2011年-世界发展银行全球_Economic_Assessment_of_Sanitation_Interventions_in_the_Philippines_222页_22mb

Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in the Philippines

Core Content

This document presents the findings of a six-country study conducted under the Economics of Sanitation Initiative (ESI), focusing specifically on the Philippines. The study evaluates the economic impact of various sanitation interventions across different regions and contexts, using both quantitative and qualitative data to assess their cost-effectiveness and benefits.

Main Viewpoints

1. Progress and Challenges in Sanitation

• The Philippines has made significant progress toward achieving the sanitation target under MDG 7, with 76% of the population having access to improved sanitation facilities by 2008.
• Despite this, around 7 million people still practice open defecation, and 15 million lack access to improved sanitation.
• Access to improved sanitation is uneven, with rural and Mindanao regions lagging behind urban areas.
• Poor management of human excreta, even among those with access to improved facilities, remains a critical issue.
• The economic cost of poor sanitation in the Philippines was previously estimated at PhP77.8 billion (US$1.4 billion) at 2005 prices, with 71% attributed to health-related losses.

2. Study Objectives and Methodology

• The study aims to provide evidence on the economic efficiency of different sanitation interventions.
• It compares the benefits and costs of sanitation options using standard economic indicators such as benefit-cost ratio (BCR), cost-effectiveness ratio (CER), net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and payback period.
• Cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for health-related outcomes, including disability life year (DALY) averted, disease cases averted, and deaths averted.

3. Key Economic Results

• All interventions evaluated showed net benefits, with BCRs exceeding one.
• In rural areas, dry and wet pit latrines had the highest BCRs due to low investment and recurrent costs.
• In urban areas, toilets connected to septic tanks (not desludged) had the most favorable indicators, while UDDT-E (EcoSan) had the lowest BCRs.
• Actual conditions led to less favorable BCRs compared to ideal settings, particularly for desludged septic tanks in Alabel.

4. Cost-Effectiveness and Health Benefits

• Annual health-related costs per household exceeded PhP5,000 (US$112) in both rural and urban areas.
• Diarrheal diseases accounted for most of the health costs, with children under five being the most affected.
• Averted health costs varied depending on the intervention, with rural households gaining about 40% of the baseline costs and urban households about 20%.

5. Water and Access Time Benefits

• Poor sanitation leads to water pollution, increasing the cost of obtaining safe water.
• Households in urban areas save about PhP1,700 (US$38) annually in access time, with rural households losing 32 days per year.
• The study highlights that time lost to accessing toilets is a significant economic burden.

6. Excreta Reuse Benefits

• Only UDDT-E users in San Fernando reuse human waste for fertilizer, with an average saving of PhP500 (US$11) per household.
• Reuse is more common in upland areas than in coastal areas.
• The collected waste in coastal areas is used for local agricultural purposes.

7. Intangible Benefits

• Intangible benefits include comfort, privacy, convenience, and social status.
• Households with private toilets reported higher pride and confidence, while open defecation was associated with shame and social stigma.
• Proximity to toilets was a key factor in perceived safety and convenience, especially for women and children.

8. External Environment and Pollution

• The external environment, including areas outside of toilets, was rated poorly by respondents.
• Poor sanitation contributed to issues like bad smells, insect and rodent infestations, and unclean public spaces.
• Even households with improved sanitation facilities often failed to manage them properly, leading to local pollution.

9. Tourism and Business Impact

• Tourists' perceptions of sanitation in the Philippines were found to be generally positive, especially regarding natural areas.
• However, there is room for improvement, particularly in Metro Manila.
• The study suggests that better sanitation could enhance tourism and reduce business costs.

Key Information

• Study Sites: Alabel, Bayawan, Dagupan, San Fernando (coastal and upland), and Taguig.
• Sanitation Options Evaluated: Open defecation, community/public toilets, shared toilets, dry and wet pit latrines, septic tanks (with and without treatment), and wastewater treatment.
• Economic Indicators: BCR, CER, NPV, IRR, and payback period were used to evaluate interventions.
• Costs: Investment and recurrent costs were considered, with investment costs making up a large portion (e.g., 93% for dry pits, 80% for UDDT-E).
• Benefits: Health, water access, time savings, and excreta reuse were analyzed, with health-related costs accounting for most of the economic burden.
• Limitations: The study did not account for environmental, tourism, and business benefits, nor did it fully consider intangible aspects in quantitative analysis.
• Funding Sources: Most treatment facilities were funded by the government or private sector, with households eventually expected to pay for them through user fees.

Conclusion

The study underscores the economic value of improving sanitation in the Philippines, particularly in rural and urban contexts. It highlights the importance of context-specific interventions and the need for better management and investment in sanitation infrastructure to maximize benefits and reduce costs.