bracken et al, 2007; Buuren, 2010; Dunmade, 2002; Kvarnström et al, 2004, 2011; Lennartsson, 2009; Montgomery et al, 2009; Muga and Mihelcic, 2008; NETSSAF Workpackage 3-Assessment of Sanitation Systems and Technologies Deliverable 22 & 23, 2006; Palme et al, 2005; Sahely et al, 2011; Singhirunnusorn and Stenstrom, 2009; Tilley et al, 2010; Willetts et al, 2013), to form the preliminary set of criteria. As a final step, the preliminary set of criteria were tested for relevance under contextual appropriateness limited to Chennai via key-informant interviews, where experts were asked to validate the list of criteria for the context of Chennai.…”