Closing the gap in access to water and sanitation in refugee settlements by financing innovative technologies

Lohman, Hannah A. C.

Permalink

https://hdl.handle.net/2142/101804 Copy

Description

Title

Closing the gap in access to water and sanitation in refugee settlements by financing innovative technologies

Author(s)

Lohman, Hannah A. C.

Issue Date

2018-07-10

Director of Research (if dissertation) or Advisor (if thesis)

Guest, Jeremy S.

Department of Study

Civil & Environmental Eng

Discipline

Environ Engr in Civil Engr

Degree Granting Institution

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Degree Name

M.S.

Degree Level

Thesis

Keyword(s)

life cycle costing, techno-economic analysis, WASH, refugees, resource recovery, drinking water, sanitation

Abstract

Global humanitarian crises have resulted in the displacement of over 65.6 million people – of whom, 17.2 million refugees fall under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) mandate. UNHCR provides necessities to refugees; however, budget constraints continue to result in unmet water and sanitation standards and low access to energy and fertilizer resources in camps and settlements. Innovative sanitation technologies that meet multiple needs (e.g., energy, fertilizer) provide an opportunity for UNHCR to achieve the standards for access to basic water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) while providing a financial incentive to sell or use recovered nutrients. The goal of this work was to understand how resource recovery sanitation can impact WASH costs in refugee settlements through a techno-economic analysis framework that incorporates site specific factors influencing decision-making. This objective is achieved by developing cost models of typical UNHCR water delivery, water storage, and sanitation technologies commonly employed in refugee settlements as well as a resource recovery sanitation technology (i.e., urine diverting dry toilet, UDDT). The cost models were applied to nine refugee settlements in Uganda by incorporating context-specific inputs such as settlement-level WASH coverage (e.g., refugees per latrine) and country-level material and labor costs. The costs of different WASH technologies were compared (i.e., material, construction labor, operation, and maintenance) and demonstrated material costs were the key contributor to total costs followed by operation and maintenance. Sanitation costs were then compared across technologies demonstrating that, through resource recovery, a UDDT may achieve lower life cycle costs than a pit latrine after four years of use. More broadly, this research develops a quantitative sustainable design process to better understand the tradeoffs involved in the provision of WASH interventions, applicable in refugee-focused and/or development contexts.

Graduation Semester

2018-08

Type of Resource

text

Permalink

http://hdl.handle.net/2142/101804

Copyright and License Information

Copyright 2018 Hannah A.C. Lohman

Owning Collections