Application of Life Cycle Approach for the Sustainability of the Water Supply and Sanitation Projects in Low Income Countries

8/10/2019 Application of Life Cycle Approach for the Sustainability of the Water Supply and Sanitation Projects in Low Income

1/18

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


2/18


3/18

2

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 withoutimproved 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 notfully 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 fromMcConville (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).


4/18

3

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 levelsof 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 time-

limited project approach to indefinite sustainability means taking into account the full life-cycle costs of water systems (seeFigure 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
http://akvopedia.org/wiki/Costs_of_WASH_Service_Delivery_-_Introductionhttp://akvopedia.org/wiki/Costs_of_WASH_Service_Delivery_-_Introduction


5/18

4

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 twoyears 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
http://akvopedia.org/wiki/Life_Cycle_Cost_Approachhttp://akvopedia.org/wiki/Life_Cycle_Cost_Approachhttp://akvopedia.org/wiki/Life_Cycle_Cost_Approachhttp://akvopedia.org/wiki/Life_Cycle_Cost_Approach


6/18

5

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).

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

Source: (McConville, 2006)

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.

SocialSustainability

Socio-CulturalRespect

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

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 prioritiesand coordinating aid efforts at all levels (local, national, and international) to increaseownership and efficient delivery of services.

Economic Sustainability Implies that sufficient local resources and capacity exist to continue the project in theabsence of outside resources.

EnvironmentalSustainability

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


7/18

6

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 thenumber 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 feasibilityassessments 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 resourceconstraints. 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 andmaintenance (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

1The life cycle thinking approach takes into consideration the five factors for effective sustainable projects overthe entire life cycle of the project.


8/18


9/18

8

Table 2: Sustainability Assessment Matrix


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 checklists3within 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 ofMcConville (McConville, 2006).4For detailed analysis of each element see (McConville, 2006).

Sustainability Factor

Life Stage Socio-cultural

Respect

Community

Participation

Political

Cohesion

Economic

Sustainability

Environmental

Sustainability

Total

Needs Assessment 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 20

Conceptual Designs

and Feasibility2,1 2,2 2,3 2,4 2,5 20

Design and

Action Planning3,1 3,2 3,3 3,4 3,5 20

Implementation 4,1 4,2 4,3 4,4 4,5 20

Operation and

Maintenance5,1 5,2 5,3 5,4 5,5 20

Total 20 20 20 20 20 20


10/18

9

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


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


11/18

10

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)

Sustainability Factors Unit of MeasurementTechnicalFactors

How much is demanded vs. how much the system cansupply

% of residents who are unsatisfied with present water supply

Compatibility with existing water supply & sanitationsystems

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

General skills available 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 pitstorage within the design % of the year system will be in full service

Robustness Previous % breakage/leakage with proposed materialsYes or no

Quality & durability of materials % of system that can use local materials

Availability of spare parts Yes or noDependence on local materials Yes or no

EnvironmentalFactors

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 andecosystem)

Noise pollution % of samples in compliance

InstitutionalFactors

Existence/planned WUC5 Yes or no

Support from government, NGO, community, private % of capital project cost shared by each entity

5Water User Committees


12/18

11

sector

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

Yes or no

Communityand ManagerialFactors

Local economy Unemployment rate vs. national average

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 differentprojects

% of success for projects conducted with major stakeholders within in thepast 10 years.

Community willingness to participate in constructionof system, and to own operate and maintain saidsystem after the initial construction phase

Yes or no

Community water rights % of system owned by community

Acceptance of external help % of community approvalEquity in terms of system design % of community with better or worse results as compared to averagesUser applications of collected water Number of purposes water users use collected water for, other than for

drinking; Volume of water required per day for purposes other thandrinking

Collection time Number of minutes it takes user to collect water (traveling to source,waiting in line, and traveling home; does not include time spent engagingin activities along the way)

FinancialFactors

Financial participation of users % of users willing to pay portion of capital costs & tariffWater user fees Maximum user fees are 5% of median household incomeCost recovery Annual household fees = annual O&M costs

Human HealthFactors

Source protection % of water that is source-protectedAccessibility of water % of community that will have access to an improved water system within

1 km of home

Reliability of water source % of demand met in each seasonQuantity of water provided by water sources % of minimum standard met in each seasonWater quality % of water samples below maximum allowable levels (pathogens et al.); %

of water users who treat collected waterAdequate sanitation % of community with non-public, improved sanitation systemAdequate hygiene practices Approximately 10% of surveyed population know the appropriate times to

wash their handsRates of malnutrition % of women & children clinically underweight.Young children (


13/18

12

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.


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.

7The authors noticed that the LCI results for environment and cost or financial factors agree for the most part interms of how to prioritize water system alternatives in terms of sustainability. High degree of cause and effectbetween environmental and financial sustainability has been found that affect the technical and human healthsustainability of a system. High degree of cause and effect with the institutional and community and managerial

has been found that aspects.


14/18

13

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 LCI8with the considerations at

each life-cycle stage of the decision process (Figure 4)using many of the factors listed in

Table 3in order to develop this predictive capability.

Table 4: Summary of community life cycle costs for rural water systems.


Scenario Scenario

Brief Description

Life Cycle Costs

$1000 (2005)

Capital Costs

$1000 (2005)

Annual O&M

$1000 (2005)

A Groundwater, yard taps, no treatment 88-160 71-135 2,0-2,9

B Groundwater, community standpipes, no treatment 59-138 49-127 1,1-1,2

C Surface water, yard taps, drip chlorination 73-130 56-105 2,0-2,9

D Surface water, yard taps, slow sand filter 87-158 60-110 2,9-5,1

E Surface water, community standpipe, drip chlorination 52-89 34-67 1,4-2,0

F Surface water, community standpipes, slow sand filter 61-112 39-72 2,3-4,2

G Surface water, manual collection, point of use 0,8-2 0,8-2 -

H Spring water, yard taps, drip chlorination 74-140 60-116 1,6-3,1

I Spring water, yard taps, slow sand filter 82-161 65-123 2,0-4,7

J Spring water, yard taps, point of use 71-136 59-115 1,4-2,8

K Spring water, community standpipes, drip chlorination 48-96 40-84 1,1-2,2

L Spring box, community standpipes, slow sand filter 55-115 43-85 1,4-3,8

M Spring box, community standpipes, point of use 45-92 38-82 0,8-1,8N 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 study10showed 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.

8 A life-cycle inventory (LCI) is the identification and quantification of the material and resource inputs andemission and product outputs from the unit processes in the life cycle of a product system (Socolof, Overly,Kincaid, & Geibig, 2001).9Jones 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 itswater from private tube-wells financed either through a UNICEF revolving fund, or personal funds, rapidpopulation expansion had placed significant strain on the existing infrastructure


15/18

14

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.

11The design of the water system included a majority of areas where one tube-well served between three and fourhouseholds, however, in the communitys poorer areas, 20 to 25 house holds were forced to share one well. Thedistribution of the tube-wells were determined by the WUC and the Water Supply and Sanitation Division Office(WSSDO).


16/18

15

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 theproject 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.


17/18

16

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.


18/18

17

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 Life-Cycle Assessment. Washington D.C.: U.S Environmental Protection Agency (US-

EPA).

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.

Documents

Application of Life Cycle Approach for the Sustainability of the Water Supply and Sanitation Projects in Low Income Countries