Balasubramanya Soumya, Evans Barbara, Hardy Richard, Ahmed Rizwan, Habib Ahasan, Asad N S M, Rahman Mominur, Hasan M, Dey Digbijoy, Fletcher Louise, Camargo-Valero Miller Alonso, Chaitanya Rao Krishna, Fernando Sudarshana
International Water Management Institute, Pelawatte, Sri Lanka.
Institute for Public Health and Environmental Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 21;12(3):e0171735. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171735. eCollection 2017.
Proper management of fecal sludge has significant positive health and environmental externalities. Most research on managing onsite sanitation so far either simulates the costs of, or the welfare effects from, managing sludge in situ in pit latrines. Thus, designing management strategies for onsite rural sanitation is challenging, because the actual costs of transporting sludge for treatment, and sources for financing these transport costs, are not well understood.
In this paper we calculate the actual cost of sludge management from onsite latrines, and identify the contributions that latrine owners are willing to make to finance the costs. A spreadsheet-based model is used to identify a cost-effective transport option, and to calculate the cost per household. Then a double-bound contingent valuation method is used to elicit from pit-latrine owners their willingness-to-pay to have sludge transported away. This methodology is employed for the case of a rural subdistrict in Bangladesh called Bhaluka, a unit of administration at which sludge management services are being piloted by the Government of Bangladesh.
The typical sludge accumulation rate in Bhaluka is calculated at 0.11 liters/person/day and a typical latrine will need to be emptied approximately once every 3 to 4 years. The costs of emptying and transport are high; approximately USD 13 per emptying event (circa 14% of average monthly income); household contributions could cover around 47% of this cost. However, if costs were spread over time, the service would cost USD 4 per year per household, or USD 0.31 per month per household-comparable to current expenditures of rural households on telecommunications.
This is one of few research papers that brings the costs of waste management together with financing of that cost, to provide evidence for an implementable solution. This framework can be used to identify cost effective sludge management options and private contributions towards that cost in other (context-specific) administrative areas where onsite sanitation is widespread.
粪便污泥的妥善管理对健康和环境具有显著的积极外部效益。迄今为止,大多数关于现场卫生设施管理的研究要么模拟坑式厕所就地管理污泥的成本,要么模拟其福利影响。因此,设计农村现场卫生设施的管理策略具有挑战性,因为污泥运输处理的实际成本以及这些运输成本的资金来源尚不清楚。
在本文中,我们计算了现场厕所污泥管理的实际成本,并确定了厕所所有者愿意为支付这些成本做出的贡献。使用基于电子表格的模型来确定具有成本效益的运输方案,并计算每户的成本。然后,采用双边界条件价值评估法,从坑式厕所所有者那里获取他们为运走污泥而愿意支付的费用。这种方法用于孟加拉国一个名为巴卢卡的农村分区的案例,孟加拉国政府正在该行政区试点污泥管理服务。
计算得出巴卢卡典型的污泥积累速率为0.11升/人/天,一个典型的厕所大约每3至4年需要清空一次。清空和运输成本很高;每次清空事件约为13美元(约占月平均收入的14%);家庭贡献可覆盖该成本的约47%。然而,如果成本分摊到各个时间段,该服务每户每年将花费4美元,即每户每月0.31美元,这与农村家庭目前在电信方面的支出相当。
这是为数不多的将废物管理成本与该成本的资金筹集结合起来,为可实施的解决方案提供证据的研究论文之一。该框架可用于在现场卫生设施普遍存在的其他(特定背景)行政区确定具有成本效益的污泥管理方案以及私人对该成本的贡献。