Life Cycle Cost Approach

Revision as of 05:26, 14 March 2013 by Winona (talk | contribs) (Key documents)

Revision as of 05:26, 14 March 2013 by Winona (talk | contribs) (Key documents)

The life cycle cost approach can be used to monitor levels of service received by users and the costs required to deliver these services (Fonseca et.al, 2011). Costs are compared and assessed in relation to the level of service received by users. Services are ranked in a ladder, from no service to high or improved service, based on different criteria. Each step up the service delivery ladder requires a different combination of infrastructure, management systems and human resources.

Sanitation

The sanitation service ladder is designed to describe domestic (household) sanitation (Potter et al., 2011). The service criteria for sanitation are accessibility, use, reliability and environmental protection (see table 1). The household service level is decided by the lowest level of service received on one of the four service criteria—accessibility, use, reliability and environmental protection. These criteria can vary across countries, with the basic level of service being the national norm. Typically, a higher level of service means more of every criterion. Each criterion is measured by one or more indicators. For example, the indicator for the use criterion is how many people in the household use the sanitation facility.


Table 1. Sanitation service levels

Service Levels Accessibility Use Reliability (O&M) Environmental protection (pollution and density)
Improved service Each family dwelling has one or more toilets in the compound Facilities used by all members of the household Regular or routine O&M (including pit emptying), requiring minimal user effort Non-problematic environmental impact; Disposal and reuse of safe by-products
Basic service Latrine with impermeable slab (household or shared) at a national norm distance from household Facilities used by some members of household Unreliable O&M (including pit emptying), requiring high user effort Non-problematic environmental impact and safe disposal
Limited service Platform without impermeable slab; Separated faeces from users No use or insufficient use No O&M (pit emptying) taking place and the presence of extremely dirty toilets Significant environmental pollution, worsening with increased populations
No service No separation between user and faeces, e.g. open defecation

Source: Potter et al., 2011, page 21


The service levels and criteria for sanitation can be adapted for use at workplaces and in schools and colleges.

Water

A water service level characterises the benefits that users receive, measured by a combination of criteria (see table 2). The household service level is determined by the lowest level of service on any of four service criteria: quantity, quality, accessibility or reliability (Moriarty et.al, 2011). These criteria can vary across countries, with the basic level of service being the national norm. Typically, a higher level of service means more of every criterion. Each criterion is measured by one or more indicators. For example, the indicator for reliability is the number of days when water is available throughout the year.


Table 2. Water service levels

Service levels Quantity (litres per person per day) Quality Accessibility (minutes / capita / day) Reliability
High Greater than 60 Good Less than 10 Very reliable
Intermediate Greater than 40 Acceptable Less than 30 Reliable / secure
Basic (normal level) Greater than 20
Substandard Greater than 5 Problematic Less than 60 Problematic
No service Less than 5 Unacceptable Greater than 60 Unreliable / insecure

Source: Moriarty et al., 2011, page 12


The life cycle cost approach has been developed in the WASHCost project. WASHCost was led by IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, running from 2008 to 2012, in rural and peri-urban areas of Burkina Faso, Ghana, India, and Mozambique.

Key documents

The Hague, The Netherlands: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre.