UTRECHT UNIVERSITY

Application of Life Cycle Approach for the

sustainability of the water supply and
sanitation projects in low income countries

Theodorou, S.
Supervisor: Dr. Cees Vink

Utrecht
05/22/2014

Contents
1.

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 2

2.

Overview of Life Cycle Approach in Water System Projects ........................................... 3

3.

4.

2.1

Limitations of applicability ....................................................................................... 3

2.2

WASHCost calculator (IRC, 2012) ........................................................................... 4

Sustainability Assessment Tool (McConville, 2006) ........................................................ 4

3.1

The Five Sustainability Factors ................................................................................. 4

3.2

The Life Cycle Stages of a water/sanitation development project ............................ 6

3.3

Sustainability Assessment Matrix ............................................................................. 7

3.4

Case studies/Applications .......................................................................................... 8

Predictive modeling of infrastructure decisions (Jones, Anya, Stacey, & Weir, 2012) .... 9
4.1

Sustainability factors ............................................................................................... 10

4.2

Decision process for the life cycle of a water system.............................................. 11

4.3

Life-cycle approach ................................................................................................. 12

4.4

Case studies/Applications ........................................................................................ 13

5.

Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendation ............................................................... 14

6.

Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 16

Contents of Tables
Table 1: Five Sustainability Factors Appropriate for Water/Sanitation Development Projects
................................................................................................................................................... 5
Table 2: Sustainability Assessment Matrix ............................................................................... 8
Table 3: Sustainability factors for water system design .......................................................... 10
Table 4: Summary of community life cycle costs for rural water systems ............................. 13

Contents of Figures
Figure 1: Life Cycle Costs Approach Source: (Akvopedia, 2014)............................................ 3
Figure 2: Five Life Cycle Stages for Water/Sanitation Development Work Source:
(McConville, 2006) ................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3: The Results of the case studies of McConville (2006) in Kodogouni and
Zambougou-Fouta Source: (McConville, 2006) ...................................................................... 9
Figure 4: Overview of the decision process for the life cycle of a water system in a resourcelimited country. Source: (Jones, Anya, Stacey, & Weir, 2012)............................................... 12

1.

Introduction

Water and sanitation concerns are of great magnitude: 1.1 billion individuals,
approximately 17 percent of the worlds population, are without improved water and more do
not have access to safe drinking water, and 2.6 billion, approximately 41 percent, are without
improved sanitation (WSSCC, 2004).
The United Nations Millennium Declaration has confirmed the central role of water in
sustainable development and in efforts to eradicate poverty. Increasing coverage in water
supply and sanitation is essential in overcoming poverty through reductions of water-related
diseases (Carlevaro & Gonzalez, 2011). Unfortunately, lack of water services in many areas is
not for lack of effort on the part of government agencies and aid organizations, but is the
result of implementing unsustainable systems, in part because the user characteristics are not
fully understood (Ostrom, Schroeder, & Wynne, 1993).
A potential framework for learning and decision making in sustainable development work
is life cycle thinking. Life cycle thinking is a holistic approach that considers sustainability
factors over the entire life of a product or process, from conception through use and disposal.
The system approach of life cycle thinking is a prerequisite to any sound sustainability
assessment, as it does not allow for shifting of detrimental effects to other timeframes or
phases in the life cycle (Klpffer, 2003). Perhaps the most well-known applications of life
cycle thinking are the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tools that were developed by industrial
ecologists to evaluate the environmental impacts of products and services during all phases of
their life. The methodology behind LCA is well defined and includes international standards,
such as ISO 14040 (1997). The results have provided companies and engineers with a broader
view of the environmental impacts of products and services. Recognition of the
interconnectedness of different industrial processes has allowed decision makers to identify
areas of greatest importance and intervene for maximum results.
This assignment presents the matrix and model of two independent studies from
McConville (2006) and Jones et. al. (2012), respectively, to apply life cycle approach in water
system projects in low income countries. In the end of each section, can been seen the
applications of each model. McConville (2006), created a tool for measuring the sustainability
of a water system project while Jones et. al. (2012), developed a model which could predict
the use of water from the households in order to take it to consideration in the design of the
life cycle of the system. The conclusions shown that even if Jones et al. (2012) is subsequent
of McConville (2006), it is important for the projects managers to consider first, in the design
of a water supply and sanitation project, Jones et al. (2012) model and then McConvilles
(2006).
2

2. Overview of Life Cycle Approach in Water System Projects

Life-cycle cost approach (LCCA) can be described as a comprehensive tool that is
often used in project evaluation, especially in the context of environmental sustainability of
various investments (Salem, 1999). 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). LCCA includes also the costs of constructing new systems, maintaining them in the
short- and long-term, at higher institutional levels.
Life-cycle costs approach for the water sector are the costs of ensuring adequate
water, sanitation and hygiene services to a specific population in a determined geographical
area - not just for a few years but indefinitely (Akvopedia, 2014). Moving beyond the timelimited project approach to indefinite sustainability means taking into account the full lifecycle costs of water systems (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Life Cycle Costs Approach Source: (Akvopedia, 2014)

2.1 Limitations of applicability

However the application of a Life Cycle Approach (LCA) has also its limitations.
Some of the them which can be found in the literature are that an LCA analysis is very
3

expensive for the organizations and it requires detailed data and time. The more
comprehensive a LCA is the more time-consuming and expensive it will be. Moreover the
accuracy of a LCA is depending on the data. If data are missing, is more likely the final
results to not be precise. The high cost is also caused by the need for professional consultation
and expert knowledge in the stages of impact and improvement analyses. Lastly but not least,
the selected and analyzed system in some of the studies does not include the overall life cycle
of the examined product or process, but it is only confined to specific stages (Ekvall, Assefa,
Bjorklund, Eriksson, & Finnveden, 2007; Jeswani, Azapagic, Schepelmann, & Ritthoff, 2010)
2.2 WASHCost calculator (IRC, 2012)
The so-called WASHCost calculator, is an application for planning the life cycle
costs approach. It is frequently used by governments, multilaterals, training institutions,
international NGOs and donors. It has been created by the International Water and Sanitation
Centre (IRC). Users without expert knowledge about the life cycle costs approach can run a
sustainability check to strengthen delivery of water and sanitation services, make use of
reliable life cycle cost information, and understand the benefits of the life cycle costs
approach.
3. Sustainability Assessment Tool (McConville, 2006)
McConville (2006) using the defined sustainability factors (Table 1) and life cycle
stages (Figure 2: Five Life Cycle Stages for Water/Sanitation Development Work
Source: Figure 2), developed an assessment tool in the form of a matrix for the sustainable
development of water and sanitation projects. The matrix ended up as a useful tool as it
allows the sustainability factors to be assessed individually at each stage in the life cycle.
A series of guidelines for each matrix element were given by McConville as a method
for scoring the sustainability of a project. The guidelines were derived from best practice
approaches to effective international development and her personal experience during two
years as a water and sanitation Peace Corps volunteer in Mali, West Africa.
The sustainability matrix allows development workers to evaluate the strengths and
weaknesses of their projects during each of the five stages of the project life. The matrix
framework could also provide guidelines for initiating new water supply projects and be
helpful to engineers and other development workers in implementing sustainable project
approaches.
3.1 The Five Sustainability Factors

Sustainable development consists of three key factors- social, economic and

environmental sustainability. While the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing
(LCC) touch on the environment and economic factors, respectively, neither one of them acts
as an assessment tool for the social factor. However, McConville (2006) recognized the
significance of the social factors in a successful water-sanitation project, and she divided
social sustainability into three distinct components: cultural aspect; community participation;
and political cohesion transforming the triple bottom line to penta bottom line (Table 1).

Social Sustainability

Table 1: Five Sustainability Factors Appropriate for Water/Sanitation Development Projects

Source: (McConville, 2006)

Socio-Cultural
Respect

A socially acceptable project is built on an understanding of local traditions and core

values.

Community
Participation

A process which fosters empowerment and ownership in community members

through direct participation in development decision-making affecting the community.

Political Cohesion

Involves increasing the alignment of development projects with host country priorities
and coordinating aid efforts at all levels (local, national, and international) to increase
ownership and efficient delivery of services.
Implies that sufficient local resources and capacity exist to continue the project in the
absence of outside resources.

Economic Sustainability

Environmental
Sustainability

Implies that non-renewable and other natural resources are not depleted nor destroyed
for short-term improvements.

Socio-Cultural Respect
The cultural plays an important role in the application of the technology especially
when requires behavior change for the implementation of the project. Gathering cultural
information during the needs assessment and building on these considerations throughout the
project life increases sustainability. The project design, the construction and the Operations
and Maintenance (M&O) need to be familiar with the local community so that to cultivate a
social willingness to adopt the new system.
Community Participation
The importance of the participation of the community in the project is widely
recognized. The participation leads to self-empowerment, local ownership, and increased
local capacity. When the need for intervention is recognized by the community they will be
more motivated to participate for change. Public awareness and participation in the project
will stimulate interest in the importance of improved water and sanitation systems, leading to
educational benefits. Participation increases the willing of the community to improve and
operate the system on their own. Working with the community to identify needs that are
recognized by the local population will increase understanding and support of the project.

Political Cohesion
By working with government and non-government organizations, development
workers will increase interest and a sense of ownership in the process. Partnering institutions
can share development techniques, obstacles, and lessons learned. Each increase in the
number of stakeholders will provide a wider range of solutions and support. Project managers
who work within a broad web of political support throughout the life cycle will increase the
effectiveness and longevity of their project.
Economic Sustainability
The project for being successful should fit the local economic situation based in
resources, both monetary and non-monetary (labor, tools, and supplies). Very important steps
before the implementation of the project are the cost estimates, economic feasibility
assessments and willingness-to-pay studies. The community must be willing and able to
contribute to the project construction and maintenance. It is essential to have an economic
community contribution to the implementation and operation of the project, which increases
local ownership and appreciation for the project.
Environmental Sustainability
In order to ensure the environmental sustainability of a project, planners must adapt
the design to the local environment, including issues of ecosystem deterioration and resource
constraints. Minimizing pollution and depletion of resources is essential to sustaining the
local environmental. Technology based on renewable and local resources can affect
significantly the environmental sustainability.

3.2 The Life Cycle Stages of a water/sanitation development project

McConville (2006) supported that the complete life cycle of a water/sanitation
development project is divided in five life stages: 1) needs assessment, 2) conceptual design
and feasibility study, 3) design and action planning, 4) implementation and 5) operation and
maintenance (Figure 2)1. She noted that, due to constraints which may arise during planning
in life stage 3, there may be the need to backtrack to life stage 2 and adjust the design, before
continuing forward. This is represented by the dotted line between life stages 2 and 3.
The needs assessment determines the motivation for intervention and the extent of
need and is the starting point of every project. The result of this phase will be a commitment
to project action. Development of conceptual designs and feasibility studies are following this
step. A list of possible solutions is generated and evaluated during this step. The outcome of
1

The life cycle thinking approach takes into consideration the five factors for effective sustainable projects over
the entire life cycle of the project.

the second stage is the selection of an appropriate technology to implement. In the third step,
design and action planning, are finalized the details for the technical design and action plan.
Action planning may uncover logistical constraints that affect the feasibility of the selected
design. There is potential, therefore, for simultaneous and iterative planning between stages
two and three. The design and planning stages are followed by the physical implementation of
the project. Project implementation includes both resource procurement and construction. The
operation and maintenance stage defines the actual use of the improved system, which
includes project monitoring and evaluation. Many life cycle approaches include an end-of-life
stage involving the disposal or recycling of the product. However, in development work,
donor agencies and foreign project managers are frequently no longer involved in the project
at this stage, and will have difficulty evaluating end-of-life consequences. Due to the
difficulties in evaluation, end-of-life considerations are included in the feasibility studies
rather than a separate life stage.

Figure 2: Five Life Cycle Stages for Water/Sanitation Development Work2

Source: (McConville, 2006)

3.3 Sustainability Assessment Matrix

The complete assessment tool combines the five life stages (Figure 2) with the five
sustainability factors (Table 1) in a 5x5 matrix form shown in Table 2. In one direction are
defined the sustainability factors and in the other the project life stages.
2

Solid arrows indicate the flow of the life cycle process

Table 2: Sustainability Assessment Matrix

Source: (McConville, 2006)

Sustainability Factor
Life Stage
Needs Assessment
Conceptual Designs
and Feasibility
Design and
Action Planning
Implementation
Operation and
Maintenance
Total

Socio-cultural
Respect
1,1

Community
Participation
1,2

Political
Cohesion
1,3

Economic
Environmental
Sustainability Sustainability
1,4
1,5

2,1

2,2

2,3

2,4

2,5

20

3,1

3,2

3,3

3,4

3,5

20

4,1

4,2

4,3

4,4

4,5

20

5,1

5,2

5,3

5,4

5,5

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

The project should be evaluated and rated for each of the 25 elements in the matrix.
The matrix elements represent distinct opportunities to address sustainability factors during
each life stage. A series of checklists3 within each matrix element have been used to quantify
sustainability. Every element is recommended to satisfy specific criteria presented in the
thesis of MaConville, 2006.
The evaluator assigns a rating (0-4) to each matrix element, depending on the number
of sustainability recommendations completed. If none of the recommendations are met the
matrix element is assigned a score of zero, a poor evaluation. If all of the recommendations
are met the matrix element is assigned a score of four, an excellent evaluation. Thus each of
the five sustainability factors can achieve a total score of 20 with an overall possible project
score of 100. If none of the recommendations are met the matrix element is assigned a score
of zero, a poor evaluation. If all of the recommendations are met the matrix element is
assigned a score of four, an excellent evaluation. Thus each of the five sustainability factors
can achieve a total score of 20 with an overall possible project score of 1004.

3.4 Case studies/Applications

This assessment tool was first applied by McConville to evaluate two water and
sanitation projects implemented in Mali, West Africa. Her first case study was a top well
repair and wash area construction project in Kodougouni where she was involved in the
design, planning and implementation. The second case study was a rainwater harvesting pond
3

The checklists have been derived from a variety of best-practice guidelines and the personal experience of
McConville (McConville, 2006).
4
For detailed analysis of each element see (McConville, 2006).

Total
20

in Zambougou-Fouta where she served as a consultant and translator for an out-of-country

NGO. Her results that showed that both projects started strong in the needs assessment stage
and gradually weakened as the project progressed through the life cycle, can been seen in the
Figure 3.
A development project is a process that takes time and effort. Building the
relationships needed for political cohesion takes time, as does an accurate needs assessment
and planning process. A project is not finished after implementation. It requires a continued
level of effort to ensure proper operation and maintenance. There are numerous factors that
affect project sustainability at a variety of points in its life cycle. A successful project requires
effort on a diverse set of issues at all times. A responsible project is one that respects the
complexity of the life cycle process by using sufficient time and resources to make sure that
the project benefits will endure. (McConville, 2006)

Figure 3: The Results of the case studies of McConville (2006) in Kodogouni and Zambougou-Fouta
Source: (McConville, 2006)

4. Predictive modeling of infrastructure decisions (Jones, Anya, Stacey,

& Weir, 2012)
Jones et al. (2012) presented in their paper how using the life-cycle approach of water and
sanitation development projects can improve the sustainability of rural water system design in

resource-limited countries. The aim was the reader to understand the challenges and benefits
of using a life-cycle approach to examine a context that has yet to benefit from such a tool.
They defined a hypothetical rural community in a resource-limited country that has the
following characteristics: 256 inhabitants, 64 homes (4 inhabitants per home), one square
kilometer community area. They assumed that the consumption per capita is 50L/day for the
following scenarios:

centralized community standpipe at no greater than a 0.25 km walk

decentralized manual collection from surface water at no greater than a 0.25 km walk

decentralized rainwater system with yard tap

and 80 L/capita-d for centralized systems with yard taps. Moreover, they estimated the
infrastructure needs for the scenarios.
4.1 Sustainability factors
Jones et. al (2012) summarized the sustainability factors that could affect ones ability
to effectively apply a life-cycle approach to develop a water system infrastructure solution in
such an area (Table 3).
Table 3: Sustainability factors for water system design
Source: (Jones, Anya, Stacey, & Weir, 2012)

Technical
Factors

Environmental
Factors

Sustainability Factors
How much is demanded vs. how much the system can
supply

Unit of Measurement
% of residents who are unsatisfied with present water supply

Compatibility with existing water supply & sanitation

systems
General skills available

% of components from existing system that can be incorporated into new

system
Yes or no

Specialized skills required

Number of external specialists needed; number of training hours required

Extension Capacity

% of unused hydraulic capacity within the design; unused latrine pit

storage within the design % of the year system will be in full service

Robustness
Quality & durability of materials

Previous % breakage/leakage with proposed materials

Yes or no
% of system that can use local materials

Availability of spare parts

Yes or no

Dependence on local materials

Yes or no

Non-renewable energy use

% of total energy demand from non-renewable sources

Pollutant loading to body of water, land, and air

Pollutant contamination vs. carrying capacity

Water transfer

Withdrawal vs. yield capacity

Natural resource use

Natural resource use vs. yield capacity

Hazardous chemical exposure (human and ecosystem)

Level of chemical exposure vs. regulated standards (for human and

ecosystem)
% of samples in compliance

Noise pollution
Institutional
Factors

Existence/planned WUC
Support from government, NGO, community, private
5

Yes or no
% of capital project cost shared by each entity

Water User Committees

10

sector

Community
and Managerial
Factors

Monitoring system in place/planned

Yes or no

Regulatory system in place/planned

Yes or no

Planned system compatible with national strategy

Yes or no

Operation and management system in

place/planned
Local economy

Yes or no

Living patterns

# of people/sq mile; demographic diversity

Population expansion

% of system capacity available for growth

Living standards

Average annual household income vs. national average

Users system preference

% of potential users who prefer system choice

Historical experience collaborating with different

projects

% of success for projects conducted with major stakeholders within in the

past 10 years.

Community willingness to participate in construction

of system, and to own operate and maintain said
system after the initial construction phase
Community water rights
Acceptance of external help
Equity in terms of system design
User applications of collected water

Yes or no

Collection time

Financial
Factors
Human Health
Factors

Financial participation of users

Water user fees
Cost recovery
Source protection
Accessibility of water
Reliability of water source
Quantity of water provided by water sources
Water quality
Adequate sanitation
Adequate hygiene practices
Rates of malnutrition
Young children (<5) mortality rate
Incidence rate of diarrheal disease6

Unemployment rate vs. national average

% of system owned by community

% of community approval
% of community with better or worse results as compared to averages
Number of purposes water users use collected water for, other than for
drinking; Volume of water required per day for purposes other than
drinking
Number of minutes it takes user to collect water (traveling to source,
waiting in line, and traveling home; does not include time spent engaging
in activities along the way)
% of users willing to pay portion of capital costs & tariff
Maximum user fees are 5% of median household income
Annual household fees = annual O&M costs
% of water that is source-protected
% of community that will have access to an improved water system within
1 km of home
% of demand met in each season
% of minimum standard met in each season
% of water samples below maximum allowable levels (pathogens et al.); %
of water users who treat collected water
% of community with non-public, improved sanitation system
Approximately 10% of surveyed population know the appropriate times to
wash their hands
% of women & children clinically underweight.
Childrens mortality rate (attributed to poor water and sanitation) in
community vs. national population
% of diarrheal disease (attributed to poor water and sanitation) among
given population during 5 year period vs. total population

4.2 Decision process for the life cycle of a water system

The authors notices regarding LCI and the Table 37 resulted in their inquiry to
examine the socio-economic sustainability factors of the water system by looking at the
6

They focused on diarrheal disease because WHO states that it is the condition most-attributed to poor water,
sanitation, and hygiene services (Prss-stn et al. 2006). Other water, sanitation, and hygiene diseases may be
selected from the following: intestinal nematode infections (ascariasis, trichuriasis, hookworm), schistosomiasis,
trachoma, malaria, lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, dengue fever, Japanese encephalitis, drowning (Fewtrell et
al. 2007). Other indicator chemicals may also be added to sustainability factors e.g., arsenic, fluoride, [nitrate]
(Howard and Bartram 2003).

11

various decisions made across that life cycle, as well as the characteristics of those making
the decisions by concluding to the main stages for each main decision maker (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Overview of the decision process for the life cycle of a water system in a resource-limited country.
Source: (Jones, Anya, Stacey, & Weir, 2012)

4.3 Life-cycle approach

In order Jones et. al (2012) to improve the quality and the efficiency of the water
infrastructure systems, they argued that in the predictive modeling of decisions must be
integrated the accumulated knowledge of the households use of water according to the
circumstances thus, the relation between the stakeholders and the life-cycle must be
recognized and formally introduced the planning activities.

The authors noticed that the LCI results for environment and cost or financial factors agree for the most part in
terms of how to prioritize water system alternatives in terms of sustainability. High degree of cause and effect
between environmental and financial sustainability has been found that affect the technical and human health
sustainability of a system. High degree of cause and effect with the institutional and community and managerial
has been found that aspects.

12

Jones et al. (2012) tried to integrate this knowledge to the predictive model by
developing several potable water scenarios based on literature and analyzed the cost of LCI8
for each one 9(Table 4). Therefore, they combined the cost of LCI8 with the considerations at
each life-cycle stage of the decision process (Figure 4) using many of the factors listed in
Table 3 in order to develop this predictive capability.
Table 4: Summary of community life cycle costs for rural water systems.
Source: (Jones, Anya, Stacey, & Weir, 2012)

Scenario
A

Scenario
Brief Description
Groundwater, yard taps, no treatment

Life Cycle Costs

$1000 (2005)
88-160

Capital Costs
$1000 (2005)
71-135

Annual O&M
$1000 (2005)
2,0-2,9

Groundwater, community standpipes, no treatment

59-138

49-127

1,1-1,2

Surface water, yard taps, drip chlorination

73-130

56-105

2,0-2,9

Surface water, yard taps, slow sand filter

87-158

60-110

2,9-5,1

Surface water, community standpipe, drip chlorination

52-89

34-67

1,4-2,0

Surface water, community standpipes, slow sand filter

61-112

39-72

2,3-4,2

Surface water, manual collection, point of use

0,8-2

0,8-2

Spring water, yard taps, drip chlorination

74-140

60-116

1,6-3,1

Spring water, yard taps, slow sand filter

82-161

65-123

2,0-4,7

Spring water, yard taps, point of use

71-136

59-115

1,4-2,8

Spring water, community standpipes, drip chlorination

48-96

40-84

1,1-2,2

Spring box, community standpipes, slow sand filter

55-115

43-85

1,4-3,8

Spring box, community standpipes, point of use

45-92

38-82

0,8-1,8

Rainwater, yard taps, point of use

31-72

31-72

4.4 Case studies/Applications

Jones et al. (2012) examined two case studies in regard with the predictive model.
The first one, the Jhumka case study10 showed that the long-term sustainability of the
project was doubtful due to reasons that are related with the lack of strong partnership
between the WUC and the community in the decision process for the life cycle of the system.
For instance, one important reason is the lack of communication between stakeholders at
several points in the process.

A life-cycle inventory (LCI) is the identification and quantification of the material and resource inputs and
emission and product outputs from the unit processes in the life cycle of a product system (Socolof, Overly,
Kincaid, & Geibig, 2001).
9
Jones et al., for the purposes of the research, used a limited LCA, the LCI.
10
Based on the feasibility study, ADB determined that while the Jhumka community obtained the majority of its
water from private tube-wells financed either through a UNICEF revolving fund, or personal funds, rapid
population expansion had placed significant strain on the existing infrastructure

13

While the second one, Indrapur Case Study11, showed how poor technical,
institutional, and managerial decisions along the life-cycle affect negatively long-term
sustainability. The community did not have the appropriate tools and skills to fix the technical
problems that they faced. Besides this problem, other issues arose due to a lack of system
ownership along with the communitys crumbling institutional organization. The project
failed and the root cause of the problems seemed to be the poor collaboration between project
managers, NGOs and local political leaders.
They finally suggested the creation of a predictive decision tool that captures the
interaction of the key stakeholders: the aid organization, the WUC, and the household user
and the affection of the sustainability considerations in the risk of project failure vs. success.
5. Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendation
It can be observed that McConville (2006) considered only five sustainability factors
while Jones et. al (2012), used a more detailed approach by taking to consideration six
categories of sustainability factors. However, by comparing the factors we can observe that all
the McConvilles sustainability factors are in agreement with Joness et al. More in depth they
agree that the project should made use of local and renewable resources and materials, the
community should have the appropriate skills and willingness to participate in construction of
system, and to own operate and maintainthe system after the initial construction phase.
Moreover both recognized the importance of the government, NGOs, and private sector
participation and the help from external sources. Finally, both acknowledged as essential for
the sustainability of the system the economical contribution of the users.
McConville (2006) supported that project managers who work within a broad web of
political support throughout the life cycle play a significant role in increasing the
effectiveness and longevity of the project. In conjunction with that, Jones et al. (2012)
observed in both studies that the poor collaboration between project managers, NGOs and
local political leaders led the long-term sustainability of the projects to fail.
Both studies used the life cycle approach of the water and sanitation development
projects in order to evaluate the level of the sustainability and to consider the stakeholders
involvement in the life cycle design in order to create a sustainable water system. Both
succeeded and ended up with models which they applied in some case studies. Both studies
contributed significantly in the improvement of the water and sanitation construction sector.
11

The design of the water system included a majority of areas where one tube-well served between three and four
households, however, in the communitys poorer areas, 20 to 25 households were forced to share one well. The
distribution of the tube-wells were determined by the WUC and the Water Supply and Sanitation Division Office
(WSSDO).

14

The LCA is a helpful tool that can also be used to evaluate or predict the
sustainability of a project. Moreover can be also implemented in order to compare potable
water production technologies (Buckley, Friedrich, & Blottnitz, 2011).
The matrix of McConville is suited as a general framework at the macro level of the
project while the second one gives more insights at the operational level. For instance the
factors in the first one are socio-cultural while in the second can be observed more technical
approach towards practical implementation. I would recommend the work of McConvilles to
be used for assessing the sustainability of a project and identifying areas of improvement
while the model of Jones et. al should be used as a technical guideline for in-depth feasibility
studies and operations.

15

6. Bibliography
Akvopedia. (2014, May 17). Life Cycle Cost Approach. Retrieved May 18, 2014, from
Akvopedia: http://akvopedia.org/wiki/Life_Cycle_Cost_Approach
Buckley, C., Friedrich, E., & Blottnitz, H. (2011). Life-cycle assessments in the South
African water sector. Water SA, 719.
Carlevaro, F., & Gonzalez, C. (2011). Costing improved water supply systems for developing
countries. Proceedings of the ICE - Water Management, 123-134.
Ekvall, T., Assefa, G., Bjorklund, A., Eriksson, O., & Finnveden, G. (2007). What life-cycle
assessment does and does not do in assessments. Waste Management 27, 989996.
Fonseca, C., Franceys, R., Batchelor, C., McIntyre, P., Klutse, A., Komives, K., et al. (2011).
Life-cycle costs approach : costing sustainable services. The Hague, The
Netherlands: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre.
IRC. (2012). WASHCost. Retrieved May 18, 2014, from International Water and Sanitation
Centre, IRC: http://www.ircwash.org/washcost
Jeswani, H., Azapagic, A., Schepelmann, P., & Ritthoff, M. (2010). Options for broadening
and deepening the LCA approaches. Journal of cleaner production 18, 120-128.
Jones, S., Anya, A., Stacey, N., & Weir, L. (2012). A Life-cycle Approach to Improve the
Sustainability of Rural. Challenges, 233-260.
Klpffer, W. (2003). Life-Cycle Based Methods for Sustainable Product Development. The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 157-159.
McConville, J. (2006). Applying life cycle thinking to international water and sanitation
development projects: an assesment tool for project managers in sustainable
development work. Houghton MI: M. Sc. Thesis, Mischigan Technological
University.
Ostrom, E., Schroeder, L., & Wynne, S. (1993). Institutional Incentive and Sustainable
Development: Infrastructure Policies in Perspective; . Boulder, CO, USA: Westview
Press .
Ostrom, E.; Schroeder, L.; Wynne, S. (1993). Institutional Incentive and Sustainable
Development: Infrastructure Policies in Perspective. Westview Press: Boulder, CO,
USA.

16

Salem, O. (1999). Infrastructure Construction and Rehabilitation: Risk-Based Life Cycle Cost
Analysis. Edmonton: D. Phil. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Alberta.
Socolof, M., Overly, J., Kincaid, L., & Geibig, J. (2001). Desktop Computer Displays:A LifeCycle Assessment. Washington D.C.: U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
WSSCC. (2004). World Resources Institute in collaboration with United Nations
Development Programme, United Nations Environment Program, and World Bank
(2004) World Resources 2004: The Wealth of the Poor Managing Ecosystems to
Fight Poverty. Washington, DC: WRI.

17