The cost of urban sanitation solutions: a literature review

Abstract

The main objective of this paper is to review the literature on and compare the lifecycle costs of full sanitation chain systems in developing cities of Africa and Asia. Overall, financial cost reporting methodologies have been inconsistent and many studies only focus on capital costs or do not report cost data on desludging, transport and treatment. In addition, a comparative analysis of raw cost data across cities and countries would be of low utility, owing to the numerous determinants of costs (e.g. density, level of service) and their high sensitivity to local contexts. To circumvent this, this paper compares the cost ratios between different sanitation systems analysed in a same study.It concludes that conventional sewer systems are in most cases the most expensive sanitation options, followed, in order of cost, by sanitation systems comprising septic tanks, ventilated improved pit latrines (VIP), urine diversion dry toilets and pour-flush pit latrines. The cost of simplified sewer systems is found to be lower than both conventional sewer systems and septic tank-based systems, but lack of data prevented further comparisons with other types of sanitation solutions.

Infrastructure investments and operating costs for fecal sludge and sewage treatment systems in Kampala, Uganda

“…A recent review of research on life-cycle costs in urban sanitation only found 11 relevant studies that provided cost data for various sanitation options covering the full sanitation chain, i.e. from user interface to collection and treatment/disposal (Daudey 2018). In a study in Dakar, Senegal, Dodane et al (2012) found that the per capita annual costs for fecal sludge management (FSM), including collection, transport, and treatment of sludge from on-site sanitation systems, were significantly lower than those of a conventional sewerage system.…”

“…In addition, most costing studies do not use primary data for their calculations, but rely on secondary data sources (e.g. Tilmans et al 2015), sometimes from other cities (Daudey 2018), and few studies break down costs between stakeholders. A World Bank study in three African countries compared household costs to donor inputs and total costs, but did not include costs for other stakeholders, such as the utility (World Bank 2009).…”

Costs, Climate and Contamination: Three Drivers for Citywide Sanitation Investment Decisions

“…This requires addressing long-term financial liabilities, rather than shortrun investments or budgeting constraints, and it therefore requires an understanding of the full life-cycle costs and relevant externalities of different sanitation options (Mitchell et al, 2007). However, there are is a paucity of data on the relative costs of different options for providing sanitation services in urban areas, as analyses are generally confined to capital cost comparisons rather than life-cycle costs (Daudey, 2018). Consequently, there is a shortage of data to inform decision-making about possible service scenarios to achieve citywide sanitation.…”

“…Various authors (World Bank, 2011;Oates et al, 2014;ISF-UTS and SNV, 2019; UN Water, 2019;WHO, 2019) have called for climate resilience to become an integral part of decision-making frameworks and implementation approaches. Finally, a recent review of the costs of urban sanitation highlights data gaps in cost reporting and life cycle costings (Daudey, 2018) pointing to inadequate attention to this dimension. This article extends existing analyses by synthesizing a broad set of recent literature and identifying how the three drivers may be better considered when developing citywide services.…”

The Ecosystem Approach for Improved Sanitation in Specific Urban Areas

“…This area needs for effective, affordable treatment technologies, with ecosystem approach can develop a reuse system including a shallow sewer system connected to the communal anaerobic treatment system andISTEcS 2019wetland system built on the riverside. The cost of a decentralized system with simplified sewer systems is lower than both conventional sewer systems and septic tank-based systems, comprising septic tanks, ventilated improved pit latrines, urine diversion dry toilets, and pour-flush pit latrines, according to[16]. Groundwater crisis associated with sanitation development, so that the wastewater treatment system should consider multiple processing stages which can consist of biofilm systems, subsurface constructed wetlands then inducted to groundwater through a shaft of granular filtration.…”