'''Table 1. Cost ranges for operational and minor maintenance expenditure [min-max] in US$ 2011 per person, per year.'''
{|border="1" cellspacing="0"
|-
|Borehole and handpump
|0.5 - 1
|-
|All piped schemes
|0.5 - 5
|}
Source: IRC, 2012
The costs as shown in table 1 (above) are based on the provision of a basic level of water service, as defined by [[#WASHCost|WASHCost]]. A basic service implies that the following criteria have been realised by the majority of the population in the service area: People access a minimum of 20 litres per person per day, of acceptable quality (judged by user perception and country standards) from an improved source which functions at least 350 days a year without a serious breakdown, spending no more than 30 minutes per day per round trip (including waiting time).
Based on research from the [[#WASHCost|WASHCost]] project, the minimum operations and minor maintenance expenditure required to provide a basic level of sanitation service ranges from US$ 0.5 to just over US$ 1 per person, for a [[Single Pit|Traditional Pit Latrine]] and a [[Single Ventilated Improved Pit|Ventilated Pit Latrine (VIP)]] between US$ 1 – 4 (2011 prices) (see table 2).
'''Table 2. Cost ranges for operational and minor maintenance expenditure [min-max] in US$ 2011 per person, per year'''
{|border="1" cellspacing="0"
|-
|Traditional Pit Latrine with an impermeable slab (often made from local materials)
|0.5 – 1
|-
|Ventilated Pit Latrine
|1 - 4
|-
|Pour Flush or septic tank latrines
|1 - 4
|}
Source: IRC, 2012
The costs as shown in table 2 (above) are based on the provision of a basic level of sanitation service, as defined by [[#WASHCost|WASHCost]]. A basic sanitation service implies that all the following criteria have been realised by the majority of the population in the service area: At least some members of the household use a latrine with an impermeable slab at the house, in the compound or shared with neighbours. The latrine is clean even if it may require high user eff ort for pit emptying and other long term maintenance. The disposal of sludge is safe and the use of the latrine does not result in problematic environmental impact.
When using these benchmarks (see table 1 and 2) local factors must be taken into account. For example, the lower cost ranges were generally, but not always found in India, while cost data from Latin America tends to be higher than the maximum ranges, but usually relates to higher service levels.
For both water and sanitation:
* If expenditure is lower than the minimum range, then there is higher risk of reduced service levels or long-term failure. A reduced service level means that one or more service criteria (e.g. access, quantity, use, quality and reliability) are not achieved.
* In the [[#WASHCost|WASHCost]] research, use of latrines and reliability of services tend to be lower when recurrent expenditure on things such as operation and maintenaince is low.
* If expenditure is higher than the maximum range, an affordability check (for both users and providers) might be required to ensure long-term sustainability.
* If a basic level of service is being delivered and expenditure is outside the cost benchmarks, then there may be context-specific explanations; such as the service is in a densely-populated area with economies of scale, or, conversely, the area is difficult or remote to reach.
==Operational expenditure on water services in Ghana==
WASHCost Ghana (Nyarko et al., 2011a) measured operational and minor maintenance expenditure by using the actual recorded expenditure from 53 water point-systems. Actual operational expenditure at current cost (2009 year) ranges from US$ 0 to 102 per facility per year, with a mean of US $ 40 per year (median US$ 21) (see table 1).
'''Table 2. Operations and minor maintenance cost of rural water point-systems'''
{|style="color: white; background-color:#4682B4;" class="wikitable"
|colspan="6"|Cost per facility per year (US$)
|-
! scope="col" |District (Region)
! scope="col" |Number <br> of WPS
! scope="col" |Min
! scope="col" |Max
! scope="col" |Mean
! scope="col" |Upper quartile(*)
|-
|style="color: black; background-color:#D3D3D3;"|Bosomtwe <br> Ashanti
|style="color:black; background-color:#ffffff;"|23
|style="color:black; background-color:#ffffff;"|0
|style="color:black; background-color:#ffffff;"|102
|style="color:black; background-color:#ffffff;"|40
|style="color:black; background-color:#ffffff;"|63
|-
|style="color:black; background-color:#D3D3D3;"|East Gonja <br> (Northern)
|style="color:black; background-color:#ffffff;"|23
|style="color:black; background-color:#ffffff;"|0
|style="color:black; background-color:#ffffff;"|85
|style="color:black; background-color:#ffffff;"|15
|style="color:black; background-color:#ffffff;"|19
|-
|style="color:black; background-color:#D3D3D3;"|Ketu South <br> (Volta)
|style="color:black; background-color:#ffffff;"|7
|style="color:black; background-color:#ffffff;"|0
|style="color:black; background-color:#ffffff;"|49
|style="color:black; background-color:#ffffff;"|18
|style="color:black; background-color:#ffffff;"|27
|-
|}
(*)The upper quartile (Q3) is the median of the upper half of the data set.
Source: Nyarko et al., 2011a, 5