1 STAKEHOLDER BASED LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: APP L ICATION IN MULTISTAKEHOLDER DECISION -MAKING CONTEXTS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION By LANKA THABREW A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009
2 2009 Lanka Thabrew
3 To my Thaththa and Amma
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is a pleasure to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has made this dissertation a possibility. I would like to express my profound gratitude to my advisor Dr. Robert Ries, for his invaluable support, supervision, right amount of push, and friendship throughout this journey. He is a great teacher and an inspir ing researcher. I would also like to thank my committee: Dr. Paul Zwick, Dr. Charles Kibet, Dr. Flood, Dr. Angela Lindner and Dr. Roland Scholz, for supporting me and contributing insightful feedback in completing this dissertation. I am extremely grateful to my former bosses Indrajith Kuruppu and Hilke Ebert who supported me in many ways to pursue my career aspirations, and for being there through times of difficulty. I would like to thank the THSP staff for contributing much to this research study. I would also like to extend my gratitude to all of my colleagues in Una watuna for their tireless efforts in organizing community meetings, surveys and workshops, and active ly engaging in the case -study development process. I am indebted to my parents for their love and support throughout my life. A very special note of appreciation goes to my most loving father who is not t here to share this moment but has given his everyt hing to support my way, and to my dearest mother who stood by me in every possible way. Last but not least, I would also like to thank my grandmother, my sister, and all my most wonderful aunts, uncles, and cousins who shower ed me with love, encouragement and appreciation along the way ever so dearly, which always means so much to me.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................ 10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................ 14 ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................ 19 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 21 Aim and Objectives of Research ................................................................................................ 21 In troduction to Research ............................................................................................................. 21 Statement of Problem and Research Questions ......................................................................... 24 Rationale of Study ....................................................................................................................... 25 Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 30 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 32 Sustainable Development Paradigm .......................................................................................... 32 Sustainable Development Programs .......................................................................................... 34 Agenda 21 ............................................................................................................................ 34 Millennium Development Goals ......................................................................................... 35 Sustainable Settlement Development ......................................................................................... 38 Integrated Development Planning and Steps Toward Implementation ................................... 40 Systems Thinking in Multi -S takeholder Planning .................................................................... 42 Transdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinary Learning ................................................................. 43 Environmental Asse ssment Methods in Multi -S takeholder Planning ..................................... 47 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) .......................................................................... 49 Social Impact Assessment (SIA) ........................................................................................ 49 Risk Assessment (RA) ......................................................................................................... 50 Summary of Comparison of Environmental Assessment M ethods .................................. 51 Life Cycle T hinking and Life Cycle Assessment (LCT/A) ...................................................... 52 Background .......................................................................................................................... 52 Process Based Life Cycle Assessment ............................................................................... 53 Standards for Life Cycle Assessment ................................................................................. 55 Inventory Databases and Impact Methods ......................................................................... 56 Economic Input Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO LCA) ........................................... 59 Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment ........................................................................................... 63 Limita tions of Life Cycle Assessment Approaches .......................................................... 63
6 Life Cycle Cost Assessment and Social Life Cycle Assessment ............................................. 64 Life Cycle Cost Assessment (LCCA) ................................................................................. 64 Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) .............................................................................. 66 Discussion: LCA in Sustainable Development Planning ......................................................... 69 Rating and Ranking Methods in Multi -S takeholder contexts .................................................. 71 Rating or Scores ................................................................................................................... 71 Ranking ................................................................................................................................ 72 Paired Comparison Analysis (PCA) ................................................................................... 72 Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) .................................................................................. 73 Multi a ttribute Utility Theory (MAUT) ............................................................................. 74 Simple Multi -A ttribute Rating Technique (SMART) ....................................................... 75 Summary of Methods .......................................................................................................... 75 Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 76 3 METHODOLOGY AND PROCED URES ............................................................................... 79 Concepts ....................................................................................................................................... 79 Life Cycle Thinking and Assessment ................................................................................. 79 Levels of Service ................................................................................................................. 80 Unbundling Levels of Service ............................................................................................ 81 Methodological Framework: Modifications and Features ........................................................ 82 Goal and Scope Analysis ..................................................................................................... 83 Inventor y and Impact Analysis ........................................................................................... 85 S takeholder -Based L ife C ycle A ssessment (SBLCA) Framework in Integrated Planning Approach .................................................................................................................................. 87 Rating and Ranking Method ....................................................................................................... 92 Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 96 4 CASE STUDY AND METHOD APPLICATION ................................................................... 99 Background of Case study .......................................................................................................... 99 Overview of Post T sunami Reconstruction ....................................................................... 99 Scope of Pilot Field Study................................................................................................. 104 Application of SBLCA Methodology ...................................................................................... 111 Case S tudy Examples in Option Analysis and Strategizing for Implementation .......... 133 Indicator Development and Data Sources ........................................................................ 146 Application of the Rating and Ranking Method ..................................................................... 153 Complementary Methods and Tools Used in th e Study ......................................................... 160 Systems Assessment Tool in Understanding Current State and Formulating Options 160 S pider -W eb Tool for Graphical Presentation ................................................................... 167 Appreciation Influence Control ( AIC ) Framework to Support Prioritizing Issues for Action ............................................................................................................................. 168 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 168
7 5 APPLICATION IN OTHER PLANNING CONTEXTS ....................................................... 170 Integrated Watershed Management .......................................................................................... 170 Background of Problem ..................................................................................................... 170 Planning Scales and Recommended Action ..................................................................... 175 Application of the Planning Process ................................................................................. 177 Application of SBLCA ...................................................................................................... 178 Application of SBLCA at Watershed Scale ..................................................................... 179 Application of SBLCA at other Planning Scales ............................................................. 189 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 191 6 DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 193 Discussion and Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 193 Application of SBLCA in Post D isaster Development Planning ................................... 193 Application of SBLCA in Integrated Watershed Management ...................................... 197 Evaluation of SBLCA ........................................................................................................ 200 Simple Rating and Ranking Method ................................................................................ 204 Recommendations and Future Work ........................................................................................ 208 SBLCA Method Improvements ....................................................................................... 209 Rating and Ranking Method Improvements .................................................................... 211 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 212 APPENDIX A DEVELOPMENT I NDICATORS ........................................................................................... 213 B TSUNAMI HOUSING SUPPORT PROJECT ....................................................................... 216 C SRI LANKA COUNTRY PROFILE .................................................................................... 218 D UNAWATUNA PILOT FIELD STUDY DOCUMENTATION .......................................... 225 E ANALYSIS OF WATER SUPPLY IN UNAWATUNA ....................................................... 248 F ANALYSIS OF WASTEWATER IN UNAWATUNA ......................................................... 251 G BLACK AND GREY WASTEWATER TREATMENT ....................................................... 253 H COST ANALYSIS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT OPTIONS .................................. 264 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 277 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........................................................................................................... 291
8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Comparison of assessment methods in multi -stakeholder contexts .................................... 52 2 2 Product based life cycle inventory databases and descriptions ........................................... 57 2 3 Commonly used life cycle impact assessment methodologies and their descriptions ....... 60 2 4 EIO LCA databases and their descriptions .......................................................................... 62 2 5 Comparison of rating and ranking methods in multi -stakeholder contexts ........................ 76 4 1 Evaluation of the quantitative, semi -quantitative and qualitative indicators for activities related to the three pre -existing levels of service for water infrastructure in a tsunami affected village in Sri Lanka. ............................................................................. 119 4 2 Evaluation of the quantitative, semi -quantitative and qualitative indicators for activities related to the three pre -existing levels of service for wastewater infrastructure in a tsunami affected village in Sri Lanka. ................................................. 129 4 3 Quantitative data and net savings for two proposed piped water supply options ............ 136 4 4 Optional levels for black and grey water disposal ............................................................. 138 4 5 Summary of indicators for analyzing the options for improving the wastewater issue ... 143 4 6 Main indica tor categories used ............................................................................................ 147 4 7 The data sources ................................................................................................................... 148 4 8 Detailed steps of indicator development with stakeholder and expert contributions of data compilation for the water supply example .................................................................. 149 4 9 Detailed steps of indicator development with stakeholder and expert contributions of data compilation for the wastewater discharge and treatment ex ample ........................... 151 4 10 Step 1: Assign weights and rank indicators related to current water supply levels ......... 155 4 11 Step 2: Assign scores and rank current water supply levels based on the weighted scores ..................................................................................................................................... 156 4 12 Step 1: Assign weights and rank indicators related to proposed water treatment options ................................................................................................................................... 157 4 13 Step 2: Assign scores and rank proposed water treatment options based on the weighted scores .................................................................................................................... 158
9 5 1 A palachicola C hattehoochee -F lint Basin snapshot. .......................................................... 171 A 1 Economic indicators ............................................................................................................. 213 A 2 Social indicators ................................................................................................................... 214 A 3 Environmental indicators ..................................................................................................... 215 C1 General overview of economic, social, and country indicators ........................................ 220 C2 Sustainability issues in housing reconstruction .................................................................. 224 D 1 Feature/Characteristics of the distinct areas in Unawatuna ............................................... 227 D 2 Issues identified in Unawatuna Area .................................................................................. 245 E 1 Water energy, costs, and CO2 emission data ...................................................................... 248 E 2 Well -water supply breakdown in the community .............................................................. 248 E 3 Expected piped -water connections in the community ....................................................... 248 E 4 Water supply and consumption data in the community ..................................................... 248 E 5 Option1: P iped -water supply only for households with no wells ..................................... 249 E 6 Option 2: P iped -water supply only for all households ....................................................... 249 E 7 Consumption, energy, costs, and CO2 releases .................................................................. 249 F 1 Wastewater release data ....................................................................................................... 251 F 2 Current wastewater discharge breakdown in the community ............................................ 251 F 4 Expected wastewater increase with piped -water connections for all units in the community ............................................................................................................................ 252
10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Environmental Sustainability as a key goal under the MDGs with direct interlinks to achieving other development goals and targets .................................................................... 37 2 2 The triple bottom -line framework for designing and constructing for sustainability ........ 37 2 3 SETAC frameworks for Life Cycle Assessment .................................................................. 54 2 4 ISO 14040 framework for Life Cycle Assessment .............................................................. 55 2 5 An example list of mid -point and end -point LCIA categories ............................................ 58 2 6 Midpoint and endpoint SLCA impact categories ................................................................ 68 3 1 Interlinked elements for maintaining current or targeted level of services ........................ 82 3 2 The life cycle thinking approach, e.g., chaining upstream and downstream of water issue ......................................................................................................................................... 83 3 3 Schematic view of conventional and stakeholder -based life cycle assessment illustrating their similarities and differences ........................................................................ 84 3 4 Upstream downstream activity chaining and boundary of analysis ................................... 85 3 5 Unbundling a level of service ................................................................................................ 87 3 6 Lifecycle thinking with levels of service and unbundling activities applied to integrated assessment of water supply, water use, and water disposal in a tsunami affected village in Sri Lanka. ................................................................................................. 88 3 7 Where the decision framework can fit in a planning approach ........................................... 89 3 8 Illustration of the rating and ranking-based decision tool for summarizing option performances .......................................................................................................................... 95 4 1 Summary statistics on damages due to Tsunami in Sri Lanka .......................................... 100 4 2 Example integrated planning scenario for developing joint programs and projects in post disaster redevelopment ................................................................................................. 103 4 3 The case -study location in Sri Lanka .................................................................................. 105 4 4 Strategy developed for capacity development for local officials and scope of the research assignment ............................................................................................................. 107
11 4 5 The planning process suggested in General Guidelines for post tsunami reconstruction in Sri Lanka .................................................................................................. 109 4 6 Planning steps adopted at the Unawatuna case -study ........................................................ 110 4 7 Activity chaining and unbundling the primary activities mapping the respective stakeholder involvement regarding the provision of water through a common well ....... 113 4 8 Unbundling the primary activities and the respective economic, social, and environmental indicators regarding the provision of water through a common well ...... 114 4 9 Activity chaining and unbundling the primary activities mapping the respective stakeholder involvement regarding the provision of water through a common tap. ........ 115 4 10 Unbundling the primary activities and the respective economic, social, and environmental indicators regarding the provision of water through a common tap. ....... 116 4 11 Activity chaining and unbundling the primary activities mapping the respective stakeholder involvement regarding the provis ion of water through an individual piped connection. ................................................................................................................. 117 4 12 Unbundling of the activities and the respective economic, social, and environmental indicators regarding the provision of water through an individual piped connection. .... 118 4 13 Unbundling the activiti es and the respective stakeholder involvement with grey water discharged to the households own plot of land. ...................................................... 121 4 14 Unbundling the activities and the respective economic, social, and environmental indicators regarding grey water discharge within a households own plot of land. ......... 122 4 15 Activity chaining and unbundling the primary activities mapping the respective stakeholder involvement for grey and black water discharged to surface drainage canal ...................................................................................................................................... 123 4 16 Unbundling the primary activities and the respective economic, social, and environmental indicators regarding discharging grey and black water to a surface drainage canal. ...................................................................................................................... 124 4 17 Activity chaining and unbundling the primary activities mapping the respective stakeholder involvement with grey and black water discharged to central wastewater treatment plant. ..................................................................................................................... 125 4 18 Unbundling the primary activities and the respective economic, social, and environmental indicators regarding discharging grey and black water to a central wastewater treatment plant. ................................................................................................. 126 4 19 Activity ch aining and unbundling the activities mapping the respective stakeholder involvement for grey and black water discharged to two chambered septic tank. .......... 127
12 4 20 Unbundling the activities and the respective economic, social, and environmental indicators regarding discharging grey and black water to a two -chambered septic tank. ....................................................................................................................................... 128 4 21 Activity chaining and unbundling the primary activities mapping the respective stakeholder involvement regarding the provision of water through individual piped water connections for all households without an existing well ......................................... 134 4 22 Unbundling the primary activities and the respective economic, social, and environm ental indicators regarding the provision of water through an individual piped connection for all households without an existing well .......................................... 135 4 23 Breakdown of the activities and the respective stakeholder involvement for constructing a conventional toilet with a septic tank and seepage bed for grey and black wastewater treatment ................................................................................................. 139 4 24 Breakdown of the activities and the respective economic, social, and environmental indicators regarding constructing a conventional toilet with a septic tank and a seepage bed for grey and black water disposal. ................................................................. 140 4 25 Unbundling the primary activities and the respective stakeholder involvement for constructi ng an Eco -sanitary toilet for grey and black wastewater treatment .................. 141 4 26 Unbundling the primary activities and the respective economic, social, and environmental indicators regarding constructing an Eco -sanitary toilet for grey and black wastewater treatment. ................................................................................................ 142 4 27 Illustration of village system ............................................................................................... 161 4 28 Activity Passivity matrix of the village water system ..................................................... 164 4 29 Activity Passivity Chart (System Grid) of the village water system` ............................. 165 4 30 A flow chart showing active and passive influences on wastewater ................................ 165 4 31 The village issues and the intensity of the issues identified by the stakeholders ............. 166 4 32 AIC Framework .................................................................................................................... 168 5 1 ACF wate rshed boundaries and the respective state boundaries ....................................... 173 5 2 Proposed integrated water management planning scales ................................................... 179 5 3 Activity chaining and unbundling the primary activities mapping the respective stakeholder involvement in dam operation in the ACF watershed ................................... 181 5 4 Unbundling the primary activities and the respective economic, social, and environmental indicators regarding dam operation during drought cycle (Minimum storage). ................................................................................................................................. 183
13 5 5 Unbundling the primary activities and the respective economic, social, and environmental indicators regarding dam operation during flood cycle (Maximum storage). ................................................................................................................................. 185 B1 THSP capacity building projects towards sustainable post tsunami reconstruction ........ 217 C1 Comparison of per capita GDP, electricity, and water consumption ................................ 222 C2 Comparison of per capita CO2 emissions per year and $GDP per ton of CO2 emissions ............................................................................................................................... 222 C3 Typical house design for low income families .................................................................. 223 D 1 Distinct areas in Unawatuna ................................................................................................ 226 G 1 Septic tanks in high water table conditions ........................................................................ 254 G 2 A typical conventional toilets structure .............................................................................. 255 G 3 Design details of a typical septic tank arrangement ........................................................... 256 G 4 Design details of a typical soakage pit arrangement .......................................................... 257 G 5 Design details of a typical seepage bed arrangement ........................................................ 258 G 6 Septic tanks in high water table conditions ........................................................................ 259 G 7 A Typical Eco -sanitary toilet structure. .............................................................................. 262 G 8 Design details of a typical Eco -san Toilet. ......................................................................... 263
14 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S ACF Apalachicola Chattahoochee Flint ADB Asian Development Bank AHP Analytical Hierarchy Process AHP Analytical Hierarchy Process AIC Appreciate Influence and Control ANSI American National Standards Institute BUWAL Swiss Agency for the Environment Forest and Landscape (Bundesamt fr Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft ) CAA Commonwealth Architects Association CAA Commonwealth Architects Association CAP Community Action Planning CBO Community-based Organization CIA Central Intelligence Agency CLAP Community Livelihood Development Planning CML University of Leiden Institute of Environmental Science ( Universiteit Leiden Centrum voor Milieuwetenschappen) CO2 Carbon dioxide CSEB Co mpressed Stabilized Earth Blocks DS District Secretary DSD Divisional Secretary EDP Energy Depletion Potential EDPI Environmental Design of Industrial Products EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIO LCA Economic Input and Output Life Cycle Assessment EPS Environment Priority Strategies
15 ESU ESU Services, Ltd. Switzerland ETH Swiss Federal Institute for Technology ( Eidgenssische Technische Hochschule) GDP Gross Domestic Product GN Grama Niladari (Village Officer) GNP Gross National Product GTZ German Te chnical Cooperation ( Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Technische Zusammenarbeit ) GWP Global Warming Potential HO Housing Officer HVAC Heating Ventilating Air conditioning IDEMAT Mechanical Physical F inancial and Environmental D ata of Delft University of Technology IDP Integrated Development Planning IFSP Integrated Food Security Program INGO International Non -profit Organization IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISO International Organization for Standards IVAM Interfaculty Environmental Science Department (Interfacultaire Vakgroep Milieukunde van de Universiteit van Amsterdam ) LA Local Authority LA21 Local Agenda 21 LCA Life Cycle Assessment LCC Life Cycle Cost LCCA Life Cycle Cost Assessment LCI Life Cycle Inv entory LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment
16 LCT Life Cycle Thinking LCT/A Life Cycle Thinking and Assessment MAUT Multi -Attribute Utility Theory MGD Millennium Development Goal MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology MPAHA Ministry of Public Administratio n and Home Affairs NAE National Academy of Engineering NAED National Academy of Environmental Design NAICS North American industry Classification System NAMEA National Accounting Matrix w ith Environmental Accounts NAS National Academy of Environmental S cience NHDA National Housing Authority NIST National Institute of Standards And Technology NSSI Natural and Social Science Interface NWSDB National Water Supply and Drainage Board O&M Operations and Management OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation And Development PAP Participatory Action Planning PCA Pair ed Comparison Analysis PHI Public Health Inspector PSTI Public Servants Training Institute QAS Quantitative Systems Analysis RA Risk Assessment RADA Reconstruction and Development Agency RRA Ra pid Rural Assessment
17 SBLCA Stakeholder -based Life Cycle Assessment SETAC Society of Environment Toxicology and Assessment SIA Social Impact Assessment SLCA Social Life Cycle Assessment SLHF Sri Lanka Heritage Foundation SLSI Sri Lanka Standard Institute SMART Simple Multi -Attribute Ranking Technique SMART Simple Multi -Attribute Ranking Technique TAFREN Taskforce for Rebuilding the Nation THSP Tsunami Housing Support Project TO Technical Officer TRACI Tool for Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Ot her Environmental Impacts EIO -LCA millennium development goal UDA Urban Development Authority UF University of Florida UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Program UNEP United Nations Environmental Program UNFAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization UPIT University of Pittsburgh US United States USA United States of America USDA United States Department of Agriculture USDOE CDIAC United States Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center UTC University of Ca pe Town
18 VDC Village Development Committee WB World Banka WHO World Health Organization WRI World Resource Institute
19 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment o f the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy STAKEHOLDER BASED LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: APP L ICATION IN MULTISTAKEHOLDER DECISION -MAKING CONTEXTS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION By Lanka Thabrew August 2009 Chair: Robert Ries Major: Design Construction and Planning According to the targets set for sustainability, integrating the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs is one of the main goals for development projects. A major challe nge in the development field is cross -sectoral integrated planning and achieving multi -stakeholder consensus for collaborative joint projects, especially when sustainability is a goal. This increases the complexity of the multi-stakeholder interaction in d ecision making and requires enhanced mechanisms for stakeholder participation, coordination, and commitment beyond narrow self -interest. A critical aspect in the decision making process is to enable stakeholders to not only interpret and make decisions bas ed on expert judgments, but also to appropriately involve the relevant parties in the research and decision making process. Therefore, scientific analyses in multi -stakeholder contexts have to be more transparent, participatory, and stakeholder -based in or der to provide useful information to assist in responsible decision making. This dissertation presents a stakeholder -based life cycle assessment (SBLCA) approach that can be used to support sustainable decision making in multi -stakeholder contexts. The fra mework is discussed and compared to other common methods used to support environmental
20 decision making in development projects. We argue that the fundamental concept of life cycle thinking can be effectively used to incorporate stakeholders in the research and decision making process which can lead to more comprehensive, yet achievable assessments in collaboration with stakeholders. Life cycle thinking is not just a way to examine environmental impacts of activities, but also a way to comprehend and visual ize a broader set of upstream and downstream consequences of decisions in development planning and implementation. The applicability of the framework is demonstrated using simple examples extracted from a pilot case -study conducted in Sri Lanka for sustai nable post tsunami reconstruction at a village scale. How the method could be potentially used in other planning situations is also demonstrated using an exemplary case -study on integrated watershed management. The applicability of SBLCA in specific planning stages, how it promotes transdisciplinary learning and cross -sectoral stakeholder integration in phases of project cycles, and how local stakeholders can practice life cycle thinking in their development planning and implementation are discussed. A par ticipatory rating and ranking method that can assist in organizing information from assessments and support consensus building among stakeholders is also introduced.
21 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Aim and Objectives of Research The aim of the research study is to investigate the applicability of life cycle thinking and assessment (LCT/A) in multi-stakeholder decision making contexts for sustainable cross -sectoral development planning and implementation, especially in developing country contexts. The specific objectives of the study include the following: identify key challenges in multi -stakeholder development contexts, and specific characteristics requir ed by the assessment methods to effectively address the challenges; develop a stakeholder based life cycle assessment (SBLCA) framework that facilitates cross sectoral integration; identify useful economical, social, environmental indictors under data sca rce situations to be used in the framework; identify planning stages where SBLCA can be applied; identify other complementary methods and tools that can be used along with SBLCA in development planning and implementation. Introduction to Research The Mille nnium Development Goals (MDGs) that were agreed upon at the United Nations Millennium Summit by nearly 190 countries established that the environment is a priority by making sustainability one of t he primary development goals (UN Millennium Project, 2005) The MDGs emphasized that environmental sustainability should be integrated into efforts towards achieving goals such as eradicating extreme poverty, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, and combating diseases like malaria. Therefore, accor ding to the targets set for environmental sustainability, integrating the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs is one of the main go als for development projects (UNEP, 2003) In addition, there is a clear need to reinforce the importance of environmental concerns in the entire
22 disaster management cycle of prevention, preparedness, assessment, mitigation and response, and to integrate environmental concerns into planning and i mplementation for relief, rehabilitation, reco nstruction and development (Berke et al., 1993; Berke and Campanella 2006). A major challenge in meeting sustainability goals is that in the development field, sectoral planning is still dominant over cross -se ctoral planning (UNEP, 2003) Cross -sectoral project integration is necessary to achieve sustainable development goals and therefore, improving stakeholder participation, coordination, and commitment beyond their narrow self -interests is required. Robust, participatory environmental decision making is an essen tial component in this process (University of Cape Town, 2006) In contemporary sustainable planning and policy, the paradigm is that the community is at the center of the process and the stakeholders, including the community, are empowered to influence and share control over development initiatives, decisions, and the resources affecting them (Allen and Kilvington 1999) In this context, science is challenged to work with the community and the respect ive stakeholders to enable them to identify and interpret broad environmental issues interlinked with economic and social aspects, and support decision making for long lasting development solutions within the communitys capacities (Van Asselt and Rijkens -Klomp, 2002). This has led to efforts to make scientific analyses, e.g., environmental assessment methods in multi -stakeholder contexts, more transparent, participatory, and stakeholder based in order to provide useful information to assist environmentally responsible decision making. Engaging stakeholders in responsible decision making is a key prerequisite for stakeholders to assume a greater role in the development process ( Kasemir 1999; Ravetz, 1999) A critical aspect in this process is to enable stak eholders to not only interpret and make decisions
23 based on expert assessments, but also to appropriately involve the relevant parties in the assessment process. From recent work, it has been established that the essential requirements for responsible stake holder involvement, i.e., stakeholders comprehend the problems and the alternative ways to address them, are: 1) conducting context -specific analyses including upstream and downstream effects of direct activities in order to establish broad levels of envir onmental quality and development, and 2) making information accessible such that the interpretation of the information by different stakeholders from different sectors and disciplines are understood to the great est extent by all stakeholders (UNEP, 2003; U niversity of Cape Town, 2006; Allen and Kilvington 2002; Weik, et al ., 2006) Typical environmental assessment methods such as Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Social Impact Assessment (SIA), Risk Assessment (RA), and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) are generally carried out for one client or one interested party to assist decision-making for sustainable or greener practices. In community development, sustainable planning promotes integration of programs which requires the commitment of a number of stake ho lders in different disciplines (Googins and Rochlin, 2002; Marsden and Bristow, 2000; Moss, 2004; ADB, 2005) For example, housing development and reconstruction in a disaster situation should be interlinked with relevant infrastructure, social service, and livelihood development to make the housing project sustainable in the long run (Slocombe, 2003). In multi -stakeholder contexts with different interests and priorities, the fundamental concept of life cycle assessment can be effectively used to incorp orate stakeholders in the assessment and decision making process, which can lead to more comprehensive, yet simple assessments together with the stakeholders. Life cycle thinking is not just a way to examine environmental impacts of activities, but also a way to comprehend and visualize a broader set of
24 upstream and downstream consequences of decisions in development planning and implementation. The ability to break down activities in life cycle stages with the flexibility to inventory economic, social, and environmental aspects can be very useful for stakeholders (Akai, 1999; UNEP -SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, 2006). A life cycle framework including the mapping of stakeholder involvement at each activity in upstream and downstream stages would give stakehold ers a holistic view of issues that they otherwise may not have. It could identify their specific roles in relation to the roles of other stakeholders, the resources required from stakeholders for each activity, and the costs and benefits of decisions. This approach is particularly suited for programs and projects that go beyond sectoral limits, which is a timely need in the development field and can potentially enable sustainable development by providing a basis for consensus building in joint programs and projects (Innes, 1996) Statement of Problem and Research Questions The research objective within this study is to experiment how the fundamental concepts of life cycle thinking can be used in multi -stakeholder decision-making for sustainable development planning and implementation. Especially in developing countries where data and information are not readily available, and often, most decisions are driven by short term economic aspects. The aspects of sustainability in the present context of development planning and implementation are examined. The application and modification necessary for life cycle thinking and assessment is investigated th r ough action research. The main research questions and sub -questions that are intended to be addressed in the study are as follows: 1 How should an expert -based tool like LCA be used in a multi -stakeholder decision making process such that environmental criteria are incorporated together with the economic, social, and cultural aspects that are inherent in sustainable dev elopment?
25 What are the key features of common methods of environmental decision making that can be applied in multi -stakeholder contexts? What are the ways in which they a) address different types of environmental impact and meet the requirements of differ ent stakeholders, and b) enable access to information by different stakeholders thereby narrowing their respective interpretation of the information? 2 How can the fundamental concepts in LCA be used to narrow down the different views and interpretations of stakeholders from different disciplines and build consensus on issues related to sustainable development? What are the specific modifications and improvements to conventional LCA that are required for this application in decision making in multi-stakeholde r contexts? What is the most appropriate form for the results generated? How is locally relevant data gathered and incorporated into an LCA -based tool? What decisions can be made even if the data is limited? 3 How can transdisciplinary knowledge be incorpora ted in a participatory multi -stakeholder decision making process using existing features as well as modifications to LCA? Where does an LCA -based tool fit into the decision process, specifically, which stage(s) and which stakeholders are involved? What is the nature of the expert -stakeholder interactions? What are the design and implementation aspects of the case studies? How can the economic and social impacts be quantified or qualified and incorporated together with the traditionally quantified environmental impacts in LCA? Rationale of Study Integrated development planning (IDP) is an approach to planning that involves all institutions1 in finding the best solutions for development. Usually, the IDP process results in a comprehensive development plan for a given area. It aims to co -ordinate the work of local and 1 Institutions can mean citizens/community, government officials local and international donors, etc., who should all be part of the participatory process
26 other government agencies, and donors in a coherent plan to improve the quality of life for the residents. It should take into account the existing conditions, the challenges, and the resources ava ilable for development. The plan should look at economic and social development for the area as a whole. It must set a framework for how land should be used, what and to what level infrastructure and services are needed, and how the environment should be protected (UN, 2002) For example, integrated settlement planning would include the following aspects: Identifying housing needs along with infrastructure, social services, livelihood and environment; Identifying all programs and projects in the areas note d above; Involving stakeholders including beneficiaries in the areas noted above; Committing resources for achieving development goals without compromising stakeholder capacities; coordinating actions across programs and projects. Even though the need for integration and the basic approach can be easily understood, realizing integrated planning in the field has been a challenge. For example, generally in communities, development programs such as sanitation livelihood improvement and micro finance are conducted independent ly Integrating these programs in a manner such that the livelihood improvement program trains local labor to be employed in the sanitation program and the micro -finance program creat es saving scheme s among the village households to promote local contributions to sanitation related construction can be understood as mutually beneficial. However, the uncertainties from relying on inputs and outputs of the other programs are critical barrier s to actually conducting them in an integrated manner. To overcome the uncertainties the individual program s have to consider additional planning and implementation measures that incur extra costs. The extra costs to overcome uncertainties are referred to as transaction costs. According to the new in stitutional economics, also known as institutional political economy, the
27 collaborative development program activities can be identified as transactions in imperfect markets (University of Southern California 19992000). There are t hree underlying factors that cause transaction costs and hence, affect integrated planning : (a) bounded rationality, (b) asset specificity and (c) opportunistic behavior ( Aoki 2008; Chen 2007; Deng 2007). These factors create uncertainties and transaction costs in engaging in int egrated planning and implementation of projects. T hese factors and effects are illustrated by the following examples related to reconstruction: Bounded rationality: Bounded rationality limits housing implementing stakeholders to develop an understanding only about housing. Affected by bounded rationality, housing stakeholders expect all other stakeholders to follow that same rationality. F or example, housing funding agencies operating in owner -driven reconstruction expect the affected households to concen trate on completing the house, irrespective of the needs and capacities of different households, without much knowledge of the future consequences of only providing a housing un it. Asset specificity: Asset specificity is the factor that makes the resource s of implementing and other stakeholders tied to specific activities, without concern for the changing requirements and priorities on the ground; for example, housing donor agencies cannot allocate resources to develop community infrastructure in owner -dri ven housing as funding is tied to the house units and the objective is to build as many housing unit s as possible in the shortest period of time. Opportunistic behavior: When stakeholders conduct themselves by only considering their own benefits and affect ing the opportunities and benefits of others, it is termed as opportunistic behavior; for example, housing sector stakeholders are focused only on completing donor -driven housing projects without considering the needs and aspirations of the communities.
28 In this, both coordinating and implementing stakeholders may conduct themselves opportunistically as the communities are not present at these sites to communicate their needs in resettling. The above factors affect integration in achieving common objectives for sustainability at three main areas: within divisions of stakeholder institutions; among the stakeholder institutions within a sector and among different sectors; implementing projects with multiple institutions. Developing an understanding of the pr esence of these factors in multi -stakeholder political environments and the way in which they affect the programs within and among the stakeholder institutions becomes a key requirement before development and implementation of integrated programs and proje cts. Hence, to make integration possible, a decision support framework for stakeholders to move beyond bounded rationalities, work through asset specificities, and minimize opportunistic behavior by explicitly understanding resource requirements and corres ponding benefits is needed (Wiek, et al. 2006) Challenges in participatory planning approaches : In many planning approaches, the ability to apply a systems thinking approach while recognizing the power structures within the system is limited and allocating sufficient resources, e.g., time and money, towards understanding the current system including the subtle connectivities of stakeholders and issues is quite limited. For example, often one issue is a priority for one segment of the community, while another stakeholder group has never viewed the issue from their perspective and therefore the issue is not a priority; an example of bounded rationality. Another group may turn a blind eye, because the same situation may be providing a benefit rather than a d isadvantage; an example of opportunistic behavior. This limited thinking and understanding always affects the entire life
29 cycle of the project, including the planning process and the subsequent integration required for implementation, unless common underst anding is created from the beginning of the planning process. Similarly, in formulating solutions, the stakeholders are not successfully integrated into the planning process, and as a result, do not participate in assessing the improvements and evaluating which alternatives would best meet their goals. Stakeholders are rarely provided with a clear picture of all the activities behind the proposed improvements both the nature of the activities and the short -term and long -term resource commitments that are required to implement them. For example, determining the appropriate level of improvement, including identifying the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs that would have to be provided by the community in the long term are often not identified, communicat ed, nor discussed at the planning stage. Therefore, improvements have often become failures. Hence, the challenge in integrated planning approaches is to combine appropriate concepts, decision support frameworks, and useful information analysis tools wit h effective soft skills to ensure active participation, sharing knowledge, structured discussion, and a negotiating and consensus process, which is focused on sustainable and implementable solutions that fit local contexts, without forgetting the political nature of multi -stakeholder environments. This dissertation outlines a life cycle assessment -based framework that can be used to support sustainable decision making in multi -stakeholder contexts. The framework is developed in a manner that it can be embe dded into participatory integrated planning processes. Under the literature survey, key global sustainable development initiatives and need for participatory knowledge sharing approaches for planning and implementation of sustainable development projects are investigated. How systems thinking and transdisciplinary learning can positively
30 contribute to design participatory approaches are further investigated. Three environmental assessment methods frequently used in project assessment, namely EIA, SIA, and R A, are reviewed. The strengths and weaknesses of these methods, including their adoption of participatory approaches, are evaluated relative to the needs in multi -stakeholder contexts. Traditional approaches for conducting LCA and their limitations are als o reviewed. Criteria are used to evaluate the methods applicability in a multi -stakeholder integrated development planning process, specifically for planning in a developing country context. Using the same criteria, a life cycle approach called Stakeholde r -based Life Cycle Assessment (SBLCA) is presented in an example case of post disaster reconstruction planning. Then, the application of the tool along with other supporting concepts and tools in a case -study conducted on village development planning in Sr i Lanka is presented. Application of the method in other planning situations is demonstrated using an exemplary case -study on Apalachicola -Chattahoochee -Flint wa ter shed management. Participatory ranking methods frequently used in development project assessment s are reviewed and a simplified method that can be used in multi -stakeholder integrated development planning process is discussed, especially that can suit community level development planning situations by the local experts. Summary The aim and the ob jectives of the research are to investigate the applicability of LCT/A in multi -stakeholder decision making contexts for sustainable cross -sectoral developme nt planning and implementation, especially in developing country contexts The research questions are mainly targeted at how to modify the technicalities of LCA to be integrated into integrated development planning process, and promote transdisciplinary learning among the stakeholders. According to the rationale of study, the env ironmental assessment method should be sufficiently simple and transparent to minimize different interpretations of information by the stakeholders
31 belonging to different sectors and disciplines to build consensus on collaborative action necessary for sust ainable development. T he fundamental concept of LCT/A can be effectively used to incorporate stakeholders in the assessment and decision making process, which can lead to more comprehensive yet simple assessments together with the stakeholders. It is not j ust a way to examine environmental impacts of activities, but also a way to comprehend and visualize a broader set of upstream and downstream consequences of decisions in development planning and implementation
32 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Sustainable De velopment Paradigm Sustainable development is related to a number of viewpoints, and hence, various definitions. However, all definitions of sustainable development require viewing the world as a system that contains finite amount of resources that connect s space and time (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2006). One of the key aspects of the definitions is to seek a balance between the basic need s of the people and the essential needs of the life supporting ecosystems. There are differen t viewpoints that development sounds the same as growth, and the term sustainable would hint no -growth. Addressing the above growth and no-growth concerns, distinctions are made between growth and development: while growth essentially suggests getting big ger, development can mean getting bigger and also, getting better (The Environmental Quality Board, 1998). Some of the well known articulations on sustainable development concepts are defined based on normative and positivist interpretations: normative me aning expressing a judgment about what ought to be, and positive meaning stating what is with no indication of approval or disapproval. The most widely used is the normative interpretation, which is expressed by the World Commission on Environment and Deve lopment (1987) as the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs. This statement is appealing to those who focus on the regenerative capacity of the environment as we ll as the parties who focus on the potential for the technological progress to adapt to changing conditions (Meppem and Gille, 1997). Another important view was expressed in Costanza (1994), stating that sustainability entails maintenance of 1) a sustaina ble scale of the economy relative to its ecological life support system, 2) a fair distribution of the resources
33 and the opportunities between the future generations, as well as between the agents in the current generation, and 3) an efficient allocation of resources that adequately accounts for the natural capital. Another argument is expressed by Goodland et al. (1991), shifting the emphasis towards increased efficiency and productivity of natural and cultural resources, suggesting that growth is not ess entially limited by the availability of resources, but on the sink functions such as absorption of wastes, for example greenhouse gases by the atmosphere, oceans, and the forests. Goodland et al. (1991) mentions that current development indicators such as gross national product (GNP) do not make allowance for cultural diversity, social cohesion, or improvements in environmental quality, and therefore, broader measures or indices are required to support a broader goal. The positivist interpretation of sustai nable development involves significant scientific findings on the degradation of the natural environment. The World Resource Institute (1994), Energy Information Administration (1993), and Wilson (1992) are among those important scientific publications in the recent past. This scientific evidence has contributed to gaining greater international political attention on the increasing environmental concerns related to development (Meppem and Gille, 1997). The United Nations Conference on Environment and Susta inability held in 1992 convening global political leadership in response to the above need is one of the significant milestones in initiating action for sustainable development. However, Ludwig et al. (1993) expresses that initiating necessary action and m easures to promote sustainable development is affected by the scientific consensus on the implications of human activity on natural ecosystems. Hutchocroft (1996) claims that scientific positivism cannot adequately address the political cultural issues con cerned when planning and designing action for sustainable development. Analyzing the above viewpoints and philosophical aspects of complex-
34 problem solving in the real world, Me ppem and Gille (1997) draws attention to prospects for inductive learning altern atives that are interactive, generate information, enable agents to learn and adapt as they go along, and encourage innovation and institutional change towards negotiating and achieving what is sustainable in a given system. Considering the above arguments, a sustainable community is broadly defined as a community that uses its resources to meet current needs while ensuring that adequate resources will be available for future generations. The communities do this by limiting wa ste, preventing pollution, maximizing conservation, promoting efficiency and developing local resources to generate a healthy local economy. In the broadest sense, a sustainable community resembles a living system in which all resources human, natural an d economic are interdependent and draw strength from each other (International Sustainable Development, 2006) Sustainable Development Programs Agenda 21 Agenda 21 is a program initiated by the United Nations on sustainable development. In Rio de Janeiro in 1992, at the U nited N ations Conference on Environment and Development also known as the Earth Summit, most of the worlds nations committed themselves to the pursuit of economic development in ways that would protect the Earth's environment and nonren ewable resources an d adopted Agenda 21 as a global plan to fulfill this commitment. The program was agreed to by 179 countries (UN, 2004). The full content of the Agenda was declared at the Earth Summit. The implementation of Agenda 21 was intended to involve action at international, national, regional and local levels. Some national and state governments have legislated or advised that local authorities take steps to implement the plan locally, as recommended in Chapter 28 of the document. Such program s are often known as 'Local Agenda 21' or 'LA21' (UN, 2004). According to Chapter 28, "e ach
35 local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations, and private ent erprises and adopt a local Agenda 21. Through consultation and c onsensus -building, local authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic, community, business and industrial organizations and acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies" The four main chapters of Agenda 21 include the following (UN, 2004): Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions including combating poverty, changing consumption patterns, population and demographic dynamics, promoting health, promoting sustainable settlement patterns and integrating environment and development into decisionmaking. Section II: Conservation and Management of Resources for Development including atmospheric protection, combating deforestation, protecting fragile environments, conservation of biological diversity ( biodiversity), and control of pollution. Section III: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups including the roles of children and youth, women, non -profit organizations ( NGOs ), local authorities, busine ss and workers. Section IV: Means of Implementation including science, technology transfer, education, international institutions and mechanisms and financial mechanisms. Chapter s 7, 8 35, 36, 37 and 38 of the Agenda 21 particular ly highlight the import an ce of integrated planning at local level s while simultaneously enhancing scientific understand ing and capacities for informed and collaborative decision-making and implementation (UN, 2004) It also emphasizes the need for improved participatory assessme nt methods and scientific knowledge sharing among the local communities, governmental and non-governmental organizations, and technical and academic institutions Millennium Development Goals United Nations Development Program (UNDP)s Millennium Developme nt Goals (MDGs) are eight development goals focused on reducing poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, while promoting gender equality, health, education and environmental sustainability (UN Millennium Project 2005 ). MGDs are formulated according to the targets and
36 action agreed at the United Nations Millennium Summit held in year 2000 by nearly 190 countries The eight primary goals are broken into twenty one quantifiable targets which are to be achieved by the yea r 2015. One of the significant aspects to observe in establishing these goals and targets is the explicit emphasis on environmental sustainability (MDG 7) and its direct interlinks in measuring economic development and social well -being (Figure 2 1). This was a major step towards promoting goal oriented environmentally sound sustainable development in the member countries. The MDG 7 targets include the following: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs and reve rse the loss of environmental resources Reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss Halve, by 2015, the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers According to the above target s, it could be noticed that sustainable urban settlement planning integrating the necessary urban services and economic opportunit ies with efficient use of environmental resources is a priority among the global development challenges. The Commonwealth Archit ects Association (CAA) document on infrastructure and MDGs, outline s a triple bottom line framework for designing for sustainab le settlements extracting relevant objectives set by the Agenda 21 (CAA, 2005) and it is illustrated in Figure 2 2. While the Millennium Development Project develops concrete action plans at the global level to achieve the time bound development targets, the individual countries are expected to draw country and local level policies, programs and projects to accomplish the global level action plans in Agenda 21.
37 Triple Bottom -line Framework Economic prosperity Social well -being Protect the atmosphere Enhance biodiversity Protect fresh water and groundwater Conserve land Support economic growth Change consumption and production patterns Environmental stewardship Add economic value Add social value Add environm ental value Respect local cultural heritage Engage the local community Provide education and training Strengthen healthcare Ensure equity Figure 2 1. Environmental Sustainability as a key goal under the MDGs with direct interlinks to achieving other development goals and targets Figure 2 2. The triple bottom line framework for designing and constructing for sustainability
38 Sustainable Settleme nt Development Agenda 21 is recognized as one of the first policy documents to address changing consumption and production patterns (Chapter 4) and to make reference to the role of the building sector in achieving sustainable development imperatives (Chapt er 7). It recogni z e s the causal relationship between resource use and benefits generated, and articulat es the need for new concepts of sustainable economic growth and prosperity. Chapter 7 of Agenda 21 is dedicated to promoting sustainable human settlement development. According to Chapter 7 Section 4, human settlement objectives are outlined as: I mprove the social, economic and environmental quality of human settlements and the living and working environments of all people, in particular the urban and rur al poor. I mprovement should be based on technical cooperation activities, partnerships among the public, private and community sectors and participation in the decision making process by community groups and special interest groups such as women, indigenou s people, the elderly and the disabled. The approaches should form the core principles of settlement strategies taking fully into account their soci al and cultural capabilities. The program areas included in Chapter 7 Section 4 include : Pro viding adequate shelter for all. Improvi ng human settlement management. Promoting sustainable la nduse planning and management. Promoting the integrated provision of environmental infrastructure such as water, sanitation, drainage and so lid -waste management. Pro moting sustainable energy and transpor t systems in human settlements. Promoting human settlement planning and mana gement in disaster -prone areas. Promoting sustainable co nstruction industry activities. Promoting human resource development and capacity -building for human settlement development
39 Some key point s regarding necessary action for promoting the integrated provision of environmental infrastructure commonly termed as urban environmental services as given in Section 4.D in Chapter 7 is as follows: An integrated approach is necessary to the provision of environmentally sound infrastructure in human settlements. It is an investment in sustainable development that can improve the quality of life, increase productivity, reduce diseases and i mprove health. Developing countries should be assisted at the national and local levels in adopting an integrated approach to the provision of urban services, and external funding agencies should ensure that this approach is applied in particular to enviro nmental infrastructure improvement in informal settlements based on regulations and standards that take into account the living conditions and resources of the communities to be served. Policies need to aim at recovering the actual cost of infrastructure s ervices, while at the same time recognizing the need to find suitable approaches to extend basic services to all households. In promoting the integrated provision o f environmental infrastructure, research should be conducted in the area of integrated polic ies of environmental infrastructure programs and projects based on cost -benefit analysis and overall environmental impact, and identify methods of assessing "effective demand", utilizing environment and development data as criteria for selecting technology A wareness should be raised on approaches and benefits of the provision of environmental infrastructure facilities, especially among local community A cadre of professionals should be trained with adequate skills in integrated infrastructural service pla nning and maintenance of resource -efficient, environmentally sound and socially acceptable systems. Institutional capacities of local authorities and administrators should be strengthened for the integrated provision of adequate infrastructure services in partnership with local comm unities and the private sector. From the key points mentioned above, it is conceivable that for sustainable settlement development, local level integrated planning with the respective stakeholders in the center is a must. Scienti fic research within integrated planning should assess and create awareness on economic, social and environmental costs, benefits, and impacts.
40 Integrated Development Planning and Steps Toward Implementation In accomplishing global, national, and local lev el sustainable development targets, integrated planning at relevant strategic scales becomes an important aspect. Integrated development planning is expected to bring together economic, social, and environmental aspects of development issues and solutions and the actors across sectors responsible to a common planning forum (Geyer, 2006). The term integrated means a) to combine parts as a whole, b) to consider all aspects of issues, c) to look into all the circumstance that may affect a project or a plan in a holistic manner, and d) to coordinate stakeholders from all respective sectors. The term development in local contexts means a process that improves the quality of life of the community and enhances opportunities and choices for growth. Planning helps a local community to envision the direction of growth and balance of the new development with the societal and ecological capacities and constraints (Cape Town Gatewat 2007 ; Geyer, 2006). Hence, integrated planning essentially needs to utilize participatory approaches, where the communities and the stakeholders become key playe rs in decision making and take ownership of their decisions. The integrated planning processes typically take the stakeholders through a sequence of planning steps to insure that the d evelopment interventions are financially viable, realistically achievable and sustainable in the long run. The steps essentially include the following (Cape Town Gateway 2007 ; Weik, 2006): Understanding sustainable development concepts, principles and goals: this step is for the stakeholders to identify aspects of sustainability, concepts and principles related to their local context and to be prepared to assess the current state of issues a nd needs in a community or a region in forming a shared vision. Assessing the current state: this step is for the stakeholders to identify and analyze the current issue and interconnectivities in a community system, the distance to targets, and possible ca uses and effects of implementational gaps. Prioritizing issues: this is to prioritize issues or needs for the communities or the regions, as all issues could not be addressed at once due to various reasons such as resource constraints,
41 institutional incapa cities, lack of technical knowhow, and political barriers. The prioritizing of issues or needs is usually done based on logical criteria with a thorough understanding of the current status of issues and needs. Formulating options: this step is to identify and build on plausible options and scenarios to address the prioritized issues, so that stakeholders would be able to envision their future options and effects of choices. Assessing options: this step is for the stakeholders to interactively negotiate and agree on which options are viable, sustainable, and beneficial under the local opportunities and constraints. Strategizing options: this is to identify specific tasks, responsibilities, resource contributions and timelines for implementation. Evaluation a nd monitoring: this step is integrated with all of the above steps and beyond to track whether the action is moving according to the plan, and if not to take corrective action as necessary to achieve the intended goals. Integrated planning is incremental a nd cyclic, i.e., the above steps need to be repeated and readdressed as the communities progress with their development and as action changes current conditions. The current conditions need to be revisited to address further issues and challenges. Within t he above steps in a planning process, various assessment methods, frameworks, and tools are applied to support informed decisions and consensus building towards sustainable action. However, as discussed in Chapter 1, realizing integrated planning is found to be a challenging task in the field. Sectoral planning is still dominant over cross -sectoral planning. This is due to the uncertainties and resulting transactions costs related to one program relying on another to conduct cross -sectoral integrated progr ams (University of California, 19992000; UNEP, 2003). There is limited understanding about the factors that affect integrated planning, namely bounded rationalities, asset specificities and opportunistic behavior s, which are described in detail in the pre vious chapter, and hence, limited decision support framework s for stakeholders to move beyond bounded rationalities, work through asset specificities, and
42 minimize opportunistic behavior by explicitly understanding resource requirements and corresponding b enefits (Wiek, et al. 2006) Systems T hinking in M ulti -S takeholder P lanning A system is generally defined as a collection of parts, or sub -systems which are integrated to accomplish an overall goal or a defined objective (Boyed, 1998) If one part of the system is changed, the nature of the overall system is often changed. Systems thinking is recognized as an effective approach to assess and visualize the links, interdependencies, and interactions of a given system. It is also a way of viewing systems fro m a broad perspective that includes seeing overall structures, patterns and cycles in a system, rather than seeing only specific events in the system ( Pegasus Communications, 2004) This broader view is intended to help identify the underlying causes of is sues in a system and understand which elements to focus on in order to identify and implement solutions effectively. Based on this approach, a variety of principles and tools for the purpose of analyzing and changing systems have evolved. In development pl anning contexts, systems thinking tools serve as a participatory learning tool where key driving forces, interconnectivities and level of interdependencies of a current issue or future transition can be identified and visualized (Meppem and Gille, 1997; Sc holz and Tietje, 2002; Wiek, 2006b; Lang, 2006). They can also explore economic, social, and environmental dimensions interrelated in a system. However, systems thinking covers a snap shot of dynamics of a current system or a future transformed system. It may not investigate the upstream and downstream elements which may fall outside a system (for example, external sand mining for housing construction within a village system), but yet need to be considered. Furthermore, in multi -stakeholder development con texts, where the decisions are often negotiated weighing costs and benefits, the system thinking based tools do not usually provide a framework for eliciting those cost and benefit indicators and structuring interlinked upstream and downstream elements for negotiating and
43 strategizing implementable solutions. The current method s c ould still be very useful depending on the planning stage and context. Transdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinary Learning In the integrated development planning paradigm, engaging relevant stakeholders including the communities belonging to multiple disciplines and sectors is an essential element. The knowledge and experience brought in to the planning process by the stakeholders are diverse, and often, the ways of framing and under standing development related issues depends on their knowledge, expertise and experience. In such a planning exercise getting the stakeholders to common ground by exchanging and building up on each others knowledge and expertise becomes a valuable first step towards responsible decision making towards collaborative action. The process of exchanging, generating, and unifying knowledge among experts, practitioners and stakeholders in a given context is broadly termed as transdisciplinary learning (Klein, 20 01). However, the term transdisciplinarity, where the transdisciplinary learning concept has evolved, have different, yet related definitions. The present day researchers have developed various strategies to adapt the aspects of transdisciplinarity for l earning and planning for addressing and solving complex real world problems (M ller et al., 2005; Sholz et al., 2006; Luks and Siebenhnerb, 2007; Walter et al 2007). Under the topic of the future of transdisciplinarity, Lawrence and Desprs (2004), attempts to discuss what is transdisciplinarity by drawing together the contributions from some key theorists who have contributed to its emerg ence as a new way of looking at the relationship between knowledge, science and society. The argument for the need for transdisciplinary approaches that go beyond inter or multi disciplinary research is expressed highlighting the fact that natural sciences such as physics, architecture, engineering, economics, sociology, biology, or law, individually or in combination is non -comprehensive and insufficient in dealing with the
44 increasingly diverse societal conditions and challenges in human -made environments (Lawrence and Desprs ). In fact, human societies today need to deal with diverse sets of interrel ated problems that are not confined within conventional disciplinary boundaries or sectoral professional prac tice (Sholz et al., 2001, Klein, 2004; Pinson, 2004). Hence, transdisciplinarity is expected to expand the horizons beyond the academic disciplines or the sectors of the society by involving the scientists, professionals, policy decision -makers, interest groups and communities who have a stake in taking action for solving real world multi -dimensional problems. The key common messages extracted from Lawrence and Desprs (2004) and Klein (2004), in t ransdisciplinarity and approaches adapted by various theorists can be summarized as follows: It deals with research problems and organizations that are defined from complex and heterogeneous domains Knowled ge production is hybrid in nature (nonlinear and reflexive) transcending any academic disciplinary structure and sectoral professional practice It accepts local contexts, uncertainty, and context specific negotiation of knowledge Transdisciplinary knowledge is the result of inter -subjectivity It includes practical reasoning of the individuals Transdisciplinary research is often action oriented, frequently deal with real -world topics, and generate s knowledge that not only address societal problems but also contribute s to their solution One of its aim s should be understan ding the actual world and bridging the gap bet ween the research world and societal practice s Transdisciplinary research should not be limited to applied knowledge, but should be open to integrate theoretical developments In practicing transdisciplinarity, according to Lawrence and Desprs (2004), the obstacles that need to be dismantled due to the limitations of expert -based disciplinary thinking are summarized as follows:
45 O ntological frameworks that do not embrace the complexity of the natural and human -made environment; E pistemological positions that value rational, utilitarian approaches to interpret the layout, use and management of human and natural ecosystems; S pecialization, segmentat ion and bureaucratization of knowledge and expertise; Lack of transfer and communication between professionals, polit icians, interest groups and communities Bruder (1994) describes the requirements within transdisciplinary approach es O ne of the key requirements is that team members share roles and cross disciplinary boundaries systematically. The primary purpose of this requirement is to pool and integrate the expertise of the team members so that more efficie nt and comprehensive assessment can be e volved in the process The form of communication in these team s involves continuous giv e and take among all the members on a regular and planned basi s. Teaching, learning, and working together to accomplish a common set of goals and targets are an essentia l part of the process. Transdisciplinary researchers are also required to understand the nature of the disciplines and their under ly ing assumptions in order to integrate, translate, and implement research transcending, yet respecting, established tradition s. Specific training is required by the researchers to collaborate effect ively with the multidisciplinary and cross -sectoral partners. Meppem and Gill (1997) bring out the need to identify sustainable development as a learning process. The learning process is expected to be facilitated by a debate among the actors with vested interests, ideologies and perceptions, as opposed to a top -down, expert -driven and certainly less learning -oriented decision -making process, which tends to ignore intangible and non -quantifiable, yet important societal aspects. Their observations also bring out the key imperatives in participatory processes and direct contributions from transdisciplinary learning integrated with participatory planning processes. As issues in sustainable development
46 encompass disciplines and sectors, developing solutions should be envisaged to go beyond disciplines. In such planning processes, sustainable and effective solutions evolve with knowledge integration and continuous learni ng among the responsible actors. Learning promotes reasons for action. Also, learning helps to understand different viewpoints and dimensions on the same issues, which may otherwise fail to be recognized by the respective parties. Hence, it can be conclude d that transdisciplinary learning can potentially become an integrated element in participatory planning approaches that enhance broader objectives of consensus building for action and deliberations towards sustainable development. However, in light of ass essing transdisciplinary learning as an inclusive element i n sustainable development research Klein et al. (2001) points out certain flaws or limitations related to the knowledge generated in such processes. One of the points is that an integral knowledge produced in a transdisciplinary process does not conform to the ideal of scientific knowledge as universal, explanatory, and proven. Hence, the quality and the robustness of the new knowledge produced could be questioned in relation to the strict norms in the distinct disciplines. Participation fallacy, which is defined as having biases that affect the facilitation of a mutual learning process, is considered as another flaw. Whether the facilitators are ready for a mutual learning process with sufficient f lexibility and fairness to the new knowledge, and how comfortable they would be with the knowledge generated that goes beyond a single discipline and may not be as robust as discipline specific analyses in natural sciences, could also affect the results of a transdisciplinary process. Another key point that can be brought into focus is that transdisciplinary research does not necessarily adopt one method. There are several different methodologies adopted for information generation, knowledge integration, an d consensus building for behavioral and institutional changes for useful action towards sustainability by the
47 relevant actors in the relevant disciplines and sectors Whether these methodologies, which may be chosen depending on the context necessarily ac hieve the final goal of the process, and who wo uld decide on what methods are most suited and how it could it be justified are aspects still not explicitly and broadly discussed in transdisciplinary research practice. However the counter argument is that the attempt to facilitate subjective practices does not require hard and fast definitions. While these definitions may be useful for disciplinary application, making them a starting point in debate acts as a barrier to evolving civil society to address su stainable development (Memmpem and Gill, 1998). The outcome of this process in a nutshell is expected to be that people understand each other well enough that common goals are possible. It is described as a vision of democracy that involves those who wish to be involved and that recognizes that the highest expression of human rationality is not nuclear physics or econometric models but ordinary people speaking and reasoning together on issues of common concern (Yankelovich, 1991). Environmental Assessmen t Methods in Multi -S takeholder Planning Several different methods and tools for integrating sustainability aspects within a participatory approach have been developed based on impact assessment techniques such as EIA, SIA, and RA. While these tools vary in name and terminology, e.g., strategic environmental assessment, strategic impact analysis, participatory social impact assessment, participatory risk assessment, and integrated assessment, they each attempt to ensure that sustainability aspects are considered within the entire planning, programming and policy -making cycle (UNEP, 2003) In this context, integrated means the economic, social, and environmental aspects considered together. Even though the concepts, methodology, and application in practice vary, there is an overlap among the assessment methods in how sustainability aspects are integrated. As discussed above, in addition to integrating sustainability aspects, making methods useful for multi -
48 stakeholder collaboration and cross -sectoral integra tion in joint projects is a crucial aspect in sustainability planning. Hence, it is useful to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the above methods to examine how suitable they may be as a methodology or framework for multi stakeholder co-operation in developing joint projects and programs, especially where merging various interpretations and reconciling different sectoral objectives and priorities of stakeholders is important. EIA, SIA, and RA were evaluated using criteria developed from a review of the litera ture on integrated assessments (WB, 1991; UNEP, 2003; Becker, 2004; Grosskurth and Rotmans, 2005; Lee, 2005). The evaluation criteria are structured into two sections. Concerning methodological flexibility the following criteria are applied: 1) the method can adapt to data scarce situations (vs. full data sets); 2) the method considers a holistic view of the issues, including upstream and downstream consequences (vs. analysis limited to one or two obvious phases); 3) the method can deal with cros s -sectoral issues (vs. a single -sector focus) and highlight cross -sectoral inter -linkages; 4) the method allows for assessing all dimensions of sustainability (vs. one dimension of sustainability); 5) the method has the ability to assess alternative scenar ios (vs. status quo assessment); and 6) the method accommodates strategy building (vs. being limited to assessment only). Concerning stakeholder participation the following criteria is applied : 7) the method allows for stakeholder interaction at all stage s of the process; 8) the method promotes consensus building for joint projects; 9) stakeholders have transparent access to information so that they can examine the assumptions made and projected outcomes of decisions; and 10) the communication of results a nd impacts to the stak eholders is clear and easy ( Table. 2 1 ).
49 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) EIA is accepted as a method that can contribute to a richer conceptual understanding of sustainable development. Usually, local legislation and laws are co nsulted to determine whether an EIA is required to evaluate the impacts of the project. However, many stakeholders believe EIA perform s unsatisfactorily in practice (Benson, 2003; Sheate, 2003). The major criticisms of EIA are a limited consideration of alternatives, scientifically inadequate impact predictions, and the difficulties associated with involving stakeholders in a meaningful and productive manner as the analysis products do not lead to coherent interpretations (Shepard and Bowler 1997; Wood, 2003). Stakeholder engagement plays an important role in promoting learning among stakeholder groups. However, EIAs often appear to be overwhelmingly technical, the procedures are not transparent, and consequently it does not support building a consensu s around the outcomes of the analysis (Cashmore et al., 2004; Owens, 2004; Novek, 1995). Furthermore, EIA studies also entail difficult questions regarding system boundaries, i.e., integrating upstream and downstream activities when the study is limited to the local area. The ability to incorporate scenario and strategy development in addition to assessment is difficult and not intuitive. Many EIA applications are single -project based, involving only direct stakeholders. Indirect stakeholders and inter lin kages of activities are harder to represent. Hence, EIA is considered to be a good way to assess a selected project, but not as well suited to reducing uncertainty and transaction costs and achieving the commitment of multiple stakeholders in joint project s for sustainable development. Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Social Impact Assessment is usually carried out under traditional EIA legislation in order to assess the related social implications of a project. One of the main objectives of an SIA is analyzing how a project may affect people, and how a social change co uld be better managed
50 (UNEP, 2003). In some instances, SIA is carried out with a standalone method integrating economic and ecological aspects in the societal point of view (Akpofure and Ojile, 2003; UNDP China 2002). SIA typically includes a questionna ire -based survey and structured interviews. The questionnaire based survey is administered to the population that is directly impacted by the proposed project and the direct stakeholders in the project. The questionnaire -based survey may have a large number of modules including leadership surveys (for government and local bodies), small group surveys (for groups of stakeholders), household surveys (both urban and rural), and occupation -based surveys. Structured interviews of the population and the governing bodies are used to evaluate the social impacts that are anticipated by the stakeholders and those d irectly affected by the project (Landcare Research, 2003) Methodology in SIA is stakeholder -based, and in the UN definition, primarily limited to identifyi ng potential issues in a project. However, other researchers have defined SIA as having an initial phase that includes problem analysis and project design, and a main phase that includes scenario and strategy development, assessment of impacts, ranking of strategies, and evaluation ( Akpofure and Ojile, 2003). Similar to EIA, it is used for sectoral project -based analysis, and does not necessarily reduce uncertainty and transaction costs, nor does it facilitate achieving the commitment of multiple stakehold ers for joint project development. Risk Assessment (RA) Risk assessment is a principal step in a risk management process. RA typically involves measuring two quantities of risk : the magnitude of the potential loss and the probability of occurrence (Smith et al., 2000) In the estimation of risk, the two main steps are: 1) Hazard identification, which aims to determine the probab ility that an individual receiving a specific dose of the contaminant (chemical, radiation, noise, etc.) will develop an adverse effect; and 2) Exposure quantification, which aims to determine the amount of a contaminant (dose) that
51 individuals in a popula tion may receive. The results of the two steps above are combined to produce an estimated risk. Because of the different susceptibilities and exposures, this risk is expected to vary within a population. The methodology is tedious and context specific, yet in development projects, RA is used in a participatory manner involving the stakeholders. This is mainly in hazard identification rather than exposure identification, which is a highly technical and quantitative estima tion process involving experts (Fishe r 1991; Smith et al., 2001) RA is also a widely used tool among healthcare and policy agents in identifying potential risks in a community in a process that combines community and stakeholder judgment. It has limited usefulness in multi -stakeholder contex ts for enhancing knowledge and fostering stakeholder commitment (Fisher 1991; Andrews, 1999) At the end of the assessment, there is public involvement for feedback and comment, but since the analysis process is not very transparent, this step cannot easi ly merge different interpretations by stakeholders in different disciplines. RA typically has a narrow study focus, and does not facilitate incorporating upstream and downstream stakeholder inter -linkages. In addition, RA does not usually accommodate economic, social and cultural aspects, i.e., community needs and aspirations, in the analysis. RA methodology, therefore, is not a stand alone tool that could provide a holistic perspective of development issues, and incorporate necessary aspects of sustainabil ity for consensus building in cross -sectoral decision making and strategy development. Summary of Comparison of Environmental A ssessment M ethods The evaluation of these three methods indicates that multiple separate assessments, which would typically be pr oject based, would be required for an integrated sustainability assessment. Using multiple methods has led to increased complexity and dissimilar interpretations by the various stakeholders. Inherent limitations in the methodologies, especially for providing a holistic view of the issues and problems, motivated the current research and the development of a
52 technique which can accommodate transparent simplistic analysis, integrate sustainability aspects, stakeholder knowledge, and stakeholder participation throughout the planning process, and communicate results through easily understood indicators (Table 2 1 ). Table 2 1. Comparison of assessment methods in multi -stakeholder contexts Criteria Method EIA SIA RA 1. Adapt to data scarce situations Yes Yes To a limited extent 2. Consider holistic view of issues No No No 3. Deal with cross sectoral issues and highlight inter linkages To a limited extent To a limited extent No 4. Assess all dimensions of sustainability Yes Yes To a limited extent 5. Assess alternative scenarios To a moderate extent Yes To a limited extent 6. Accommodate strategy building No Yes No 7. Stakeholder involvement in all stages No Yes No 8. Promote consensus building To a moderate extent To a moderate extent To a limited extent 9. Transparent assessment and results To a limited extent To a moderate extent To a limited extent 10. Clear and easy communication of results To a limited extent To a moderate extent To a limited extent Life Cycle thinking and Life Cycle Assessment Background Life cycle thinking (LCT) is a concept that people use unwittingly in t heir daily lives (Boustead, 1996). A real life example is the decision to purchase an expensive, yet a durable and fuel efficient vehicle versus a cheaper alterna tive; the cost of operation, maintenance, and the secondary market price of the vehicle are intuitively factored into the decision making apart from the initial cost of the vehicle that reflects the production cost. In a similar sense, the earlier applica tion of the LCT concept has focused on the economic performance of products over their
53 life cycle phases such as production, use and maintenance, and end -of life options. The need to use LCT to assess environmental performance has evolved in the 1960s wit h modeling world resource systems and pollution levels at a broader scale (Boustead, 1996 ). At the time, those analyses were termed as energy and resource analysis. Over the years, similar kind of analyses were referred to as eco -balance eco -profile and cradle to grave analysis which essentially attempted to measure the energy and materials depletions, and resulting pollution levels (emissions) in a defined system (Boustead, 1996 ; Udo de Haes 2007). In broader terms, LCT is referred to as a qualitative framework to assess and understand systems. Often, in an industrial context, LCT brings out the important questions such as What are the systemic impacts of an industrial action or process? If certain actions are taken, what are the resulting consequence s throughout the supply chain and beyond to natural systems?, considering the fact that natural and man-made systems are inseparable. LCT does not produce easy answers, but it does provide a framework to recognize and understand complex systems and their interrelationships (Leflar, 2008). On the other hand, LCA is referred to as rather a quantitative tool used to develop partial answers to the questions posed by LCT. Process -Based Life Cycle Assessment The term life cycle assessment and the first appr oach to conduct LCA was officially agreed at the first Society for Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) conference involving 54 of the practitioners in the field held in Vermont, USA in 1990. The first approach of conducting LCA was termed as process -based LCA referring to itemizing the inputs (materials and energy resources) and the outputs (emissions and wastes to the environment) along the phases of producing a product or a service. The important challenge addressed in this workshop was how to link the measu rable or estimated input and output processes of industrial systems to the resulting environmental impacts which is widely unknown (SETAC, 1991). The first technical
54 framework for conducting Process -based LCA was developed at the above conference. It inclu ded three distinct phases to address the above challenge. The illustration of the first SETAC LCA framework, also known as the SETAC triangle is given in Fig. 2 3 -A. The description of the three phases is as follows: The inventory phase : provide a detailed description of the inputs of energy and raw materials into the system and the outputs of solids, liquids and gaseous wastes from the system. The interpretation phase : provide inventory results that are linked to identifiable environmental problems. The im provement phase: provide the system modifications in some way in an attempt to reduce the environmental impacts. In 1992, at the Leiden workshop, this triangle was modified as shown in Fig. 23 B introducing the goal definition, scoping and impact assessme nt explicitly into the framework. Figure 2 3. SETAC frameworks for Life Cycle Assessment (SETAC, 1991). A) 1990 First version. B) 1992 Modified version. SETAC LCA Triangle, 1990 Improvement Analysis Impact Analysis Inventory SETAC Triangle, 1990 Improvement Assessment Impact Assessment Inventory Goal Definition and Scoping
55 Standards for Life Cycle Assessment In 1997, with the inputs from SETAC World Congress in Vancouver, 1995, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) introduced the national and international standards for LCA with the ISO 14040 environmental management series. In ISO terms, LCA is a compilation and evaluation of t he inputs, outputs, and the potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle (ANSI / ISO 1997). A network of national standards institutes from 146 countries developed a standard set of guidelines (ISO14040) for conducting LC A studies. It includes 1) goal and scope definition, 2) life cycle inventory (LCI), 3) life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), and 4) interpretation phases. The four phases of the ISO 14040 framework are illustrated and defined in Fig ure 2 4. Figure 2 4. ISO 14040 framework for Life Cycle Assessment T he descriptions of the above conventional phases of the assessment are as follows: Interpre tation Life Cycle Impact Assessment Goal and Scope Definition Life Cycle Inventory
56 Goal and Scope definition: specifying the reason for conducting the study, intended use of study results, intended audience, boundaries for analysis, data requirement, functional unit on which material and energy consumption data are allocated, and study l imitations. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI): collecting, validating and aggregating input and output data to quantify material use, energy use, environmental discharges, and waste associated with each life cycle stage. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA): using impact categories, category indicators, characterization models, equivalency factors, and weighting values to translate an inventory into potential impact on human health and the environment. Interpretation: assessing whether results are in agreement with defined goals and scope, providing an unbiased summary of the results, defining significant impacts, and recommending methods for reducing material use and environmental burdens. Inventory Databases and Impact Methods In t ypical LCA assessments for energy and material analysis, the boundaries include the typical life cycle phases such as 1) material extraction, 2) manufacturing, 3) transport, 4) use and maintenance, and 5) endof -life disposal as depicted in Figure 2 3. Defining the boundaries in terms of which unit processes to be included and which emissions to be measured is a subjective task depending on the nature of the problem to be assessed. The emission inventories for unit processes are developed by a number of research groups worldwide. Some of t he commonly used inventory databases are summarized in Table 2 2. These databases are developed using direct industry data or published research data particular to a geographic region. The inventory categories and how the emissions are measured or modeled can be different from one database to the other, i.e., emission factors for similar unit process in different LCI databases could be substantially different. A collection of databases are available in software developed to build LCA process modules, and es timate respective emissions and resource depletions choosing appropriate databases, or inserting own databases from scratch (Pre Constantans, 1996 2009). The ecoinvent data v.2 of the Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories has compiled the available LCI d atabases from different parts of the world. It accommodates about 4,000 datasets for unit
57 processes often used in LCA case -studies harmonizing the terminologies, number of LCI categories, and energy and material allocation criteria (Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories, 19982009) Table 2 2. Product -based LCI databases and descriptions LCI databases Description e coinvent v2 Contains harmonized international and industrial life cycle data for nearly 4000 industrial processes. Developed by the Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. ETH ESU 1996 Includes 1200 unit processes and 1200 system processes related to transport, processing, and waste treatment. Developed by ETH ESU, Switzerland. BUWAL 250 Includes packaging materials, including data on packaging materials (plastic, carton, paper, glass, tin plated steel, and aluminum ), energy, transport and waste treatment. Developed by the Swiss Ministry of the Environment. IDEMAT 2001 Include s processed related to e ngineering materials, energy, transport. Developed by Delft Technical University, The Netherlands IVAM Includes data on materials, transport, energy and waste treatments, and focuses primarily on Dutch data. Developed by IVAM Environmental Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Franklin US LCI Includes North American inventory data for energy, transport, s teel, plastics, processing. Developed by Franklin Associates, USA. Some LCA studies are terminated at the inventory stage. Typically, the inventories are converted to environmental impacts or damages using several different methods usually based on numerous chemical fate and transport modeling methods. The fate and transport models are global or regional with different approximations on spatial, temporal and other model parameters. The impact modeling is conducted at mid -point or end -point (damage le vel). Figure 2 5 illustrates an example list of mid point i mpact and end -point categories given in Impact 2002+ (Jolliet et al., 2003)
58 Figure 2 5. An example list of mid-point and end -point (damage) LCIA categories Mid point impact modeling essential ly attempts to classify the hundreds of inventory categories into a few environmental issues of interest; global warming potential (GWP), acidification, aquatic toxicity, and ozone depletion potential are a few examples of mid -point LCIA (Figure 2 3). Mid -point LCIA characterization factors are developed to meet scientifically and internationally acceptable standards when possible. Some mid -point classifications such as
59 aquatic toxicity remain too complex to be modeled due to considerable parameter uncertai nti es and sensitivities ( Bare, 2000; Bare, 2006). End point impact modeling, also referred to as damage modeling, further classifies the mid -point impacts into a fewer damage categories such as human health, ecosystem health, damage to resources, and clim ate change (Figure 2 5). These were suggested as more relevant to and easy to interpret by the decision makers. However, for the scientific modeling for end -point impact factors, the assumptions and scientific data requirements are significant. Essential r isk factors for all inventory categories are not available, and hence, not all the inventory categories are included in the endpoint damage categories. The uncertainty in the end-point impacts is far greater relative to the mid -po int impacts (Bare, 2006). Commonly used LCIA methodologies are given in Table 2 3. One of the critical flaws in the past has been, when different LCIA methods are applied to the same inventory, the resulting impacts have led to different conclusions. The resulting choices can be significantly different according to the preferences. In the latest ecoinvent data v2.0, most of the current LCIA methods are compiled resolving such discrepancies to some extent. The impact categories are sometimes normalized and, or, weighted in order to assign a single score to the option or options in the evaluation. The normalization values vary in different impact methodologies. The weight combinations for impact categories vary depending on the subjective preferences and viewpoints of the stakeholder s. Economic -Input -Output Life Cycle Assessment Economic Input Output life cycle assessment (EIO LCA) is another approach for conducting LCA. The method development was initiated in the 1970s by the economist Wassily Leontief based on his earlier economic input -output theory developed in the 1930s. EIO LCA
60 Table 2 3. Commonly used LCIA methodologies and their descriptions LCIA Method Description Eco indicator 95 Eco indicator 9 9 Elaborates an endpoint approach for damage modeling. Developed by Pre Consultants, The Netherlands. CML 1992, CML 2 2000 Elaborates a problem oriented midpoint approach. Developed by Centre for Environmental Studies (CML), University of Leiden, The Netherlands. EDP Presents the creation of Environmental Product Declarations (EDP) following the recommendations of the Swedish Environmental Management Council. Developed by International EDP Consortium. EDIP 19 97 and 2003 EDIP7 Presents a midpoint approach while EDIP 2003 extends to spatially differentiated chara cterization modeling closer to a damage -oriented approach. Developed by Institute for Product Development, Technical University of Denmark. EPS 1996 and 2000 Adopts a damage modeling approach with c haracterization factors defined by location, size and te mporal occurrence. Developed by the Centre for Environmental Assessment of Products and Material Systems IMPACT 2002+ Links all types of LCI results via 14 midpoint categories to 4 damage categories. Developed by University of Michigan. IPCC 2001 Pres ents damage factors for emissions that contribute to climate change. Developed by International Panel on Climate Change of the World Meteorological Organization and by the United Nations Environment Program. TRACI Adopts a midpoint approach, defining characterization factors specific to the US. Developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency. method estimates the energy and material consumption and resulting environmental emissions in the economic sectors con sidering the entire economy as the boundary. In the mid 1990s, with the technology to solve large -scale matrices which represent nearly 500 sectors of the US economy, the researchers at the Green Design Institute of the Carnegie Mellon University operationalized Leontief's method for wider use by the LCA community (CMU Green Design Institute, 2009). EI O LCA methodology is developed as a user -friendly online web application. The underlying basic assumption in using economic -input -output matrix which reflects the economic value of the sectors of the economy to compute the amount of environmental
61 discharges in the economic sectors is that economic value of a sector and the resulting environmental emissions are linearly related. For example, $1 worth of product from a sector generates a certain amount of CO2 emissions, $10 worth of product from the same sector would generate 10 times the CO2 emissions compared to the previous case. An economic sector represents a collection of industry type s. Both economic and environmental data that are categorized by industry sectors using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) or other generic categories (e.g., the USDA categorizes farms by crop type). The industry sector data usually do es not directly map onto the matrix of economic sectors. The data is disaggregated and allocated to the appropriate economic sectors using weighted averages, information from data sources or other publications (Hendrickson and Horvath, 1998). EIO -LCA mo dels do not segregate the major imports and exports related transactions and resulting emissions into the input output matrix as the underlying theory is developed for a confined single economy. EIO LCA essentially generates an inventory of emissions corr esponding to the economic activities, i.e., change in demand in the sectors. When developing an LCA model, all the material and resource demands should be identified and related to an appropriate sector and a monetary value for demands should be assigned. This monetary value has to be expressed in the currency used in the economy discounted using appropriate economic index to the most recent or relevant economic year of the available EIO LCA model. The demand should be expressed as producer prices or consu mer prices as appropriate. When the demand is inserted to a relevant sector of the EIO LCA model, the results represent the increased economic and environmental output by all relevant sectors of the economy. These outputs for the most part are related to t he production phase; the use phase and end-of life phases are not directly included in the results. However,
62 additional analyses using the EIO LCA method can capture these life cycle stages (CMU Green Design Initiative, 2009). The EIO LCA models stop mai nly at the LCI stage, with the exception of greenhouse gas emissions taken to the midpoint impact stage and presented as GWP. The inventory categories are limited to economic activity, conventional air pollutants, greenhouse gas emissions, energy, toxic releases, and employment The inventory results of environmental emissions or resource consumption associated with the life cycle of an industry sector are not transformed to estimate the actual environmental or human health impacts from these emissions or c onsumptions. Currently EIO LCA models have been developed for the Netherlands, Denmark, and Japanese economies (Table 2 4). Table 2 4. EIO LCA databases and their descriptions EIO LCA databases Description US Input Output database Utilizes Input output table of 481 sectors of the US economy for 1998. Developed by Carnegie Mellon University, USA. Danish Input Output database Utilizes the Danish statistical data (NAMEA) for 1999. Developed by Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Dutch Input Output database Utilizes Input Output table of 105 economic sectors compiling data from 1973 to 1990 with foreign input output tables for the OECD and non OECD regions. Developed by 2. 0 LCA Consultants, Denmark. Japanese Input Output database Utilizes the Input Output table of 400 industrial sectors in Japan. Developed by the Environmental Technology Laboratory of the Corporate Research & Development centre of Toshiba Corporation, Japan. Canadian Input Output database Utilizes input output ta ble of 105 sectors of the Canadian economy for 2002. Developed by University of Toronto and Statistics Canada. German Input Output database Utilizes input output table of 58 sectors of the German economy for 1995. Developed by German Design Institute. Chinese Input Output database Utilizes input output tables of 122 sectors of the Chinese economy for 2002. Developed by National Statistics Bureau of China.
63 Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment Hybrid LCA is a methodology that combines the Process -based LCA and EIO -LCA where one methodology alone may not be adequate to reasonably model the life cycle consumptions, emissions, and impacts, or combination of methods could improve the relevance and i nterpretation of the results to a greater extent. For example, if a LCA is conducted to improve the environmental performance of a product line within a facility, a process -based LCA would be more useful. However, if broader decisions are need to be taken considering the entire supply chain of a product, then incorporating the EIO -LCA information would be meaningful to get an idea about consumptions and emissions to the other sectors. In conducting process -based LCA, the processes should be well defined to match the unit processes available in databases or other sources to generate the appropriate inventories. But in instances where the information on the specific processes is constrained or unavailable, it would be useful to generate generic inventories. H owever, when aggregating the inventories developed using the two approaches, care must be taken to do so meaningfully; for example, isolating the respective industry from the rest of the sector, extracting emissions from the sectors that match with the def ined boundary of analysis, and so forth. Limitations of Life Cycle Assessment Approaches The two main LCA approaches as described above are the process based LCA and EIO LCA. Both approaches have advantages as well as limitations in real life applications The major concern regarding process -based LCA is the tediousness in working through the hierarchy of processes included in a model boundary. The LCI results generated using available LCI databases may be approximations considering the spatial, temporal, and technological variations. When the boundary for analysis is larger, process -based LCA is criticized as time consuming, expensive, and the results are not transparent and harder to interpret. LCIA impacts involve large
64 amount of uncertainties and the da mage factors may not necessarily reflect real impact levels, and therefore decisions could not be based on single damage scores. The key limitations of EIO -LCA are the aggregation of industries into economic sectors which means that the results produced are generic to a sector. The uncertainty involved in the results is considerable due to the fundamental approximation of economic activity and environmental discharges as linearly related. Specific improvements to a product or service could not be directly judged, and further process -based modeling would be necessary to compliment EIO -LCA When imports and exports are predominant in a supply chain, the results may not adequately reflect the increased consumption and emissions from additional transportation and other logistics. Reviewing the methodological aspects and limitations, it could be understood that LCA studies adopting either approach could only develop partial answers to the issues in concern. LCA provides only an approximation to the possible environmental impacts. Thus, LCA should be viewed as a guiding framework for understanding the likely areas of impact (Leflar, 2008). Life Cycle Cost Assessment and Social Life Cycle Assessment Responding to the debate on sustainable development, environment assessments methods in current practice are required to be able to capture and integrate the aspects of sustainability, i.e., economic, social, and environmental impacts. Life cycle cost assessment (LCCA) methodologies, also referred to as life cycle cost analysis or life cycle accounting have been in the industrial use in the past (Akai, 1999), but the methodologies for assessing social aspects along the life cycle phases are still new to the field ( Jrgensen et al. 2008). Life Cycle Cost Assessment (LCC A) Early applications of LCCA have been widely used in building construction and facility management sector. In 1995, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
65 Handbook 135, 1995 edition, has defined the building life cycle cost (LCC) as t he total discounted dollar cost of owning, operating, and disposing of a building or a building system over a period of time. The life cycle cost categories in the building sector could include the following ( SAEED 1999): Initial investments costs or capital costs: costs incurred prior to the occupation of the facility, for example, costs involving land acquisition, site preparation, project management, design and contracting, indirect administration, and construction; Operations costs: monthly or annu al costs involving the operation of the facility, for example, monthly or annual bills for of electricity and natural gas for heating, cooling, and ventilation, water for drinking, toilet flushing and landscaping, wastewater and solid waste disposal, and d ebt or lease payments; Maintenance and repair costs: maintenance costs are scheduled costs associated with the upkeep of the facility, for example, repainting walls, doors and windows, and inspection of heating ventilating air -conditioning (HVAC) systems, plumbing systems, and other; repair costs are unanticipated expenditures that are required to prolong the life of a building system without having to replace the system, for example, repair of a broken door. Replacement costs: costs generated by replacement of a building system or component that has reached the end of its useful life, for example, replacing interior and exterior equipments, light fixtures, roof systems, and other; Residual or scrap value: is the net worth of the building system a t the end of the LCCA study span. The residual value of a building is important when evaluating which items can be reused, recycled, or resold. Similarly, LCCA is used to evaluate the economic performances of other commercial products or services in a typi cal life cycle phase outlined above. Typical LCCA inventory indicators would be similar to the types of cost categories as expressed above. Often, LCCAs are conducted up to the inventory stage. In current LCA studies, it could be observed that LCCA is cond ucted alongside life cycle environmental assessment to get a picture of the costs involved in improving environmental performance of products and services. For example, the Governor's Green Building Initiative of California ha s developed user -friendly on l ine LCCA spreadsheets
66 that can be used by the public for assessing life cycle cost savings from efficient energy and material consumption in green buildings (Green California, 2008). Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) There has been an increasing interes t for incorporating social aspects into the environmental LCA of products and systems in recent years. The experience is growing, and multiple approaches have been initiated to include social impacts ranging from direct impacts on workers to broader societ al considerations and consequences ( Jrgensen et al. 2008). Different areas of current day SLCA studies include investment (Methot 2005), design (Schmidt et al. 2004, Gauthier 2005), industrial management (Caeque 2002, Schmidt et al. 2004, Dreyer et al 2006, Nazarkina and Le Bocq 2006), consumers (Spillemaeckers et al. 2004) and public decision making (Hunkeler 2006). A number of potential methodologies for conducting SLCA have been expressed in Barthel et al. 2005; Flysj 2006; Manhart and Grieha mmer 2006; Norris 2006; and Weidema 2006. There are different view points on how to conduct SLCA. The methodological framework of SLCA as proposed by the UNEP -SETAC Life Cycle Initiative Cross -cutting Taskforce 3 on Integration of Social Aspects in LCA suggests adopting the conventional LCA framework as specified by ISO 14040, namely: Goal definition; scope definition; inventory analysis; and impact assessment (Griehammer et al. 2006). Dreyer et al. (2006) and Spillemaeckers et al. (2004) argue that it may not be a valid approach due to the fact that social impacts, in most situations, do not hav e direct links to the processes of a product or a service; rather how the process is conducted or implemented may indicate a link to the respective social imp acts. The UNEP -SETAC feasibility study on integrating social aspects to LCA brings out important considerations that go beyond the scope of traditional LCA. Some of the key points are as follows (Griehammer et al. 2006):
67 Compared to environmental and ec onomic aspects, social aspects present special problems because they can be highly diverse and are valued very differently by different interest groups and in different countries and regions. Compared with the traditional environmental LCA the integration of social aspects demands a higher priority on a process and the integration of stakeholder. Integration of stakeholders bases the indicators and judgments on a broader discussion and helps to collect data. Social aspects such as time requirement s convenience, and prestige should be captured as key aspects of the product utility and defining the functional equivalence in comparing alternatives. Social impacts or benefits on the consumers should be described as part of the product utility. Social imp acts on the society correspond with common or internationally accepted values and should be described as other social impacts along the life cycle. T raditional LCA s use mainly inventory indicators and midpoint indicators, but also endpoint indicators. But in SLCA, as much as possible, midpoint indicators should be used, as they are closer to the activities and understanding of the decision makers For example, in SLCA of brick production, job creation in the local market could be a mid-point social indicator; resulting in poverty reduction, and the end goal of improved family health could be considered as an endpoint social indicator. In developing SLCA indicators, combination of quantitative, semi -quantitative, qualitative, or descriptive indicators should be allowed as quantitative data and indicators alone are insufficient to cover all aspects of social impacts. The aim should be to produce accurate and relevant indicators as much as possible. For social indicator classification, the stakeholder approach is preferred over the classification with traditional damage impact categories (Human health, Ecosystem health, and Damage to resources). In the stakeholder approach, the stakeholder categories where the impacts should be classified includes: workforce (workers or employees), local community, consumers, and society (national and/or global). Establishing a comprehensive inventory of SLCA and guidelines to develop them would take 10 to 15 years of research work. Figure 2 6 extracted from Jrgensen et al. (2008) summarizes the SLCA indicator categories used by different SLCA approaches by different researchers, and whether the indicators are quantitative. In the current SLCA studies, midpoint indicators are preferred over endpoint indicators. There are still d ebates on whether the SLCA indicators should be site
68 Figure 2 6. Midpoint and endpoint SLCA impact categories compiled by Jrgensen et al. 2008 A B
69 specific and less comprehensive (Norris, 2006). Hunkeler, 2006 argues that generic data for SLCA should be national or sector specific, instead of striving towards regionally or globally applicable data as in the traditional LCA. Discussion: LCA in Sustainable Dev elopment Planning LCA so far has not been identified as a tool used for assessing impacts and integrating economic, social, and environmental aspects within participatory development planning approaches. Although the life cycle thinking and assessment conc ept has immense relevance in assessing the upstream and downstream of development issues and interventions in a systematic manner, the conventional approaches of conducting LCA may not necessarily contribute to meeting the challenges of multi -stakeholder decision making environments. From the literature review on various LCA methods, it can be observed that the application of LCA remains a tedious technical tool confined to assessing economic, social, and environmental performance of industrial or commerci al products and services. T here are increasing concerns regarding the transparency of the analyses, the communication of results, and the robustness of the conclusions. The concerns are escalated when multiple stakeholders have a role to play not only in m aking decisions, but also in committing resources. Often, LCA studies are conducted for a single client, centered on the clients needs and objectives. In current practice, analyses are typically conducted by experts, and stakeholders are primarily involve d in interpreting and communicating the results and conclusions. This may be useful in industrial single -client based applications, but in the development field, where multi -stakeholder interactions are complex and political, more than communicating robust LCA results, a process of mutual learning and assessment together with the stakeholders has a greater importance in meeting the challenges of multi -stakeholder decision making environments. An important aspect in reaching consensus for collective action i n multi -sector, multi -discipline development contexts
70 is to build shared stakeholder perceptions and understanding of the state of the system and the potential solutions. In typical development planning processes, the important decisions are resource -driv en and time -bound, which in most instances, have contributed to failing to meet sustainable targets. According to literature on transdisciplinarity, it was evident that transdisciplinary learning could be an integral part of integrated development planning processes. Scientific knowledge is required to be integrated with non-scientific knowledge that may not necessarily be quantifiable, yet be important in collective decision -making for pragmatic action. Thus, if LCA is to be meaningfully used in integrated development planning where multiple stakeholders from different sectors and disciplines have vested interests and different knowledge capacities, it is necessary to modify LCA and integrate it into a transdisciplinary learning process, so that the data an d information are gathered, processed, and discussed in a transparent and interactive manner. Hence, that interactive element has to be integrated into the LCA assessment process to engage the stakeholders from different sectors and disciplines in structur ed dialog for narrowing down bounded rationalities and different interpretations of information. It is hypothesized that each step of conducting LCA should be interactive to the level possible. Similar to the discussions of SLCA, much is needed to produce traditional indicators that can provide robust information to the stakeholders. Site -specific indicators which are not universally accepted should also be investigated and generated in a quantitative, qualitative or descriptive manner enhancing greater rel evance of information to the stakeholders, especially when consensus on the actual implementation of sustainable interventions is a priority.
71 The more the stakeholders comprehend the data, the process, and the meaning of the results, and could envision th e economic, social and environmental costs, benefits, and risks, the more consensus building on collective action becomes an achievable goal. The next Chapter discusses the features and modifications of life cycle assessment from this perspective, and dis cusses the development of an LCA -based tool for informed participatory decision making while promoting cross -sectoral integration for multi -stakeholder development programs and projects. Rating and Ranking Methods in Multi -S takeholder C ontexts In participa tory planning processes, prioritizing issues to be addressed, evaluating and comparing alternative solutions, and selecting the most sustainable solutions to implement within a certain criteria and constraints are essential milestones. There are various me thods used in current participatory planning processes to finalize the conclusions on the above. Some of the key methods include Rating, Ranking, Pair ed Comparison Analysis (PCA) Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Multi -Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT), a nd Simple Multi -Attribute Ranking Technique (SMART) These methods are briefly analyzed to check the ir suitability for multi stakeholder planning contexts where stakeholders are in the center of applying the se methods. The methods are looked at as a suppor t tool that can be used to structure the information derived from participatory assessment methods and assist further negotiations in situations where prioritizing or selecting among the alternatives which do not show a clear dominance over the other Rat ing or Scores Rating or scoring is one of the simplest and easiest forms of appraisal of the value of an alternative or a choice. It indicates a standing or a position regarding an alternative or choice on a quantitative or a qualitative scale (Coe, 2002). An example of a qualitative scale can be a score
72 of poor, fair, very good, or, excellent. An example of a quantitative scale can be a score of 0% to 100% or 1 to 5. These scores are described as ordered categorical. With respect to the latter quantitative example an observation scoring 3 is considered as higher than an observation scoring 2, but it cannot project that it is better by the same amount that an observation scoring 5 is better than an observation scoring 4 (Coe, 2002). In a participatory devel opment planning process, this method is often used in assessing stakeholder judgment and preferences as the method is sufficiently simple to be communicated to the stakeholders, and to be meaningfully used by the stakeholders. However, when there are multi ple criteria to be considered in evaluating multiple alternatives, the scoring or rating alone may not be adequate to handle the complexity. Ranking Ranking is also a simple method to highlight the preference among the alternatives or choices. In many part icipatory evaluations on preference, the data are collected by guiding the stakeholders to rank alternatives (Coe, 2000; Coe, 2002) The alternatives are placed in order of preference, but with no attempt to describe how much one alternative differs from t he other. For example, alternative A is ranked above alternative B, and alternative C is ranked above B, yet none of the alternatives may be considered as sufficient. The data would look the same in the case where a stakeholder placed the alternatives in t he same order (Coe, 2002) Similar to ranking, when multiple criteria are to be considered in evaluating multiple alternatives, the ranking process alone is inadequate to handle the complexity. Pair ed Comparison Analysis (PCA) PCA also known as Paired Choice Analysis helps to work out the importance of a number of alternatives relative to each other. The method is known to work where there are conflicting demands on resources and also when comparing completely different alternat ives. When there
73 are several criteria to assess the performance of the alternatives, paired comparison can be conducted for each criterion, the alternative that performs the best against the specific criteria can be selected. If there is a clear dominance by one or two alternatives against all criteria, then the use of the method would be successful. Otherwise, the method would still leave the selection open ended. The paired choice matrix is a visual method that can promote group discussions and participat ion. The method is considered as not too complex for the participatory planning processes (Mind Tools, 19952009). Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) AHP is a multi criteria decision making method. The method is particularly used for complex decisions involving decision elements that are difficult to quantify. The method assumes that in situations where the problem at hand is complex, the natural human reaction is to cluster the decision elements according to the common characteristics (Saaty, 1980). T he first step of the process is to decompose the decision goal into its constituent parts, progressing from the general to the specific The hierarchical structure comprises a goal, criteria and alternative levels. Each set of alternatives can be further d ivided into an appropriate level of detail T he more criteria included, the less important each individual criterion may become. By making pair wise comparisons at each level of the hierarchy, participants can develop relative weights called priorities to differentiate the importance of the criteria. The a relative scoring -scale recommended by Saaty (1994) is 1 through 9, with 1 meaning no difference in importance of one criterion in relation to the other and 9 meaning one criterion is extremely more important than the other, with increasing degrees of importance in between. The essence of the AHP calculations involves solving an eigenvalue problem involving the reciprocal matrix of comparisons. The relative weights are then synthesized through the model, yielding a composite score for each alternative at every level of the hierarchy as well as an overall score for the
74 alternatives ( Grandzol, 2005) When problems become complex with more criteria and alternatives, it is hard to justify and sufficiently ex plain the reasons why one alternative is better, or more preferable than another. In a participatory development planning situation, the mathematical requirements and the communication of the method would not be easy. Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) The conceptual basis of this method is that the decision makers act to maximize a utility or a value function that depends on specific criteria or attributes; typically an expected value of a utility function ( Dyer, 1992; Wallenius, et al., 2008). There ar e two categories of MAUT problems: multiple criteria discrete alternative problems and multiple criteria optimization problems. The multiple criteria discrete alternative problems usually consists of modestly sized collection of alternatives, and the opti mization problems consists of a very large or an infinitely many alternatives defined by a system of equations. The multiple criteria optimization problems are likely to require relatively more computational resources than discrete problems and are designe d to handle scientifically complex problems. The multiple criteria discrete problems capture the decision makers utility mathematically to estimate the alt ernatives expected utility (Wallenius, et al., 2008). The discrete methods are intended to create a n interactive thinking environment as p art of the process. The discrete MAUT problems typically have to follow the following steps: a) identify what is important (hierarchy) b) identify the relative importance (weights) among criteria or attributes, c) id entify the utility functions of criteria, and d) identify how well each alternative does on each criterion ( utility scores or rating ). In a participatory planning context with sets of quantitative as well as qualitative criteria with scientifically undefined system equations, the discrete alternative method would be more relevant. In a developing country local scale planning contexts, identifying nonlinear utility functions, communicating, and applying the method would still be tedious.
75 Simple Multi Attrib ute Rating Technique (SMART) The concept behind the method is the same as MAUT, and can be referred to as the simplest form of the MAUT based methods Once the important criteria are identified, they are ranked and rated (weigh t ed). The relative weights for the attributes need to be agreed upon in a group of decision makers. The performance of the alternatives needs to be rated (discrete utility values) against the individual criteria or the attributes. The performance of the alt ernatives against criteria is simple and is the weighted algebraic mean of the utility values. The method is simple and additive as it does not define utility functions that reflect the range of utility values from w orst utility value level to best among t he alternatives ( Flp, 2005) : in complex decision making contexts, this is considered as a shortcoming. Edwards (1977) proposes a simple method to assess weights for each of the criteria to reflect its relative importance to the decision First, the criteria are ranked in order of importance and 10 points are assigned to the least important criterion. Then, the next least -important criterion is chosen, more points are assigned to it, and so on, to reflect their relative importance. The final weights are ob tained by normalizing the sum of the points to one (Flp, 2005) E dwards and Barron (1994) points out that the comparison of the importance of attributes is meaningless when it does not reflect the range of the utili ty values of the alternatives as well. However, in a scientifically less complex, multi-stakeholder development planning context, this method can serve as an easily implementable method. Summary of M ethods The evaluation of the above methods indicates that rating, ranking, and simple multi attr ibute theory are relatively simple methods that can be implemented in a participatory development planning process, where stakeholder capacities of interpreting and being able to involve in the method applications vary to considerable extents. AHP and MAUT are mathematically sound methods, yet the complexity of the analysis may not be transparent, or it
76 could not be easily communicated in some planning contexts. PCA is a relatively easier method to communicate and apply, yet the method easily becomes tediou s when the number of variables in the analysis increases. Rating and ranking for that matter may not be useful to reflect a clear view point, but may be useful to build up further discussion among the stakeholders that may improve the negotiation and cons ensus process. Section 3 outlines a modified rating and ranking based method similar to SMART which can be used for prioritizing development issues and selecting among alternative solutions by the stakeholders in a participatory manner. Table 2 5 Comparison of rating and ranking methods in multi -stakeholder contexts Criteria Method Rating Ranking PCA AHP MAUT SMART How easy it is to communicate the methodology Easy Easy Relatively easy Not easy Not easy Relatively easy How easy it is for the stakeholders to participate Easy Easy Easy Not easy Not easy Easy How easy it is to conduct the analysis Easy Easy Not easy Not easy Not easy Easy How transparent is the analysis Trans parent Trans parent Trans parent Not Trans parent Not Trans parent Trans parent How easy it is for the stakeholders to interpret results Easy Easy Relatively easy Not easy Not easy Easy How useful it is when the alternatives to evaluate are many Some what useful Some what useful Not useful Not useful Not useful Useful How relevant it is when the criteria to be considered are many Some what useful Some what useful Not useful Not useful Not useful Useful How useful it is when the stakeholder groups are bigger Useful Useful Some what useful Some what useful Some what useful Useful Summary The discussions on sustainable development express that it should be an adaptive learning process involving the respective stakeholders understanding their systems for suitable action in
77 better managing quality of l ife while preserving resources for the future. Global sustainable development programs such as Agenda 21 and MDG s acknowledge the importance of environmentally responsible decision making and outline strategies and targets to enhance economic, social, and environmental well -being of all people. While there should be global and national level strategies, bottom up community level development planning and implementation is identified as a key approach to achieving sustainability. Sustainable settlement develo pment is a key target in Millennium Development Goal 7, Ensuring Environmental Sustainability. Agenda 21 recognizes it as a multi -faceted and multi -dimensional problem that needs integration of multiple sectors such as urban infrastructure and services, so cial services, and economic opportunities, and improvement of technological knowhow and human and institutional capacities. Integrated development planning at local level involving community and other responsible stakeholders is a vital response to the cal l by the global sustainable programs. Integration of sectors and programs for collaborative action is found to be a challenging process. Decision frameworks that could minimize factors that affect integration acknowledging the political nature of the multi -stakeholder development environment are limited. Systems thinking helps to broadly identify causes of issues in a system. Based on systems thinking, a variety of principles and tools for the purpose of analyzing and changing systems has evolved. In development planning contexts, sy stems thinking tools are useful to identify and visualize key driving forces, interconnectivities and level of interdependencies of current issue s or future transition s, but the use is limited. Transdisciplinarity has many defini tions, yet transdisciplinary learning broadly is a process of exchanging, generating, and unifying scientific and non -scientific knowledge among experts,
78 practitioners and stakeholders in solving real world complex problems. Transdisciplinary learning coul d be a useful element in integrated development planning. Typical assessment methods used in development planning include EIA SIA and RA Evaluation of these methods indicates that the methods are typically conducted project based, and stakeholder involve ment in assessment process is limited. Methods have inherent limitations in providing holistic view of the issues, accommodating transparent simplistic analysis and integrat ing stakeholder knowledge, and facilitating stakeholder discussion and negotiation throughout the planning process LCA is still not identified as an assessment method in development planning. LCT is a qualitative framework, while life cycle assessment is a qualitative method that addresses environmental, economic, and social impacts lin ked to resource consumption. Traditional LCA is an expert -based technical tool. The u nderlying concept of upstream and downstream analysis has greater relevance applied to development planning, but modifications are necessary to meet the needs and challenges in multi -stakeholder contexts. There are several rating and ranking methods available to assist prioritizing and selecting options, namely, PCA AHP MAUT and SMART Some of them are too complex to be used in multi -stakeholder development plann ing contexts. The concepts could be simplified and used in a manner that matches the planning context and promotes further negotiation and agreeing on options after comprehensive assessments
79 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY AND PROC EDURES Concepts The purpose of introducing life cycle thinking and assessment into integrated development planning is to holistically assess development issues and build solutions in a participatory manner minimizing the factors that affect integrated planning. Facilitating integration of sectors for successful and sustainable action is a key priority. The stakeholders and the experts knowledge has to be integrated in generating information that are relevant to the respective stakeholders to negotiate and agree on implementable strateg ies. Information generation and communication has to be a transdisciplinary learning process not limit ed to communica ting expert -based results. Stakeholder -based life cycle assessment (SBLCA) is developed as a decision support framework where multiple stak eholders could actively participate in identifying their system, goals, priorities, and responsibilities, and negotiate resource commitments that lead to achieving these goals. The main concepts used in developing the method to suit the development plannin g context include life cycle thinking and assessment, levels of service, and unbundling levels of service into activities and resources. Life Cycle Thinking and Assessment As broadly covered in the Chapter 2, literature review, t ypically, LCT/A is used for generating holistic information about a product or service in order to assess its environmental performance. A series of International Organization for Standardization (ISO) guidelines (ISO14040 44) specify the steps in conducting LCA : 1) defining the goal and scope for analysis; 2) deriving the life cycle inventory which includes material use, energy use, and environmental discharges; 3) life cycle impact assessment which translates an inventory into potential impact on human health and the environment; and 4) interpretation, which assesses
80 whether results are in agreement with the defined goals and scope (ISO 1998). Life cycle costing can be conducted along with LCA, and is frequently used in industrial applications (Akai, 1999). Incorporating social i mpact assessment is a recent development in LCA, and ISO 14044 describes approaches for including social aspects in LCA ( Cooper 2003; Griehammer et al. 2006; Weidema 2006). In a multi -stakeholder development context, life cycle thinking can be applied to find solutions to a number of issues with a holistic approach. Often, it is observed that fixing one problem results in affecting, or, triggering another problem. In certain cases, solutions applied to problems miss the mark because the real issue is somewhere upstream a nd not necessarily observable from a narrow frame of reference. Life cycle thinking is a way to map the upstream and downstream of issues and solutions to in sure that the improvements are applied at the right points to lead to implementable sustainable sol utions. Levels of S ervice In development contexts, a level could be affiliated with various subjects I n the scope of this research, we focus on what we call a level of service (City of Cape Town, 2001; GTZ IFSP, 2003). Services in area development can include essential individual and community services such as water supply, wastewater and storm water handling, solid waste management, and communication. It is an obvious fact that individuals or community segments receive different levels of services. For example, individual tap s vs. a common well or unpaved road vs. a paved road, due to limited resources and capacities. For the same reason, the existing and planned levels of service need to be examined when improvements are planned. The general term r esource could mean resources such as financial resources, institutional resources, physical resources, human resources and natural resources. The level of service can be viewed from both the perspective of the service receiver and from the perspective of the service
81 provider. A level can be good when it meets a stipulated standard, regulation, or a recommendation developed through a satisfactory stakeholder participation process resulting in benefits for all stakeholders. A level can be problematic when n ot all stakeholders adequately participate in the process towards meeting the stipulated standard or regulation, or have not participated in developing a recommendation, often resulting in stakeholders believing that they are worse off. In order to achiev e a certain level of service in a community planning activity, it is necessary to understand, communicate, and visualize the roles of the stakeholders and the stakeholder activities and resources required over time. The above components are implicitly bundled in a level of service (Figure 3 1) Unbundling L evels of S ervice The service level then needs to be unbundled to visualize its key interlinked components. Unbundling disaggregates a level of service into its contributing components. Determining a level of service and unbundling it is analogous to the goal, scope, and process inventory mapping used for life cycle thinking and assessments. Apart from the key components, users can add relevant and useful components depending on the context of the prob lem. The basic key components include activities, stakeholder participation, corresponding costs and benefits, resources, and cost recovery systems. Depending on the level of current or targeted development, the interlinked components such as activities, c orresponding costs, resources, stakeholder participation and benefits related to maintaining a given level may vary (Figure 3 1) Incorporating level of service and unbundling concepts into the LCA process helps to bring in the participatory element that is much required by the assessment methods in development planning. It helps the stakeholders to become involve d in structured dialog by interactively identifying the levels of service and unbundling its interlinked components thereby integrating their kno wledge and experience with inputs from experts knowledge bases.
82 Figure 3 1 Interlinked elements for maintaining current or targeted level of services Methodological Framework: Modifications and F eatures The above three concepts are combined in the SBLCA framework. The modified LCA framework chains the upstream and downstream act ivities while mapping out the stakeholders involved, the resource needs, and the costs and benefits including the economic, soci al, and environmental indicators associated with each activity. In terms of application within a cross sectoral integrated plann ing process, the concept of life cycle thinking and assessment is modified to analyze who is better -off and worse -off, directly or indirectly, in all life cycle activity stages in order for the targeted level of development to be sustained. This is critica l because, eventually, stakeholder commitment depends upon foreseeing those aspects which are related to their current and required future activities. For example, if the development issue in an area is wastewater, upstream and downstream activity phases such as water supply (treatment and distribution capacities), water use patterns (per capita demands depending on the level of water supply), wastewater generation, disposal and treatment means, and maint enance Activities in m aintaining current or targeted level of services Costs in m aintaining current or targeted level of services Resources and stakeholder participation in m aintaining current or targeted level of services Benefits of participating current or targeted level of services Current level of service/ Targeted level of service
83 arrangements (operation and maintenance costs and cost recovery) need to be analyzed in order to assure the solutions are longlasting and sustainable (Figure 3 2) Figure 3 2 The l ife cycle thinking approach, e.g., chaining upstream and downstream of water issue The traditional LCA practices for assessing an industrial product or a service is discussed in Chapter 2. The principle modifications to typical LCA practice is discussed in detail under 1) Goal and Scope Analysis and 2) Inventory and Impact Analysis. The modifications are summarized in Figure 3 3 a nd they are discussed in detail in the following sub -sections. Goal and Scope Analysis The goal of the analysis is analogous to determining the performance of a current or a future level of service, and the scope is similar to deciding on which relevant activity phases are included for a given level of service. The activity phases are not necessarily limited to the typical life cycle phases. As in the case of any typical LCA, upstr eam and downstream processes could be extensive depending on the goal and scope of the study, which makes scoping and defining a
84 boundary for analysis necessary. The same logic applies in the context of upstream and downstream activities. Figu re 3 3 Schematic view of conventional and stakeholder -based life cycle assessment illustrating their similarities and differences When looking at upstream and downstream activities stakeholders have to decide how far upstream and downstream would make se nse in their analysis, and select activities that should be logically included ( Figure 3 4 ). The analysis boundary defines the specific activities and subactivities included. In this context, the functional unit in LCA is analogous to a specific level of service. For easier analysis and presentation purposes, activities can be chained in sequence, and examined for their sub -components with economic, soci al, and environmental aspects as relevant (Figure 3 4 ). Activity chaining is not limited to a linear seq uence. The analysis can be carried out Processes related products or services (functional unit) Inventory Impacts Material Emissions Energy Environmental and health effects Depletions Environmental indicators Activities related to issues or solutions (level of service) Inventory Impacts Resources* Stakeholders Economic and social costs/benefits Environmental and health effects Emissions Depletions Economic and social effects Economic Social and Environmental indicators Material Energy Traditional LCA Stakeholder based LCA* Resources include financial, institutional, physical, human an d natural resource demands.
85 at a generic level or detailed level depending on the planning situation and scope, as each activity can always be further divided into subactivities for closer analysis. Figure 3 4. Upstream -downstream activity chaining and boundary of analysis Inventory and Impact Analysis Each activity in a development issue resembles a process in a typical LCA, where environmental emissions and raw material depletion are inventoried and later converted to communicable impact indicators. Similarly, inputs for inventory analysis in SBLCA can include stakeholders and resources, e.g., physical, human, financial, and institutional, and are not limited to energy and material. Simplified qualitative and quantitative indicators for stakeholder involvement, resource needs, and social, economic, and environmental costs and benefits can be inventoried for all upstream and downstream activities within the scope of the study as shown in Fig. 4 instead of only environmental discharges and raw material depletion. The impact indicators may not necessarily b e derived strictly from inventory data as in traditional life cycle Activity 2 Activity 3 Activity 6 Activity 8 Activity 9 Activity 4 Activity 5 Activity 7 Boundary of analysis Activity 1
86 impact assessment (LCIA), but may be associated with a stakeholder independent of any single activity. An indicators value may not be linearly related to activity intensity as is typical in LCIA. As in LCIA, simplified qualitative and quantitative indicators can be mid -point such as wastewater load to surface water bodies, or end -point such as the number of people potentially affected by disease. This makes the assessment flexible, transpa rent and still useful in data scarce situations. The indicators used depend on the planning context, the accuracy required or expected, and data availability. The indicators are disaggregated at each activity level rather than aggregated for the whole iss ue or solution as is typical in LCA. This allows the different responsible or potentially responsible stakeholders to clearly visualize and understand the information directly and indirectly relevant for them. With the above detailed analysis, stakeholder s are exposed to additional knowledge, which can be used to foster collaboration to achieve joint targets in area development. The knowledge can enhance sustainable implementation, as this SBLCA framework explicitly structures the elements necessary for fe asible and sustainable solutions, where stakeholders can actively contribute to the analysis, discussion, and negotiation, and therefore also agree to participate and collaborate. The framework assists stakeholders in identifying the cause of the issue, al ong with its elements, or, in the case of potential solutions, their roles, other stakeholders roles, and the costs and benefits to themselves and to the region as a whole. In summary, the main steps of the framework include 1) identify the l evels of ser vice, which can be current levels or target levels, 2) identify upstream and downstream activities in the scope of the analysis, and 3) unbundle each main activity within the scope of the study and include simplified economic, soci al, and environmental ind icators to communicate the necessary
87 information relevant to each upstream and downstream activity required for sustainable implementation (Figure 3 5) Figure 3 5 Unbundling a level of service A generic schematic view of an application of SBLCA in a wastewater issue interconnected with upstream water supply, water use, and downstream wastewater treatment is illustrated in Fig ure 3 6 Point 1 in Figure 3 6 shows the chained upstream and downstream activity phases and the relevant sub activit y concerns; point 2 highlights the integration of stakeholders, and point 3 shows the integrated economic, social, and environmental indicators. SBLCA Framework in Integrated Planning Approach ` Typical development planning approaches include phases such as 1) assessing the current state of the system, 2) prioritizing issues, 3) formulating and assessing options for solutions, 4) strategizing and implementing solutions, and 5) evaluation and monitoring (Wiek et al. 2006b) The LCT based decision framework i s expected to be effectively used in any participatory planning approach when (Figure 3 7 ):
88 ActivitiesWater Treatment Water Supply Water consumption Wastewater Disposal Wastewater treatment Maintenance Reuse intake pipe water kitchen canals septic tanks canal eco-toilets capacity well water toilets ground water soakage pits septic tanks gardens distribution bathrooms sea bay seepage beds pipe system compost gardens awareness plant beds training StakeholdersNWSDB NWSDB Community Community Community Community Community Donor VDC PHI PHI PHI PHI Community Community LA LA TOs LA LA TOs VDC VDC LA TOs VDC Donor Donor VDC Indicators Negative effects Compliance with regulations, standards, or recommendations service arrangements Resource demands Costs/cost recoveries Positive benefits Upstream and Downstream Activity Chaining Integration of stakeholders from different sectors for sustainable planning, implementation and Monitoring Integration of economic, social and environmental aspects Example Indicators => Life cycle costs, capital costs, O&M costs, NPV, cost savings/increases => Cost recovery fees paid/tax collected => Number of livelihood opportunities, local labor opportunities, number of people with improved skills or capacity => Raw material depletion/savings, energy consumption/savings, CO2/GWP => Per capita demands/releases => Number of people affected/benefited => Compliance with guidelines (social, economic, and environmental regulations, standards, or recommendations) 3 2 1 Boundary of Analysis Figure 3 6. Lifecycle thinking with levels of service and unbundling activities applied to integrated assessment of water supply, water use, and water disposal in a tsunami affected village in Sri Lanka. LA: Local Authority; NWSDB: National Water Supply and Drainage Board; PHI: Public Health Inspector; TOs: Technical Officers ; VDC: Village Development Committee.
89 assessing the current system and issues and prioritizing them o holistic vision including interconnectivities of a system formulating, assessing, and strategizing solutions o assessing the suitability, viability and sustainability of solutions o negotiating and agreeing on resource commitments Figure 3 7 Where the decision framework c an fit in a planning approach (basic steps and outcomes) In these typical planning stages, the application of the framework can be explained in detail as follows : 1) In assessing the current state of the system and prioritizing issues: SBLCA is applied to analyze current development issues in detail, i.e., identifying the relevant upstream and
90 downstream activities, the interconnectivities of issues, the economic, social, and environmental aspects, the stakeholders from different sectors and disciplines, and the current and target levels of service. Available national or local standards, regulations, or recommendations can be used to set the targets and determine t he distance from the current state. This knowledge is expected to assist stakeholders in both building consensus on prioritizing issues while recognizing stakeholder interconnectivities and in defining common goals and joint projects. Consensus in each pla nning step is expected to encourage long-term stakeholder commitment and cooperation towards developing joint programs and projects which would fit well with needs, available resources, and technologies. 2) In formulating, assessing, and strategizing options for solutions: Options for solutions can be developed on the basis of understanding and assessing the current state and an agreed level of service. In formulating options for solutions, the framework is applied in a similar manner, incorporating relevant and necessary upstream and downstream activities and the inherent components for maintaining an improved level. The outcome of this step is a spectrum of consensual, feasible, sustainable future options for improvements. Due to various constraints, the l evel of improvement that is feasible in a given context needs to be assessed, negotiated, and agreed to by the respective stakeholders. This is an important step where the stakeholders decide which options are viable for implementation in terms of local c onditions, available technologies, resources, and stakeholder commitment. A life cycle perspective plays an important role in emphasizing interconnectivities of upstream and downstream activities, associated costs and benefits, and the stakeholder involvem ent in building sustainable strategies. This enhanced knowledge puts stakeholders in a better position to comprehend the importance and necessity of certain activities, the resources
91 required, individual as well as collective roles of stakeholders, and res ulting individual and collective benefits in committing to a sustainable development process. The holistic view of the strategies contributes to minimizing the uncertainties and transaction costs associated with collaborating in joint projects, and promoti ng consensus among multiple stakeholders in relevant sectors. 3) In monitoring and evaluation: In a planning process, participatory monitoring and evaluation is an important element in ensuring that the intended activities are implemented as planned. The p rocess of participatory monitoring is identified as a circular loop of action learning action comparing the on -going activities to the planned activities in a collective setting. If the implementation of activities is not going according to plan, steps can be taken to correct problems, concerns and issues at an early stage. This can be done by adjusting the way activities are being implemented or, if necessary, by changing the action plan to adapt to the justified needs of participants. To assist this cont inuous feedback, a SB LCA framework could be useful to investigate which upstream and downstream activities are moving as planned and which are not. If alternative activities are required, then the new upstream and downstream requirements or outcomes can be investigated. The application of the methodology is explained using some examples from the case -study given in the Chapter 4. Indicator Development In traditional LCA, energy and material consumption, inventory categories such as CO2 emissions, mid -point impacts such as global warming potential, and end point impacts such as human health are generally termed as indicators. Similarly, in LCA, resource inputs, stakeholder inputs, and resulting outcomes such as costs, benefits, and impacts are referred to as indicators.
92 The costs, benefits, and impacts could be in the form of economic, social, and environmental considerations specific to the planning context. As described under Inventory and Impact Analysis, the SBLCA indicators could be universally accepted typical inventory categories or mid -point and end -point impacts, adjusted to represent the local conditions. Local on -site data, local scientific research data, publicly available data, and verified information from stakeholders could be useful sources to develop conventional LCA indicators. Conversely, SBLCA indicators could be unconventional indicators such as unquantifiable yet relevant economic, social, and environmental considerations which are critical to assess in multi -stakeholder development plann ing processes. In most situations, unconventional indicators which are simple and transparent, play a major role in developing shared stakeholder perceptions, compared to the conventional indicators. Since the indicators depend on the development problem or solution under assessment, the descriptions of indicator development is included in the Case -study section of the Chapter 4. A sample set of economic, social, and environmental indicators particular to assessing the wastewater issue in a community in a development country context are summarized in Figure 3 6. The criteria outlined in the Sustainable Development Framework (CAA, 2005) for the construction sector provides good insights on development related economic, social and environmental indicators. Th e set of indicators are summarized in Appendix A Rating and Ranking Method As reviewed in the Chapter 2, rating and ranking are the basic concepts behind the decision tools such as AHP, MAUT and SMART. Depending on the planning context, the nature of the problem under evaluation and the c apacities of the stakeholders, a rating and ranking based method need s to be chosen, or modified for meaningful application.
93 The purpose of working out a simplified r ating and ranking method in development planning is to assist the stakeholders to further negotiate on priorities and options. When the system is holistically analyzed with sufficient information on upstream and downstream considerations, requirements, and cause s and effects the sta keholders would be in a better position to score and rate what suits their communities the best with reduced bounded rationalities, asset specificities and opportunistic behaviors. The simple method outlined here is to be used in the option analysis phase. When an option is analyzed using the SBLCA framework, a number of indicators would highlight the performance of the options. Indicators would be quantitative and qualitative belonging to economic, social and environmental categories. Each indicator repr esents a criteria (Ai); let i represents the number of criteria. Each development alternative represents an option ( Ok); let k represents the number of options. Every criterion is rated from a 0 10 scale: 0 not at all an important criteria; 10 very important criteria (subjective to vary on stakeholder interests, for example, a priority to the local authority may not be a priority of the community, hence, an opportunity to negotiate) The rat ing has to be assigned comparing the criteria pair -wise as m uch as possible, so that the rat ing reflect ing the preference or the importance. The weight for a criterion ( wi) is the rating received for a criterion divided by the total value of the rat ing s received by all the criteria. According the weights received, the criteria are ranked to evaluate whether the weights are agreeable. Against every criterion (Ai) the options (Ok) are given a score ( Si k) comparing the relative performance within that criterion on a 0 to 10 scale T his is a linear expression of utility according to the qualitative or quantitative information in an indicator; the best indicator value could be assigned a score of 10 and relative score s assigned to the others The total score of an option (Zk) against a ll criteria is given by the sum of weighted score, which is expressed by :
94 = = 1 = 1 Weighted score could be represented as a percentage of the total weighted score ( Z ) of all the options (Rk%) : = = 1/ According to the total weighted scores or percentages, the options could be ranked. The total score of an option only reflects the performance of the option according to the preference or importance of the criteria to the stakeholders. With this method, a large number of criteria could be included in the analysis. In a group, the different interest groups, for example, community and the local authority officers could perform the method separately, and compare the order of performance of the options. The di fferent weights on criteria could help to further the discussions on why certain criteria are important to different groups and come up with a negotiated weight. This would be a generic way to get an idea about the better performing options. However, the best option does not necessarily mean it is the strategically viable option. Hence, in the light of approximately knowing what options perform better, the stakeholders could discuss and negotiate on what is feasible and not feasible, and beneficial or not b eneficial in terms of committing their resources, and select the option that suits them accordingly. The method is illustrated in Figure 3 8 and the application of the method is elaborated in Chapter 4 using some examples from the case -study.
95 Figure 3 8. Illustration of the rating and ranking based decision tool for summarizing option performances
96 Summary Stakeholder -based life cycle assessment (SBLCA) is developed as a decision support framework where multiple stakeholders co uld actively participate in identifying their system, goals, priorities, and responsibilities, and negotiate resource commitments that lead to achieving these goals. The principal objective for a transdisciplinary SBLCA framework in multi -stakeholder cond itions is to develop information such that it can be interpreted irrespective of a stakeholders knowledge base and rationalities of their given sector, field, or discipline. It is hypothesized that, when the information is clear, holistic and transparent, the decision making and negotiation for action is enhanced. Hence, the SBLCA framework is more stakeholder -oriented than traditional LCA. For example, the goals, scope, and boundary of the analysis are identified in concert with the stakeholders. Indicato rs were developed to include all three aspects of sustainability in a quantitative or qualitative manner depending on data availability and the accuracy required or anticipated in the assessment In analyzing development issues and potential solutions, th e functional unit has to be broader and relevant to the development context. Therefore, a set of upstream and downstream activities is identified with respect to a level of service, which can be analogous to a functional unit in a typical LCA. In the deve lopment and reconstruction context, a service can be identified as a basic urban and community service, such as water supply, wastewater and solid waste management, and road maintenance. Depending on the a) availability of resources, b) stakeholder partici pation in required activities, and c) relevant costs and benefits of the activities, a sustainable level of service for a community can vary. Hence, in redevelopment and reconstruction, it is important to investigate the upstream and downstream activities of current and target levels of service when
97 sustainable solutions are sought. In the assessment, the primary activity phases are not necessarily limited t o the typical life cycle phases. Identifying all relevant activities in the life cycle mapped togeth er with their respective stakeholders is expected to provide useful insight in terms of identifying individual and collective resource inputs for sustaining a level of service in a community. The indicators are developed with stakeholders for each activity phase, and are not limited to environmental costs and benefits, but also capture social and economic costs and benefits. Indicators assess the direct and indirect outcomes of activities and are valuable for stakeholders evaluation and commitment. The fra mework includes three main steps: 1) i dentify current or improved levels of service, 2) c hain the upstream and downstream activities relevant to providing the current or opti onal levels of service, and 3) a ssess components of current or proposed activities in terms of stakeholder participation, resources, cost, cost recovery, and benefits using relevant economic, social, and environmental indicators. A rating and ranking met hod is developed similar to simplified multi attribute theory to assist in organizing and evaluating the information from the detailed assessment. The weights for the indicator categories provide further opportunities to negotiate what is important for different stakeholders. Relative scores are assigned to the options based on the quanti tative qualitative information. A large number of indicators irrespective of their classification into economic, social and environmental can be included in the evaluation. The best option has the highest sum of weighted scores. However, the best option ma y not necessarily be the strategically viable option. Hence, in the light of approximately knowing what options perform better, the stakeholders could discuss an d negotiate what is feasible and not feasible, and beneficial or not
98 beneficial in terms of com mitting their resources, and select the option that suits them accordingly
99 CHAPTER 4 CASE STUDY AND METHOD APPLICATION Background of Case study The basis for this research study was laid in November 2005 with a fact finding mission to Sri Lanka on formulating general guidelines for sustainable post tsunami reconstruction initiated by the Tsunami Housing Support (THSP) Project of German Technical C ooperation (GTZ) in Sri Lanka. Researchers from Massachusetts Institute of Technology ( MIT ), Massachusetts; Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ( ETH ), Zurich; University of Pittsburgh ( UPIT ), Pittsburgh; and professionals from Sri Lanka Heritage Foundati on (SLHF) and THSP were invited to team up in order to conduct a thorough investigation on on-going post tsunami reconstruction, specific challenges in the field, and draw general guidelines for sustainable housing reconstruction in the country. THSP is a Sri Lankan German Development Cooperation Project in partnership with the Sri Lankan Ministry of Housing and Common Amenities and financed by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. THSPs primary objective is to promote par ticipatory approaches and sustainability in reconstruction through capacity building in responsible government institutions. Appendix B summarizes THSPs activities. Overview of Post -Tsunami Reconstruction Sri Lanka was hit by a tsunami in December 2004, resulting in the loss of 35,000 people, and over 100,000 housing units with approximately one million people displaced. Figure 4 1 shows some summary statistics of the devastation published by the Census D epartment of Sri Lanka (Sri Lanka Virtual Library I ndex, 2005). In a disaster developing countries work closely with international multilateral stakeholders to respond to the situation. The governments often do not have sufficient budget allocations for disaster management, and many of the resources flow from international organizations to the developing countries. The Sri Lankan government had not
100 faced a disaster of this magnitude in the past, and did not have adequate policies and government structures set up to face the challenges which were exacerbate d by the need to collaborate with donors in the disaster response. Figure 4 1: S ummary statistics on damages due to Tsunami in Sri Lanka (Source: Department of Census and Statistics, Sri Lanka) Subsequently, the Sri Lankan government appointed a special agency named Task Force for Rebuilding the Nation (TAFREN) to steer and coordinate the programs for rescue operations and emergency activities until the post disaster recovery phase was complete. The country progressed through the recovery stage by mid2005 with local and international assistance, and subsequently focused on reconstruction and development (Reconstruction and Development Agency, 2005) Tsunami affected regions in Sri Lanka
101 In 2006 TAFREN was replaced by the Reconstruct ion and Development Agency (RADA). The responsibilities of RADA included implementation of all short, medium and long term projects by coordinating, facilitating and finalizing the plans for reconstruction. The post disaster reconstruction was conducted un der 4 main programs: 1) Housing, under the theme Bringing People Back Home; 2) Livelihoods, under the theme Bringing People Back to Work; 3) Social services, focusing on rebuilding educational and health facilities in the affected locations; and 4) Infrast ructure, providing roads, bridges, railways, water supply and sanitation, power and energy, postal services, and telecommunications. The operating structures of these programs include 1) national, 2) district, 3) divisional secretariat, and 4) village leve ls. The main stakeholders include 1) affected communities; 2) divisional and district level governmental institutions and elected local authorities; 3) sectoral governmental agencies, 3) national scale governmental institutions such as ministries and RADA; 4) multilateral, bilateral and International Non prof it Organization s (INGO) including donors and implementing agencies; and 5) local interest groups (Reconstruction and Development Agency, 2006 ). TAFREN was faced with difficulty in getting the institutio ns to think beyond giving affected people a housing unit or temporary means of commerce to ensuring sustainability in reconstruction and development activities. The major issues with post -tsunami reconstruction at the time was that the rapid construction o f housing units with no or minimum consideration of integrating a) essential infrastructure such as access roads, 2) urban environmental services such as water supply and sanitation, 3) social services such as schools and community centers, and 4) liveliho od opportunities for people who have lost their regular means of earning a living. The national and international donors and governmental and non -governmental institutions that belong to different sectors representing the above were working independently w ith meeting
102 time -bound sectoral objectives without much attention focused on assessing and integrating community needs, preferences, local capacities and conditions, and short and long -term operational and management arrangements (Wiek et al., 2006). Bei ng a developing country, one of the additional problems faced by the government and TAFREN was how to channel the resources into an integrated planning system given tha t the international donors and governmental institutions have individual sectoral object ives and priorities. These issues coupled with beneficiaries rejecting the new housing and returning back to their original places of residence, led TAFREN to request support from THSP to investigate the challenges and support TAFREN in implementing the on-going post tsunami reconstruction in an effective and sustainable manner. THSP generated general guidelines for sustainable housing reconstruction in collaboration with a team of experts (Wiek et al., 2006) In the general guidelines, a bottom up integrat ed planning approach was introduced. The main goal was to integrate the four reconstruction programs i.e., housing, infrastructure, social services and livelihood development which were operating without coordination of their activi ties, resulting in uns uccessful housing settlements. For example, housing units were built without considering basic sanitation, transportati on infrastructure, social -wellbeing, and livelihood opportunities The guidelines emphasized involving all stakeholders in reconstruction village planning, and implementation at local levels An example of integrating programs and projects at local community levels involving stakeholders across sectors in a post -disaster redevelopment context is illustrated in Figure 4 2 The guidelines document also outlined sustainability concepts and methodologies where sustainable planning and implementation could be achieved. The methodologies included the development of a life cycle thinking -based framework which allows multiple stakeholders from
103 Figure 4 2 : Example integrated planning scenario for developing joint programs and projects in post disaster redevelopment Regional Level Local Level National Level Integrated planning and facilitation Integrated planning and facilitation
104 different sectors and disciplines to develop a comprehensive view of issues and development decisions. The second phase was to conduct a pilot study of the guidelines by implementing them in a tsunami affected village in Sri Lanka. The pilot field study examined the applicability of the guidelines and identified lessons learned. The study was used to develop the THSP participatory sustainable reconstruction implementation strategy for other tsunami affected villages. Some less ons learned were also communicated to relevant government ministries for use in other villages. A g eneral overview of the social, economical, and environmental profile indicators of the country is given in Appendix C Scope of Pilot Field S tudy The pilot study started during the summer of 2006 in collaboration with RADA, THSP and SLHF in Unawatuna village in the south part of Sri Lanka (Figure 4 3 ). It is a coastal village with approximately 400 families. During this visit, all stakeholders including inte rested community members, community -based organization (CBO) representatives, local officials, and district officers were invited to introduce the need and objectives of the pilot program for the village. In this introductory meeting, basic sustainability concept s and the planning approach for village development were introduced. Village field visits with the village officer and interviews with the other stakeholders were conducted to get an understanding of the village as a whole, and reconstruction and development issues. Actual implementation of the planning approach started in January 2007. By this time, with the election of the new government, RADA was dissolved and tsunami reconstruction responsibilities were transferred to institutions within the g overnment administration. The President formed a new M inistry called the Ministry of Nation Development and Estate
105 Infrastructure Development ( MNBEID ) and under that, several grass -roots nationwide programs for development were introduced Among them was the Village Development program where community participation was a must ( MNBEID 2006) (However, a proper strategy for implementing village development had not been identified. Figure 4 3 : The case study location in Sri Lanka THSP, given that capacity development of government stakeholders in participatory reconstruction planning and implementation is one of their prime objectives, took this opportunity to build a strategy to assist the village development program initiated by the government. THSP partnered with the Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs (MPAHA) to implement this task. When developing the strategy for a nationwide program, one of the constraints that needed to be addressed was the lack of financial resources for experts to manage community -based integrated planning in every tsunami affected village in Sri Lanka. As a way forward, THSP together with the implementing counterparts decided to invest in local human capital (the grass Case study location : Unawatuna village in Galle District, Sri Lank a Jaffna Trincomalee Batticaloa Mullaithivu Ampara Hambanthota Colombo
106 roots level field off icers who work closely with the community as well as the higher level governmental officials) to build their capacities to become experts and handle their own village planning and implementation process. In parallel, top level responsible officials were pr epared to support the village development process. The modules for training included the following: Teamwork and Leadership Communication Skills, including basic office management, filing systems and introduction to Internet and e -mail Positive Thinking and Competency Development Participatory Integrated Project Planning Implementation and Monitoring For this nation -wide task within government structures, THSP introduced a new capacity enhancement program for the field officers in consultation with the Publ ic Servant Training Institute (PSTI) of MPAHA, other national, district, and divisional level stakeholders and experts from relevant fields. It was expected to train 3,800 of the grass roots level field officers working in 1,100 village officer divisions. The field officers included Village Officers, Samurdhi Development Officers (Micro -finance Officer), Agrarian Research and Development Officers, Local Authority field officers, Housing Officers, Community Development Officers and other field officers activ e within the community. To encourage field officials to actively participate in the process, THSP together with the MPAHA, introduced a nationwide Rewards Program. Field officer teams applying sustainability concepts and tools in their village development planning and implementation were expected to be rewarded. A database was developed to measure the extent of participatory sustainable approaches that were applied in the village development planning process, and officers were expected to be rewarded as wel l as hav e their good practices widely publicized. In this context, the pilot field study became very useful in identifying and investigating the following:
107 material to be included in the training manuals for local field officers potential for knowledge sha ring potential for and to what extent village field officers can implement the planning process and implementation and what additional requirements are needed for successful planning and implementation a workable strategy which could be replicable in oth er villages lessons learned for future improvement of the process. The full scope of work within this program is outlined in Figure 4 4. Figure 4 4 Strategy developed for capacity development for local officials and scope of the research assignment Develop modules for training Pool expert trainers Training of trainers Training local officials to become local experts Local field officers conduct village development planning and implementation Develop incentive systems for the field officers for leading the village development Teamwork, Leadership, Communication and Positive thinking Participatory project planning, Implementation, and Monitoring Sustainability concepts Life cycle thinking framework, levels and unbundling Mutual learning concepts Scope of work Inputs from experts Towards sustainable development in villages M o d u l e C o n t e n t Develop criteria for incentives
108 Case -S tudy Framework The planning approach introduced at the beginning of the study is shown in Figure 4 5 These steps were identified as generic steps of development planning processes such as Community Development Planning (CAP), Community Livelihood De velopment Planning (CLAP), Participatory Action Planning (PAP), and Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), which are practiced by development organizations in Sri Lanka. The proposed planning approach was modified together with the stakeholders to satisfy practical needs on site. The modified planning structure is given in Figure 4 6 The SBLCA tool was applied in the steps that are shown in Fig ure 4 6 They include: understanding current status of issues prioritizing issues to be addressed formulating options for s olutions assessing options for solutions strategizing for implementation The SBLCA framework was introduced as a decision support framework that could be used within any of the above development planning techniques. It was embedded into the generic planning steps coupled with planning tools, for clearer visualization of upstream and downstream activities together with necessary information to st ructure and support decision making at each step by stakeholders belonging to different sectors. The neces sity of the LCT /A based tool surfaced because many planning approaches do not consider the upstream and downstream of activities which is necessary for sustainable implementation. Planning approaches lack a decision support framework for structured negoti ation and consensus building that connects all related issues, activities, and respective stakeholders. The hypothesis was that, when information is clear and holistic, and developed
109 with stakeholder participation, stakeholder collaboration towards achievi ng joint targets in sustainable village reconstruction would be enhanced In Unwatuna pilot field study, the SBLCA framework was successfully applied through the development and assessment of the future options stage. Strategy building for actual implemen tation was postponed due the ethnic conflict situation in the country where most international donors had ceased funding for new development activities. However, the tool gained acceptability and could be chosen by field officer teams to apply in their pla nning work. Within the planning approach, sustainability concepts, other participatory decision support frameworks such as System Analysis tools were tested. Information gathered using field visits, semi -structured interviews and available literature, were presented at community workshops using many visualization tools such as flow diagrams, spiderwebs, and graphs. The field officers were pre trained to conduct and facilitate the process. The background details of designing the Unawatuna pilot case -study an d the lessons learned that were reported to fine tune the field officer training program conducted by GTZ with MPAHA are given in Appendix D. Figure 4 5 The planning process suggested in General Guidelines for post tsunami reconstruction in Sri Lanka
110 Figure 4 6 P lanning steps adopted at the Unawatuna case -study Local Expert Meetings Village Committee Workshop Village Committee Workshop Urgent? Activities Stakeholders Resources Costs and benefits? Most pressing? HOW CAN WE DO IT? (ASSESSING OPTIONS AND STRATEGIZING) Who bears the costs? Who provides resources ? TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT WHERE ARE WE NOW? (EXPLORING CURRENT STATUS AND PRIORITIZING) Field visits Current issues Stakeholder interviews Priority issues? WHAT CAN WE DO? (FORMULATING ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR SOLUTIONS) Guidelines and standards? Who will be benefitted or affected? INITIATION Interlinks of sustainability aspects? Aspects of sustainability? Individual contributions? JOINT ACTIVITY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM (FINE TUNING STRATEGIES) Specific tasks and responsibilities? Timelines and milestones? Joint activities? Monitor impacts? Process Economic, social, envionmental Village Committee Workshop Local Expert Meetings Technical details? BACKGROUND PREPARATION Fair and continuous participation Focal group meetings Sustainable reconstruction goals? Resources? ? What are the benefits? What are the activities ? Is it feasible? What are the institutional arrangements? Is it sustainable? Purpose Doable?
111 Application of SBLCA Methodology Case -S tudy Examples in Assessing the Current State Within the first planning step, assessing the current state, 14 develop ment issues were identified by the village development committee. The issues include the following: Access roads P otable water supply W astewater disposal S tormwater drainage S olid waste management N on -functional toilets U nskilled labor Limited livelihood opportunities H aphazard and unauthorized construction Noise pollution The above issues were found to be among the major issues in the village The list of issues identified by the stakeholders is given in Appendix D The SB LCA framework was applied to analyze these issues in order to comprehensively understand the causes, effects, interconnectivities, and distance to target in meeting stipulated standards related to the issues. Along with this mutual learning about the current s tatus, priority issues were identified through structured dialog. The criteria for prioritizing issues were the level of interconnectivity of issues, the urgency of an issue, and the potential for an issue to be implemented given local capacities. The foll owing examples extracted from the case -study elaborate the application the methodological framework of SBLCA in assessing the current water supply (Example 1) and wastewater issues (Example 2) in the village The examples also elaborate how the interconnec tivi ty of issues and solutions can be identified and how the stakeholders in different discipl ines would be exposed to clear and holistic information in order to make informed decisions. The application of the framework was developed such that the local experts i.e.,
112 trained government field officers were able to use it in village development meetings and workshops together with the community and local government officials Hence, the indicators developed required to be sufficiently simple and transparent Example 1 analyzing the current state of the portable water supply issue Step 1: Identify current levels of water supply services the level of service var ies within the community In this example the levels include the following: (cf. Appendix E for detail ed analysis on water supply) : o some residents are supplied with well water o some residents are supplied with a common tap o the remainder are supplied with an individual National Water Supply and Drainage B oards (NWSDB)s piped water connection Ste p 2: Chain the upstream and downstream activities relevant to providing the above current levels of service. Step 3: Unbundle and assess components of current activities in terms of stakeholder participation, resources, costs, cost recovery, and benefits u sing relevant economical, social, environmental indicators. A g raphical re presentation of the fr amework applied to assessing these current levels of service for potable water supply is given in Figure 4 7 to Figure 4 12. Figures 4 7, 4 9, and 411 show the primary activities and related stakeholder mapping for the three current water supply levels. Figures 4 8, 4 10, and 4 12 show the economic, social, and environmental indicators related to the primary activities of the current water supply levels. The qua ntitative and qualitative indicators which were used to analyze the potable water supply options are summarized in Table 4 1. The descriptions of indicator development are summarized in Table 4 8
113 Figure 4 7 Activity chaining and unbundling the primary activities mapping the respective stakeholder involvement regarding the provision of water through a common well Water collection Well construction Water storage Maintenance Already constructed Walk/cycle to collect water Contractor Community Cans, etc. Housing donor Storage cans/tanks Community Activity Chaining
114 Figure 4 8 Unbundling the primary activities and the respective economic, social, and environmental indicators regarding the provision of water through a common well Access to safe water Cost of cans (negligible) Reduced upstream water treatment costs Overuse results in limited water Water collection Well construction Water storage Maintenance Social indicators Environmental indicators Cost of storage cans/tanks No maintenance cost Free safe water for the community Number of people benefited Reduced wastewater Careful consumption Reduced consumption Reduced upstream energy use Reduced upstream CO2 emissions Inconvenience No cost (already available) Time spent on walking/cycling for collection No fees Economic indicators Activity Chaining
115 Figure 4 9 Activity chaining and unbundling the primary activities mapping the respective stakeholder involvement regarding the provision of water through a common tap Water collection Pipe connection Water storage Use and Maintenance Construction (available) Walk/cycle to collect water Community Local Authority (LA) Cans, etc. Housing donor Water fees Storage cans Community LA Unhandled wastewater around tap Activity Chaining
116 Figure 4 10. Unbundling the primary activities and the respective economic, social, and environmental indicators regarding the provision of water through a common tap. Free access to safe water Cost of cans (negligible) Reduced upstream water treatment costs Unhandled wastewater around tap Water collection Pipe connection Water storage Use and Maintenance Cost of storage cans/tanks O&M costs Free safe water for the community No. of people benefited Moderately reduced wastewater Moderately careful consumption Moderately increased consumption Reduced upstream energy use Reduced upstream CO2 emissions Inconvenience No cost (already available) Time spent on walking/cycling for collection No fees Compliance with service provision stds Common property (unmanaged) Free riders (no tax/fees paid) No. of people affected Common property management (no arrangement) Increased mosquito/fly and disease problem Social indicators Environmental indicators Economic indicators Activity Chaining
117 Figure 4 1 1 Activity chaining and unbundling the primary activities mapping the respective stakeholder involvement regarding the provision of water through a n individual piped connection. Individual connection Distribution Water storage Use and Maintenance Pump and distribute Connection fees Community NWSDB Provide connection NWSDB Water fees Storage tank Community Community Breakdowns NWSDB Water treatment O&M treatment facility NWSDB Activity Chaining
118 Figure 4 12. Unbundling of the activities and the respective economic, social, and environmental indicators regarding the provision of water through an individual piped connection. Free access to safe water Existing distribution network Increased upstream water treatment costs Distribution Water treatment Individual connection Water storage Economic indicators Social indicators Environmental indicators Connection cost/fees Cost of storage tank Water for the community Safe water at the door Compliance with minimum water requirement Supply without waste Increased water treatment Compliance WHO standards Use and Maintenance Increased maintenance costs Increased upstream energy use Monthly Water bill No. of people benefited Convenience No. of free riders No. of people affected Increased cons umption due to convenience Increased upstream CO2 emissions Increased wastewater to canals Contribute to canal overflow (rainy season) Activity Chaining
119 Table 4 1. Evaluation of the quantitative, semi -quantitative and qualitative indicators for activities related to the three pre -existing levels of service for water infrastructure in a tsunami affected village in Sri Lanka. Indicator Common well Common piped water connection Individual piped water connection Economic Upstream water treatment costs No cost Reduced Increased Treatment/distribution maintenance costs No cost Reduced Increased (Rs.13 per m3 of treated water, Rs.7 per m3 of distribution) Distribution costs No cost Reduced Increased Collection time 30 90 min per day 30 90 min per day Storage costs Storage cans (Rs.1,000) Storage cans (Rs.1,000) Cost of tank (Rs. 20,000 for 20 m3 plastic tank) Connection fees Paid by local authority Paid by community (Rs.15,000 per connection) Cost to end users Free Free Not free Water bill Paid by local authority (Rs.15 per m 3 ) Paid by community (Avg. monthly bill Rs.350 per household) Social Safe water for community Safe water Safe water; complied with WHO standards Safe water; complied with WHO standards Convenience Inconvenient Inconvenient Convenient Free riders Free riders No free riders Number of people benefited Proportion from the village well receiving water Proportion from the village receiving common tap water Proportion from the village receiving individual tap water Common property management No arrangement No arrangement Individual property Environmental Per capita water consumption Reduced (20 liters per day) Moderately reduced (30 liters per day) Increased (50 liters per day) Compliance with minimum water standard No t complied No complied Complied Amount of upstream water treatment required 20 30 liter per person per day 50 liters per person per day (10 m3 increase per year per house connection)
120 Table 4 1. Continued Indicator Common well Common piped water connection Individual piped water connection Wastewater generation Reduced Moderately reduced Increased Number of people affected with wastewater and diseases Households living close to common tap and community as a whole Households living along canal and community as a whole Upstream energy use 0.2 kWh (Rs.3.50) per m3 of water treated 0.2 kWh (Rs.3.50) per m3 o f water treated Upstream CO 2 releases 0.14 g CO 2 per m 3 of water treated 0.14 g CO 2 per m 3 of water treated Example 2 analyzing the current state of the wastewater issue Step 1: Identify current levels of wastewater : the levels of service varies in the community (cf. Appendix F for details) o Grey water is either 1) discharged to the surface of the households own plot of land, 2) discharged to a nearby canal, or 3) piped to a treatment plant. o Black water is either 1) discharged to the nearby canal, 2 ) discharged to a two chambered septic tank on the households own plot of land, or 3) piped to a treatment plant. Step 2: Chain the upstream and downstream activities relevant to providing the above current levels of service; Step 3: Unbundle and assess c omponents of the current activities in terms of stakeholder participation, resources, costs, cost recovery, and benefits using relevant economic, social, environmental indicators. A g raphical re presentation of the fr amework applied to assessing the current levels of service for wastewater discharge or treatme nt is given in Figure 4 13 to Figure 4 20. Figures 4 13, 415, 4 17 and 419 show the primary activities and related stakeholder mapping for the current levels mentioned above. Figures 4 14, 4 16, 4 1 8 and 4 20 show the economic, social, and environmental indicators related to the primary activities of the three current levels mentioned above. The quantitative and qualitative indicators which were used to analyze the wastewater issue are summari zed in Table 4 2 (Appendix F)
121 Figure 4 13. Unbundling the activities and the respective stakeholder involvement with grey water discharged to the households own plot of land. Earth drains within plot Basic plumbing in kitchen and bathroom Wastewater discharge to the drains Maintenance Construction Supervision No supervision Housing donor Construction Community Discharge Community Supervision Donor appointed contractors No maintenance Activity Chaining
122 Figure 4 14. Unbundling the activities and the respective economic, social, and environmental indicators regarding grey water discharge within a households own plot of land. Not connected to safe external plumbing No cost (own labor) Cost of internal plumbing Pollution of own yard Earth drains within plot Basic kitchen and bathroom plumbing Discharge of wastewater Maintenance Economic indicators Social indicators Environmental indicators No cost of disposal No cost No. of people affected with diseases No. of people benefited with no cost Canal pollution Ground water pollution No external plumbing No fees Well/shallow tube well water pollution Wastewater logging in own plot Mosquito/fly problem (diseases) Discharge load per day No. of people directly affected with bad smell in own plot Activity Chaining
123 Figure 4 15. Activity chaining and unbundling the primary activities mapping the respective stakeholder involvement for grey and black water discharged to surface drainage canal Pipe lay till canal Basic plumbing in kitchen and bathroom Discharge of wastewater to canal Maintenance Construction Supervision No supervision Housing donor Construction Community Discharge Community Supervision Donor appointed contractors No maintenance Activity Chaining
124 Figure 4 1 6. Unbundling the primary activities and the respective economic, social, and environmental indicators regarding discharging grey and black water to a surface drainage canal. Not connected to safe external plumbing Pipe cost (own labor) Cost of internal plumbing Pipe lay till canal Basic kitchen and bathroom plumbing Discharge of wastewater to canal Maintenance Economic indicators Social indicators Environmental indicators No cost of disposal No cost No. of people affected with diseases No. of people benefited with no cost Canal pollution Discharge load per day No pollution in own plot No fees Well/shallow tube well water pollution Mosquito/fly problem (diseases) Loss of income (affected tourism) Eutrification in canal No. of people directly affected with bad smell along canal Activity Chaining
125 Figure 4 17. Activity chaining and unbundling the primary activities mapping the respective stakeholder involvement with grey and black water discharged to central wastewater treatment plant Activity Chaining External plumbing to treatment plant Basic plumbing in kitchen and bathroom Design and construction of treatment plant Dispose to treatment plant Construction Supervision No supervision Housing donor Construction Infrastructure donor Design Design consultants Supervision Donor appointed contractors Train LA TOs on O&M Operations and Maintenance Connection Construction Contractor Supervision Donor TOs Infrastructure donor LA O&M LA Cost recovery LA Fees Community LA Community Discharge Community LA Local authority TO Technical officer
126 Figure 4 1 8 Unbundling the primary activities and the respective economic, social, and environmental indicators regarding discharging grey and black water to a central wastewater treatment plant. Not connected to safe external plumbing Cost of external plumbing Cost of internal plumbing External plumbing to treatment plant Basic kitchen and bathroom plumbing Design and construction of treatment plant Disposal to treatment plant Economic indicators Social indicators Environmental indicators Cost of design (consultant fee) Connection fees (not paid) No. of people benefited Design within local capacity Increased energy use Discharge load per day No pollution in own plot No fees Reduced ground water pollution Reduced own plot pollution Cost of construction Reduced eutrification in canal Increased standard of living Operations and Maintenance Treatment O&M cost (no funds) Outside skilled labor Breakdown repair costs (no funds) Waste water treatments fees (unpaid) Donor objectives not met Reduced canal pollution Reduced well water pollution Reduced mosquito/fly problem Easier operation from central location DS office responsibilities not fulfilled Activity Chaining
127 Figure 4 19. Activity chaining and unbundling the activities mapping the respective stakeholder involvement for grey and black water discharged to two chambered septic tank External plumbing to treatment plant Basic plumbing in kitchen and bathroom Design and construction of septic tank Dispose to septic tank Construction Supervision No supervision Housing donor Construction Infrastructure donor Design Environmental engineer/TO Supervision Donor appointed contractors Operations and Maintenance Water for flushing Construction Contractor Supervision Donor TOs O&M LA Cost recovery LA Fees Community NWSDB/ Community well Community Discharge Community Community Activity Chaining LA Local authority NWSDB National water supply and drainage board TO Technical officer
128 Figure 4 20. Unbundling the activities and the respective economic, social, and environmental indicators regarding discharging grey and black water to a two -chambered septic tank. Not connected to safe external plumbing Cost of external plumbing Cost of internal plumbing External plumbing to treatment plant Basic kitchen and bathroom plumbing Design and construction of septic tank Disposal to septic tank Economic indicators Social indicators Environmental indicators Cost of design (engineers fee) No fees No. of people benefited Under design to suite load/ water table conditions Non compliance with env. regulations (distance between wells and septic tanks less than 15m) No pollution in own plot No fees Overflowing septic tanks Reduced own plot pollution Cost of construction Reduced eutrification in canal Operations and Maintenance Water cost for flushing Local labor No O&M funds for emptying septic tanks No capital funds for equipment Donor objectives not met Reduced canal pollution Back flushing toilets Reduced mosquito/fly problem Unusable toilets in the long run Waste of construction material Compliance with sanitary stds to certain extent DS office responsibilities not fulfilled Activity Chaining
129 Table 4 2 Evaluation of the quantitative, semi quantitative and qualitative indicators for activities related to the three pre existing levels of service for waste water infrastructure in a tsunami affected village in Sri Lanka. Indicator Discharged within own pl ot of land Discharged to surface water canals Discharged to a two chambered septic tank Discharged to a central treatment plant Economic Cost of internal plumbing Rs.8,000 (Donor) Rs.8,000 (Donor) Rs.8,000 (Donor) Rs.8,000 (Donor) Cost of external plumbing Minimal to beneficiary Minimal to beneficiary Rs.2,500 (Donor) Rs.2,500 (Donor) Cost of design No cost No cost Rs.10,000 (Donor) Cost of treatment unit construction Rs.12,500 (Donor) Rs.400,000 (Donor) O&M Costs No cost No cost Rs.153 per month (Water cost to households) + Rs.2,000 per 2yea rs (Sludge removal by LA) Rs. 800,000 (Unaffordable to LA) Connection fees Rs.1 0,000 per connection (Unaffordable to by households) Monthly fees No fees No fees No monthly fees; Rs.2,000 per 2yea rs (Sludge removal By LA) Rs.2,000 per month (Unaffordable to households) Damage to tourism Moderate High Moderate No Social Safe waste water disposal in the community Unsafe Unsafe Somewhat safe Safe disposal complied with WHO standards
130 Table 4 2. Continued Indicator Discharged within own plot of land Discharged to surface water canals Discharged to a two chambered septic tank Discharged to a central treatment plant Number of people benefited Households discharging with no cost; LA not having to provide service Households along the canal discharging with no cost; LA not having to provide service Beneficiary households Households benefiting from safe disposal Number of people affected Households that discharge and neighbors Households along the canal and the village with floods Households using well water DS office objectives fulfilled Not fulfilled Not fulfilled Fulfilled (if cost recovery is possible) Donor objectives fulfilled Standard of living No arrangement No arrangement Increased (if plant could be operated) Environmental Grey water discharged 130 liters per day per household 36,000 liters per day to canal 130 liters per day per household (expected 5,200 liters per day) Black water discharged 40 liters per day per household 5,000 liters per day to canal 40 liters per day per household (expected 1,600 liters per day) Canal pollution Increased eutrification Reduced Reduced Diseases with mosquito and fly problem Increased Increased Reduced Groundwater pollution Increased Increased Increased (high water table) Well/shallow tube well water pollution Increased (when distance <50m) Increased (when distance <50m) Increased (when distance <50m Wastewater logging and pollution in own plot Increased
131 Table 4 2. Continued Indicator Discharged within own plot of land Discharged to surface water canals Discharged to a two chambered septic tank Discharged to a central treatment plant Compliance with environmental standards Not complied Not complied Not complied (distance to water bodies <50m) Complied with environmental standards Compliance with sanitary standards Not complied Not complied Somewhat complied Complied with sanitary standards Surface drainage Moderately increased Increased Moderately increased
132 As illustrated above the village team assess ed the current levels of all major issues such as poor access roads, surface drainage, and haphazard construction in the community using the SBLCA framework. With the above approach applied to examine the current status of water supply and wastewater in detail the following aspects were clearly v isualized by the stakeholders: The direct interconnectivities of the portable water supply, wastewater, and drainage issues. Improving water supply without finding solutions for the wastewater issue would aggravate the wastewater and stormwater drainage problem. Proper design considerations at the initiation of programs plays a major role in avoiding harmful effects such as back flow of toilets, inoperable wastewater treatment plants, and non functioning septic tanks due to high water tables. P roviding two chambered septic tank s in high water table conditions would still contaminate the groundwater and can result in well water contamination increasing the potential for diseases. Also, if sludge is discharged on open land, or to an improper landfi ll site, ground water and nearby surface water pollution is unavoidable. This is a common issue in a lmost all municipalities in Sri Lanka. Clear understanding of the essential upstream and downstream costs of activities that need to be the responsibility of the stakeholders such as the community, local authorities, technical officers, and donors together with the related positive and negative benefits to individual stakeholders and to the village as a whole. The process of s takeholders explicitly contribut ing to the development of structured knowledge for the analysis creates consensus and helps to a great extent in reducing the bounded rationalities and opportunistic behaviors of the stakeholders The process leads them to reach consensus on prioritizing t he issues to be addressed in the village with a n appropriate level of focus on the interconnected issues. This structured transdisciplinary learning in multi -stakeholder political environments prepares for the next stage of planning where the options for s olutions need to be developed as cross-sectoral joint projects rather than single -sector, single -dimensional projects.
133 Case -S tudy Examples in Option Analysis and Strategizing for Implementation In the option analysis phase, SBLCA was applied to formulate, assess and strategize optional solutions for the prioritized issues Some of the issues identified for immediate action were potable water supply, toilet and wastewater disposal, and stormwater drainage issues, which had di rect links to one another. The following example s elaborate the use of SBLCA in formulating, assessing, and strategizing options for improving water supply (Example 3) and wastewater issues (Example 4) explored under the current status analysis explained i n the previous section. Example 3 o ption analysis for portable water supply Step 1: Identify options for improved levels of service: o Option 1: A n individual piped water connection for everyone provide s the highest level of service; every household and business in the community prefers to have individual piped -water connections. o Option 2: Provi sion of an individual piped-water connection for all individuals who do not have their own well as one solution. Step 2: Chain the upstream and downstream activities relevant to providing and maintaining the above optional levels of serv ice. Step 3: Unbundle and assess components of proposed activities in terms of stakeholder participation, resources, costs, cost recovery, and benefits using r elevant economical, social, environmental indicators. A g raphical re presentation of the fr amework applied to a piped -water supply for households without a well is presented in Figures 4 21 and 4 22. Figure 4 21 shows the primary activities and related sta keholder mapping for providing piped -water to households. Figure 4 22 shows the economic, social, and environmental indicators related to the primary piped -water activities.
134 Figure 4 2 1 Activity chaining and unbundling the primary activities mapping the respective stakeholder involvement regarding the provision of water through individual piped water connections for all households without an existing well Pump and distribute O&M of treatment facility Water treatment and distribution Individual connection Use and Maintenance Wastewater treatment NWSDB Free pumps and storage tank for existing well Community Infrastructure donor O&M NWSDB Provide connection Storage tank Connection fees NWSDB Water storage Housing donor/ Community Plumbing for wastewater disposal Activity Chaining Community Community Infrastructure donor Water fees Breakdowns NWSDB Technical assistance Plumbing LA TOs/Donor TOs/HO Fees Cost recovery Construction Community LA LA/ Community HO Housing officer LA Local authority NWSDB National water supply and drainage board TO Technical officer LA
135 Figure 4 2 2 Unbundling the primary activities and the respective economic, social, and environmental indicators regarding the provision of water through an individual piped connection for all households without an existing well Activity Chainin g Individual connection Wastewater treatment Wastewater plumbing system Use and Maintenance Water storage Savings on maintenance costs Cost of storage tank Connection cost/fees Reduction in O&M Economic indicators Savings on upstream water treatment costs Cost of plumbing Affordability Reduced wastewater to canals Less contribution to diseases Water treatment and distribution Savings on distribution O&M Savings for well owners No. of people benefited Different level of service in the same community Social indicators No. of people benefited Access to safe water in both cases Reduced free riders Free pumps and storage tanks for well owners Compliance with minimum water requirement (well owners and pipe water receivers) Supply without waste Environmental indicators Savings on water Savings on water treatment Savings on upstream energy use Savings on upstream CO2 emissions
136 The quantitative and qualitative indicators which were used to analyze the potable water supply service levels are summarized in Table 4 1 Similar indicators were used in the option analysis comparing piped -water for all households to piped -water only for ho useholds with out an existing well as the upstream and downstream activities were similar for the options, only the number of households that would be receiving piped water was different. The indicator values and cost benefit comparisons for s ome of the qua ntitative indicators for options are presented in Table 4 3 Detailed analysis is given in Appendix E Table 4 3 Quantitative data and net savings for two proposed piped water supply options Piped water (m 3 ) Cost (Rs.) Energy (kWh) Energy cost (Rs.) CO2 (kg) Option 1: Piped water for all households Consumption (daily) 94 1,413 19 66 0.01 Consumption (monthly) 2,825 42,381 565 1,978 0.4 Consumption (yearly) 34,376 515,636 6,875 24,063 4.8 Option 2: Piped water only for households without an existing well Consumption (daily) 192 2,876.25 38 134 0.03 Consumption (monthly) 5,753 86,288 1,151 4,027 0.8 Consumption (yearly) 69,989 1,049,831 13,998 48,992 9.8 Option 2 Option 1 Savings (daily) 98 1,464 20 68 0.01 Savings (monthly) 2,927 43,907 585 2,049 0.4 Savings (yearly) 35,613 534,196 7,123 24,929 5.0 In this exercise, it should be noted that the team has holistically thought through the problem. The team has examined the increased water and wastewater treatment, and the health and sanitation issues which are integral to the water supply infrastructure issue. Therefore, it is clear that the successful implementation of this project would require the integration of stakehol ders to coordinate and collaborate for sustainable results. Cleaning the polluted canal before improving the water supply infrastructure to the village would result in less
137 stress to the less than ideal wastewater handling in the village. To properly addre ss the water supply problem with appropriate levels of improved service, it is necessary to have identified the increased water consumption and resulting wastewater releases with respect to improved levels of service of water supply When formulating and i mplementing improved solutions for wastewater, it may be necessary to go back and examine related activities such as water supply water use, and s tormwater drainage to insure that they integrate with the proposed solutions. It is very important that this iterative process occur to insure that the team is working towards sustainable solutions. Example 4 option an alysis for the wastewater issue Wastewater back flow through toilets and overflowing septic tanks due to inadequate design and because of the hig h water table were common occurrences. A central waste water treatment plant with piped connections to the households is a good option. Although donors were willing to construct a treatment plant, neither the local authority nor the community could afford to pay for the associated operation and maintenance costs. One alternative type of toilet is called an Eco -sanitary toilet introduced and successfully implemented in many developing countries by Practical Action Consultants (Eco -solutions, 2007; Practical Action, 2008) Because a large number of toilets would have to be built, possible construction material options were included together with different toilet technologies. Step 1: Identify optional levels for improvement o Option 1: Commonly used traditional toilet with septic tank or seepage bed, following the specifications of the Sri Lanka Standards Institute (SLSI) (SLSI, 2003). o Option 2: Eco -sanitary toilet (composting toilet) as specified by the guidelines developed by Practical Action, Sri Lanka. D ifferent material options are included. The summary of the options are tabulated in Table 4 4 The details of the two methods are given in Appendix G
138 Step 2: Chain the upstream and downstream options relevant to providing and maintaining the a bove optiona l levels of service. Step 3: Assess the components of proposed activities in terms of stakeholder participation, resources, costs, cost recovery, and benefits using relevant economical, social, environmental indicators (summarized in Table 4 5 ). Table 4 4 Optional levels for black and grey water disposal Option 1: Conventional toilet (4'x5'x6.5') Option 1 (i) Option 1 (ii) Option 1 (iii) Rubble foundation Rubble foundation Rubble foundation Cement block wall C ompressed stabilized earth block (CSEB) wall Brick wall R einforced cement concrete (RCC) roof slab RCC roof slab Sheet roof Brick rectangular septic tank (5m 3 ) Brick septic tank (5 m3) Pre cast cylindrical septic t ank (2 m 3 ) Soakage pit (1.5m3) SLSI Standards Seepage bed (3mx15mx4m) SLSI Standards Soakage pit (1 m 3 ) SLSI Standards Option 2: Double vault Eco -sanitary toilet with urine and wash water diversion (4'x5'x6.5') Option 2 (i) Option 2 (ii) Option 2 (iii) Rubble foundation Rubble foundation Rubble foundation Cement hollow block wall CSEB block wall Brick wall RCC roof and floor slab RCC roof and floor slab Sheet roof Cement hollow block plant bed (1m 3 ) Cement hollow block plant bed (1 m 3 ) Brick plant bed Brick vault Brick vault Brick vault A g raphical re presentation of the fr amework applied to formulating alternative options for toilets and wastewater treatment is presented in Figure 4 23 to 426. Figures 4 2 3 and 4 2 5 show the primary activities and related stakeholder mapping for options 1 and 2. Figures 4 2 4 and 4 2 6 show the economic, social, and environmental indicators related to the primary activities identified as required for implementing the options The quantitative and qualitative indicators which were used to analyze the toilet and wastewater treat ment options are summarized in Table 4 5
139 Figure 4 23. Breakdown of the activities and the respective stakeholder involvement for constructing a conventional toilet with a septic tank and seepage bed for grey and black wastewater treatment Construction Design Operations and maintenance Plumbing for wastewater Mortar consumption Emptying septic tanks LA Community labor Transport to landfills Brick/cement block/CSEB consumption Skilled labor training LA Contractor Contractor Livelihood donor Monitor construction quality LA TOs Skilled labor Specialized labor (CSEB) Contracting/ project monitoring Housing donor Cost recovery (Tax/fees) LA (no system) Pay for services (Tax/fees) Community Construction Infrastructure donor LA Water supply NWASDB/ Community Train to operate LA Infrastructure donor O&M LA Cost recovery (fees) LA (no system) Pay for services Community (unaffordable) Sludge treatment O&M Construction Infrastructure donor LA Train to operate LA Infrastructure donor O&M LA Cost recovery (fees) LA (no system) Pay for services Community (unaffordable) Design guidelines Social cultural preferences LA TOs Donor TOs Environmental guidelines LA TOs Community Women LA TOs Options with wall materials Donor TOs LA TOs Activity Chaining CSEB Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks LA Local authority NWSDB National Water Supply and Drainage Board
140 Figure 4 24. Breakdown of the activities and the respective economic, social, and environmental indicators regarding constructing a conventional toilet with a septic tank and a seepage bed for grey and black water disposal. Non compliance with PA design recommendations Environmentally safe byproducts Construction material cost Allowance for TOs Compliance with standards and recommended construction techniques Reduced load to canal Construction Design Operations and Maintenance Sludge treatment Economic indicators Social indicators Environmental indicators Allowance for TOs Operating water costs Construction cost Training cost Sludge emptying /transport costs Maintenance cost (CSEB wall) Labor cost Inclusion of cultural preferences Inclusion of women preferences No. of people benefited Community LA arrangements No. of people benefited Affordability (unaffordable) Savings from home gardening Non compliance with min. distance to Compliance with wall construction guidelines Reduced sludge load to open landfills More land space (septic tank/ seepage bed) Increased LA responsibilities Higher water use Higher energy use Cost savings from alternative wall material Safe disposal of black water Sludge treatment O&M O&M costs Service fees No. of people trained Cement transport cost (cement block) Increased transport cost (Brick/CSEB) Low energy use (CSEB) High energy use (Brick, cement block) Low embodied energy (Cement block/CSEB) High embodied energy (Brick) Frequent sludge removal (pre cast septic tank) Reduced local labor (CSEB/ brick) Increased local labor (Cement block) Donor objectives not met DS office responsibilities not fulfilled Activity Chaining CSEB Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks LA Local authority TO Technical officer
141 Figure 4 2 5 Unbundling the primary activities and the respective stakeholder involvement for constructing an Eco-sanitary toilet for grey and black wastewater treatment Community Livelihood donor Activity Chaining CBO Community based organization CSEB Compressed stabilized earth blocks HO hous ing officer LA Local authority PHI Public health inspector TO Technical officer VDC Village development committee Social cultural preferences Awareness Campaign Construction Informal interviews Evaluate social acceptance Design Maintenance Recycle (compost) Inputs on local attitude Promotional material Design guidelines Technical support Organize meetings Training Mortar consumption Arrangement for ash collection CBO VDC HOs Community labor PHI Housing donor Home gardens Brick/cement block/CSEB consumption Skilled labor training LA TOs Contractor Contractor Donor TOs CBO representatives Housing donor Livelihood donor Monitor construction quality LA TOs Skilled labor Specialized labor (CSEB) Meetings LA TOs HOs PHI VDC Practical Action Housing donor LA TOs/HOs/ PHI VDC CBO Sample toilet Housing donor LA TOs PHI Community Environmental guidelines LA TOs Community Women LA TOs Contracting/ project monitoring Housing donor Lime availability CBO Ash/lime outlet (continuous supply) CBO/VDC Emptying vaults Community Market for compost VDC Options with wall materials Donor TOs LA TOs Know how to operate and maintain PHI/TOs/HOs Wall maintenance (CSEB) Community
142 Figure 4 2 6 Unbundling the primary activities and the respective economic, social, and environmental indicators regarding constructing an Eco -sanitary toilet for grey and black wastewater treatment. Activity Chaining CSEB Compressed stabilized earth blocks HO housing officer LA Local authority PA Practical Action PHI Public health inspector TO Technical officer No abandoned toilets Compliance with PA design recommendations Wider awareness on use and benefits No abandoned toilets Environment ally safe byproducts Construction material cost No cost (under LA TO responsibilities) No. of people agreed to contribute Compliance with standards and recommended construction techniques Reduced load to canal Travel/time cost reimbursement Awareness campaign Construction Social acceptance Design Maintenance Recycle Economic indicators Social indicators Environmental indicators Minimize material waste Material/ training/meeting costs Allowance for TOs Reduced water cost for flushing Operating cost (lime) Cost of ash/lime outlet Income from compost Reduced sludge transport costs Maintenance cost (CSEB wall) Labor cost No. of people reached Trained local TOs, HOs, PHI etc. Inclusion of cultural preferences Inclusion of women preferences No. of people benefited Reduced local labor (CSEB/ brick) Know how to operate and maintain Community community arrangements No. of people benefited Increase in livelihood (home gardening) Savings from home gardening Minimize material waste Compliance with min. distance to water bodies within and outside plot Cement transport cost (cement block) Compliance with wall construction guidelines Increased transport cost (Brick/CSEB) Reduced sludge load to open landfills Reuse of ash Less land space Donor objectives fulfilled Less burden on LAs Low energy use (CSEB) Reduced water use Reduced water energy use Cost savings from alternative wall material Safe disposal of black water Increased local labor (Cement block) High energy use (Brick, cement block) Low embodied energy (Cement block/CSEB) Reduced water bill Empty vaults every 3 months
143 Table 4 5 Summary of indicators for analyzing the options for improving the wastewater issue Indicator Option 1(i) Option 1(ii) Option 1(iii) Option 2(i) Option 2(ii) Option 2(iii) Initial cost donor (awareness campaign ) Rs.100,000 Capital cost donor (toilet construction ) Rs.67,800 Rs.74,500 Rs.54,700 Rs.48,400 Rs.46,900 Rs.47,600 Capital cost LA (gully bowsers and equipment) Rs.2 million O&M cost beneficiary (water+ sludge removal fees + protective coating) Rs. 153/month + Rs.2,000/2y ea rs + Rs. 0 Rs.153/month + Rs.15,000/5y ea rs + Rs. 300/2y ea r s Rs.153/month + Rs.2,000/9m on ths + Rs. 0 Rs.50/month + Rs.0 + Rs. 0 Rs.50/month + Rs.0 + Rs. 300/2y ea r s Rs.50/month + Rs.0 + Rs. 0 Income from compost Rs. 25/kg of compost O&M cost LA Rs.2,000/2y ea rs Sludge treatment plant cost Rs. 800,000 Sludge treatment O&M Rs. 60,000/ month for 40 households Separate consideration for grey water Directed to soakage pit (designed considering grey water load) Directed to seepage bed (designed considering grey water load) Rs. 5,000 for plant bed (as pre cast cylindrical septic tanks are available in one size) Rs. 5,000 for plant bed Energy consumption (considering only wall type) 2,350 MJ 1,100 MJ 16,570 MJ 2,350 MJ 1,100 MJ 16,570 MJ Embodied energy (considering only wall type) 970 MJ 1,650 MJ 12,450 MJ 970 MJ 1,650 MJ 12,450 MJ
144 Table 4 4. Continued Indicator Option 1(i) Option 1(ii) Option 1(iii) Option 2(i) Option 2(ii) Option 2(iii) CO 2 considering wall type) 260 kg 160 kg 1,260 kg 260 kg 160 kg 1,260 kg Reduced water use 2/3 reduction compared to conventional toilet Reduced water energy use 2/3 reduction compared to conventional toilet Reduced water costs 2/3 reduction compared to conventional toilet Land use for treatment Land consuming; 15m clearance from all surrounding wells and surface water bodies Land consuming; Spreads over 15m distance Land consuming; 15m clearance from all surrounding wells and sur face water bodies Not land consuming; 15m clearance from all surrounding wells and surface water bodies (SLSI Standard) Material manufacture/ transport Cement blocks can be locally obtained; Cement transported 50 100km CSEB transported 30 50km; Brick transported 100150km; pre cast septic tank Transported 100 150km; Cement blocks can be locally obtained; Cement transported 50 100km CSEB transported 30 50km Brick transported 100150km; Labor Local Local and non local Local Local Local and non local Local Compliance with health and sanitation standards Not complied Not complied Not complied Complied Complied Complied Surface water pollution (canals) Ground water pollution Increased Increased Increased Diseases Increased Increased Increased Reduced Reduced Reduced
145 From the above analysis, it can be concluded that a conventional toilet with a septic tank or soakage pit is not a sustainable solution in densely built coastal villages where the water table is high. Also, the analysis shows that downstream of the above solution, the LAs have to have the necessary equipment and suitable landfill areas to dispose of the sludge. Many rural LAs in Sri Lanka are not equipped to transport sludge and als o do not have funds for co ntracting for the service. A rrangements between the LA and the community for maintaining septic tanks such as paying and collecting fees or taxes do not currently exist Introducing Eco -sanitary toilets requires background work to gain the soci al acceptance of the technology, else the technology will not be welcomed and accepted by the village residents. A donor must be ready to bear these upstream preparatory expenses if this technology is to become a viable option. An uninterrupt ed ash or lime supply is also a require ment for sustainable operation of the Eco -sanitary toilets. In terms of building materials, it could be seen that compressed stabilized earth block (CSEB ) walls are a better option considering material extraction, man ufacturing, transport, and construction and endof -life disposal, but it involves wall maintenance, which is not too c ostly. Capital cost -wise, construction material combinations for the toilets fall in a narrow range, but CSEB still has an economic advant age as the overall manufact uring and construction cost is l ower, wh ile the environmental benefits as measured by reduced energy use and reduced demand on heavily demanded materials such as cement and bricks. Construction with CSEB may require skilled labor not available in the village, which could mean either a loss of income opportunities within the village or an opportunity for a livelihood program. Eco -sanitary toilets with CSEB wall s can be seen as the best option because it scores the best on many of the economic, social, and environmental indicators. In a typical village
146 development stakeholder forum for option analysis consisting of the village development team and other stakeholders such as community representatives and officials from the local authorities and donors criteria for decision making can be ranked and weights can be agreed upon accordingly. Viabil ity of the options could be assessed with stakeholders negotiating and agreeing to perform all necessary and clearly identified activities with the associated resource requirements. If certain activities and resource commitments are not forthcoming, then t he next best option should be considered. Given the baseline information produced by the multi -stakeholder analysis, strategizing solutions becomes easier because activity flows and responsibilities are already identified. Agreeing to a time line with a me morandum of understanding to perform each activity by respective stakeholders provides a way forward for sustainable implementation. Indicator Development and Data Sources As explained above, in the SBLCA framework, e ach activity resembles a process in a t ypical LCA, where environmental emissions and raw material depletion are inventoried based on a given functional unit and later converted to communicable impact indicators. Similarly, simplified quantitative and qualitative indicators covering stakeholder involvement, resource needs, and social, economic, and environmental costs and benefits were selected by stakeholders for each upstream and downstream activity identified as being related to an issue or solution. As processes in a typical LCA can have diff erent emission inventory or impact categories, the activities in issues and solutions can also have different inventory or impact categories. The inventory categories can be quantitative or qualitative. Some could be typical LCA impact indicators, while ot hers could be different. The main indicator categories used in these analyses are summarized in Table 4 6 The main data sources are given in Table 4 7 Table 4 8 and Table 4 9 outline the detailed stakeholder and expert inputs in compiling the economic, s ocial, and
1 47 environmental indicators. The intended objective of the indictors is to assist multiple stakeholders identify their roles, other stakeholders roles, and costs and benefits to themselves and to the village as a whole in order to support collabor ation toward achieving joint targets in an integrated village development process. Table 4 6 Main indicator categories used Indicator categories Indicator Quantitative or Qualitative Economic Capital costs Quantitative Operation and Maintenance costs Quantitative Cost savings/increases Quantitative Cost recoveries service fees/tax Quantitative NPV Quantitative/Qualitative Number of livelihood opportunities Quantitative/Qualitative Number of local labor opportunities Quantitative/Qualitative Institutional capacities inadequate/adequate Qualitative Environmental Energy consumptions/savings Quantitative Raw material depletions/savings Quantitative CO2/GWP increases/reductions Quantitative Environmental releases (wastewater, sludge, etc.) increases/reductions Quantitative/Qualitative Contribution to spread of diseases more/less Quantitative/Qualitative Per capita consumption increases/reductions Quantitative/Qualitative Compliance with environmental regulations, standards, or recommendations Quantitative/Qualitative Social Number of people affected/benefited Quantitative Number of people with improved skills and capacity Quantitative/Qualitative Vulnerable group preferences ignored/considered Qualitative Historical/cultural preferences ignored/considered Qualitative Stakeholder objectives unfulfilled/fulfilled Qualitative Compliance with socio economic regulations, standards, or recommendations Quantitative/Qualitative CBOs inactive/active Qualitative
148 Table 4 7 The data sources Data Sources Sri Lankan electricity grid and related emission data Greenhouse gas emission mitigation in the Sri Lanka power sector supply side and demand side options, Energy Conversion and Management ( Wijetunga et al. 2003): Water production and distribution data National Water Supply and Drainage Board public website (NWSDB, 2007) Per capita income, water, energy use CIA World Fact Sheet ( CIA, 2007) Water and sanitation standards WHO public websites ( WHO, 2007) Wastewater release data and standard septic tank design data SLSI Design and Construction of Septic Tank and Associated Effluent Disposal, Part 1 Small System Disposing to ground SLSI 745: Part 1 (SLSI, 2006) Eco -san toilet design Practical Action public website (Practical Action, 2008) CSEB, cement block and brick wall energy and emission data Comparison of Building Materials in Auroville Earth Institute India (Auroville Earth Institute, 2007 ) Earth, cement block and brick wall embodied energy data Estimating environment suitability of wall materials, Building and Environment (Emmanuel, 2004) Village profile data Village Officer R ecords Village specific water consumption data Public Health Inspector records Transport emissions Sri Lanka Emission Standards, Air Resource Management Center (AirMAC), Ministry of Environment And Natural Resources, Sri Lanka. (AirMAC, 2005) Cost of design Donor databases, Contractors data, Practical Action d ata Cost of construction Donor databases, Contractors data, Practical Action data Labor requirements Donor databases, Contractors, Practical Action data Building and sanitation regulations, standards, and practices Practical Action Local Authority and Housing Technical officer records Construction material consumption data cement annual demand (2006) cement demand growth rate sand annual demand sand growth rate Industries: Building blocks ( Lanka Business Online 2008) Mineral Industry of Sri Lanka Eastern Economic Review (Chin.S.Kuo, 1999) Sri Lanka National Policy on Sand as a Resource for the Construction Industry ( e Law 2007)
149 Table 4 7. Continued Data Sources Annual production of mineral commodities 2005Mineral Yearbook, Sri Lanka ( USGS 2007) Environmental regulations Central Environmental Authority (CEA) of Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources publications (CEA, 2001) Geological Survey and Mines Bureau permits (GSMB 2007) Local Authority Environmental Officer records Health indicators Country Health System Profile, Sri Lanka, ( WHO 2007 ) Public Health Inspector records (2007) Table 4 8 Detailed steps of indicator development with stakeholder and expert contributions of data compilation for the water supply example Indicator Stakeholder inputs Expert inputs Description Upstream water treatment and distribution costs Domestic and commercial consumption specific to village Per m 3 treatment and distribution costs from NWSDB Compiled to give daily, monthly and yearly cost of treatment and distribution for village consumption Collection time Average time spent by a household Storage costs Current market value of storage cans and tanks Water c onnection fees Current fee charged by the NWSBD Water bill Monthly bill paid by community; Monthly bill paid by LA Average bill per m3 per household or local authority Maintenance costs Maintenance cost to the L a s Averag e estimate Safe water for community LA bylaws WHO standards Compared against LA authority provisions and WHO standards Convenience Responses by the community Free riders Number of common wells and taps; Number of people per common well or tap Average estimate Compiled to give the number of people benefit from common wells and taps without fees Common property management Responses by stakeholders Common property management Compared against LA bylaws and provisions
150 Table 4 8. Continued Indicator Stakeholder inputs Expert inputs Description measures Compliance with minimum water standard LA bylaws Compliance measures Compared against LA bylaws and provisions Per capita water consumption Consumption per household, tourist guesthouse, and restaurant Average consumption Data for each entity compiled to give as average consumption le vels Wastewater generation SLSI average data per household and commercial entities Estimates based on SLSI unit discharge amounts for households, tourist guesthouses, and restaurants. Number of people affected with wastewater and diseases PHIs records on hospitalizations for 20052007 Number of people hospitalized related to waterborne diseases Compiled using the available records on hospitalizations in 20052007 and proximity of wells to polluted canals and septic tanks Number of people benefited Num ber of people served with well water, common taps, and individual taps Compiled using village officers records on wells, common and individual water connections Cost to the end users Cost to the individuals and LA who pay fees LA data Compiled using individual water bills and LAs water bills Amount of upstream water treatment required Consumptions per household, tourist guesthouse, and restaurant Compiled using per capita household and commercial unit consumptions Upstream energy use Consumptions per household, tourist guesthouse, and restaurant Energy required for treating 1m3 of water from NWSDB Compiled using community consumption data and NWSDB energy data Upstream CO 2 releases SL electricity grid and CO2 emission data from Wijetunge et al. 2003 Compiled using community consumption data, NWSDB energy data and Wijetunge et al. 2003 data
151 Table 4 9 Detailed steps of indicator development with stakeholder and expert contributions of data compilation for the wastewater discharge and treatment example Indicator Stakeholder inputs Expert inputs Description Initial cost donor (awareness) Total cost of a awareness campaign Compiled costs on information fliers, meetings, allowances for field officers, sample toilet construction, etc. Capital cost donor (toilet construction ) Total cost of constructing a traditional toilet with a two chambered septic tank or a soakage pit Total cost of constructing Ecosanitary toilet with a plant bed Compiled estimate using Practical Action bill of quantities (BOQ) on Eco -sanitary toilets and SLSI specifications using current market prices and contractor cost data Capital cost LA (gully bowsers and equipment) Total cost of gully bowsers and equipment for sludge removal Compiled using LA estimates O&M cost beneficiary (water+ fees + protective coating) Cost of sludge removal; Sludge removal intervals; Cost of protective coating for 10m2 of wall area; Durability of protective coating Approximately 1/3 of household water cost for toilet flushing Compiled as monthly cost of water for toilet flushing, fees charged by LA per sludge removal interval based on the size of septic tank, and cost of protective paint for CSEB wall maintenance. Income from compost Demand for compost Income per 1kg of compost as per P ractical Action data Compiled using Practical Action material on Eco sanitary toilets and current market prices for compost O&M cost LA Cost of sludge removal as per LA data Compiled for regular septic tanks and precast septic tanks based on LA data Sludge treatment plant cost Total cost of constructing a sludge treatment plant based on LA data Compiled using LA and contractor cost data based on yearly sludge estimates and
152 Table 4 9. Continued Indicator Stakeholder inputs Expert inputs Description corresponding size of treatment plants according to Practical Action data Sludge treatment O&M Operational energy, material and employee costs and annual expected repair costs Compiled using LA contractor cost data and Practical Action energy and material data Separate consideration for grey water Cost of constructing a plant bed Plant bed sizes Compiled using Practical Action data Energy consumption (considering only wall type) Total wall area Energy per m 2 of wall type Compiled as per Emmanuel, 2004. Embodied energy (considering only wall type) Total wall area Embodied energy per m2 of wall type Compiled as per Emmanuel, 2004. CO 2 /GWP (considering wall type) Total wall area CO 2 releases per m 2 of wall type Complied using energy per m2 of wall type as per Emmanuel, 2004 and SL electricity grid and CO2 emission data from Wijetunge et al. 2003 Reduced water use Fraction of reduction Compiled comparing the water use based on mode of supply Reduced water energy use Fraction of reduction Compiled comparing the water use based on mode of supply Reduced water costs Fraction of reduction Compiled comparing the water use based on mode of supply Land use for treatment Size of toilet with septic tank or seepage bed and compost toilet with plant bed; distance from wells Compiled using design data and SLSI specifications Material manufacture/ transport CSEB, brick and cement clock transport distances Material manufacture energy and emissions Compiled using Aur o vil l e public data and actual transpiration distances.
153 Table 4 9. Continued Indicator Stakeholder inputs Expert inputs Description Labor Local labor opportunities Compiled using LA TO data Compliance with health and sanitation standards LA bylaws WHO standards Compared against LA authority provisions and WHO standards Surface water pollution (canals) Current wastewater discharges to canals Expressed as increased or reduced Ground water pollution Descriptive details on wastewater contaminant intrusion into groundwater Expressed as increased or reduced Diseases Descriptive details on resulting mosquito and waterborne diseases Expressed as increased or reduced Application of the Rating and Ranking Method The rating and ranking methodology was developed after the case -study as a generic way to potentially structure a variety of indicators and related information in negotiation with multiple stakeholders with different interests. This is to mainly identify the better performing options among several alternatives taking into account how important the indicators are to the stakeholders, and how well each option does on the indicators according to the quantitative or qualitative criteria. Although the indicator s are classified into economic, social, and environmental categories, this classification could be overlooked when rating the importance of the indicators as certain economic, social, and environmental indicators could have equal importance to different st akeholders. The method can be conducted in a group in a manner such that discussion and negotiation are promoted in reaching consensus on weights for the indicators that reconcile the interests and needs of the different stakeholder groups. For example, ca pital cost to plan a social awareness campaign on Eco -sanitary toilets maybe important to the donors and local authority
154 officers for meeting their objectives, but the communities could assume that it is not a very relevant indicator or a criterion for the m H ence, a higher weight could be proposed by the donors and local authority groups while a lower weight could be proposed by the community groups. However, it is expected that the stakeholders having gone through the detailed option assessments prior to this step, and being able to visualize the indirect effects holistically, could discuss and agree upon a weight for an indicator that would reflect the fact that without donor investment in social awareness, the Eco -sanitary toilet may not be acceptable to the communities and hence, the implementation would not meet the desired objectives. The rating and ranking method is applied for two sets of indicators extracted from the case study examples presented above. One example is to assess the set of indicator s related to levels of water supply in the community, and the second example is to assess the indicators related to the wastewater treatment options. The analysis can be conducted in a group using two main steps: Step 1: Assign weights and rank indicators o Rate every criterion ( ri) from 0 to 10: 0 = not important at all; 10 = very important; the rating has to be assigned comparing the criteria pair -wise, so that the rat ing reflect s the preference or the importance. o Calculate the weight for a criterion ( wi) which is the rating received for an individual criterion divided by the sum of ratings of all criteria. o Rank criteria according the weights and evaluate to determine if they are agreeable Step 2: Assign scores and rank options based on the weighted scores o Score each option against every criterion ( Si k) from 0 to 10 comparing the relative performance within that criterion ; the best performance could be assigned with a score of 10 and work backwards in giving a relative score to the others. o Calculate t he total weighted scores ( Zk wi Si k) of options against all criteria and the percent total weighted score s for the options ( Ri% ).
155 o Rank options a ccording to the resulting total weighted scores or percentages received by the options The application of t he above steps in analyzing indicators related to the case -study example of the current water supply in the community is summarized in Table 4 10 and Table 4 11, and the application to the proposed wastewater treatment options are summarized in Table 4 1 2 and Table 4 1 3 The ratings for criteria and scores for the options are hypothetical. They were assigned in a normative manner. Table 4 10. Step 1: Assign weights and rank indicators related to current water supply levels Indicator/Criteria Rate for crit eria Weight for criteria Rank for criteria (A i ) (r i ) w i =r i /R Upstream water treatment costs 6 5% 11 Treatment costs 5 4% 14 Distribution costs 5 4% 14 Collection time 6 5% 11 Storage costs 3 2% 20 Connection fees 4 3% 18 Cost to end users 9 7% 3 Water bill 8 6% 5 Safe water for community 10 8% 1 Convenience 7 5% 9 Free riders 7 5% 9 Number of people benefited 8 6% 5 Common property management 9 7% 3 Per capita water consumption 8 6% 5 Compliance with minimum water standard 6 5% 11 Amount of upstream water treatment required 5 4% 14 Wastewater generation 8 6% 5 Number of people affected with wastewater and diseases 10 8% 1 Upstream energy use 5 4% 14 Upstream CO2 releases 4 3% 18 Totals 133 100%
156 Table 4 11. Step 2: Assign scores and rank current water supply levels based on the weighted scores Indicator/Criteria ( A i ) Rank for criteria Option s cores ( S ik ) Weighted options s cores ( w i *S i k ) Total wi*Si k Common well Common tap Individ ual tap Common well Common tap Individ ual tap Safe water for community 1 5 10 10 0.38 0.75 0.75 Number of people affected with wastewater and diseases 1 10 5 3 0.75 0.38 0.23 Cost to end users 3 10 5 2 0.68 0.34 0.14 Common property management 3 2 2 10 0.14 0.14 0.68 Water bill 5 10 5 2 0.60 0.30 0.12 Number of people benefited 5 5 5 3 0.30 0.30 0.18 Per capita water consumption 5 10 5 2 0.60 0.30 0.12 Wastewater generation 5 10 5 3 0.60 0.30 0.18 Convenience 9 5 5 10 0.26 0.26 0.53 Free riders 9 3 10 3 0.16 0.53 0.16 Upstream water treatment costs 11 10 5 2 0.45 0.23 0.09 Collection time 11 3 5 10 0.14 0.23 0.45 Compliance with water standard 11 3 3 10 0.14 0.14 0.45 Treatment costs 14 10 5 2 0.38 0.19 0.08 Distribution costs 14 10 5 2 0.38 0.19 0.08 U pstream water treatment 14 10 5 3 0.38 0.19 0.11 Upstream energy use 14 10 5 3 0.38 0.19 0.11 Connection fees 18 10 5 2 0.30 0.15 0.06 Upstream CO2 releases 18 10 5 3 0.30 0.15 0.09 Storage costs 20 2 2 2 0.05 0.05 0.05 Totals 7.34 5.28 4.64 17.26 % Totals 43% 30 % 27% Ranks of options 1 2 3
157 Table 4 1 2 Step 1: Assign weights and rank indicators related to proposed water treatment options Indicator/Criteria ( A i ) Rate for criteria Weight for criteria Rank for criteria A Initial cost donor (awareness) 9 6% 5 B Capital cost donor (toilet design and construction) 10 7% 1 C Capital cost LA (gully bowsers and equipment) 9 6% 4 D O&M cost beneficiary (water sludge removal fees and protective coating for CSEB) 8 5% 6 E Income from compost 4 3% 20 F Sludge treatment plant capital cost 7 5% 8 G Sludge treatment O&M 7 5% 8 H Separate consideration for grey water 5 3% 15 I Energy consumption (considering only wall type) 5 3% 15 J CO 2 /GWP (considering wall type) 5 3% 15 K Reduced water use 6 4% 12 L Reduced water energy use 5 3% 15 M Exergy 5 3% 15 N Reduced water costs 6 4% 12 O Land use for treatment 7 5% 8 P Material manufacture/ transport 6 4% 12 Q Labor 8 5% 6 R Compliance with health and sanitation standards 7 5% 8 S Surface water pollution (canals) 10 7% 1 T Ground water pollution 10 7% 1 U Diseases 10 7% 1 Totals 149 100%
158 Table 4 13. Step 2: Assign scores and rank proposed water treatment options based on the weighted scores Indicator/ Criteria (Ai) Rank for criteria Option Scores ( S ik ) Weighted Options Scores ( w i *S i k ) Total wi*Si k 1(i) 1(ii) 1(iii) 2(i) 2(ii) 2(iii) 1(i) 1(ii) 1(iii) 2(i) 2(ii) 2(iii) B 1 2 5 3 7 10 8 0.13 0.34 0.20 0.47 0.67 0.54 S 1 0 0 0 10 10 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 T 1 0 0 0 10 10 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 U 1 0 0 0 10 10 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 A 5 10 10 10 0 0 0 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 C 5 0 0 0 10 10 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 D 7 3 0 3 10 8 10 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.54 0.43 0.54 Q 7 10 0 7 10 0 7 0.54 0.00 0.38 0.54 0.00 0.38 F 9 0 0 0 10 10 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 0.47 G 9 0 0 0 10 10 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 0.47 O 9 0 0 0 10 10 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 0.47 R 9 0 0 0 10 10 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 0.47 K 13 0 0 0 10 10 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 N 13 0 0 0 6 6 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 P 13 5 10 3 5 10 3 0.20 0.40 0.12 0.20 0.40 0.12 H 16 10 10 0 0 0 0 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 16 4 10 2 5 10 2 0.13 0.34 0.07 0.17 0.34 0.07 J 16 4 10 2 5 10 2 0.13 0.34 0.07 0.17 0.34 0.07 L 16 0 0 0 10 10 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.34 M 16 4 10 2 5 10 2 0.13 0.34 0.07 0.17 0.34 0.07 E 21 0 0 0 10 10 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.27 Totals 2.38 2.68 1.66 7.72 7.99 7.25 29.68 % Totals 8% 9% 6% 26% 27% 24% Rank of opt ions 5 4 6 3 1 2
159 Applying the above method to compiling indicators related to water supply shows that well -water supply is bet ter compared to the other options in the village context where resources for upstream water treatment is limited and downstream wastewater discharge is problematic. Similarly, applying the method to indicators related to options for wastewater treatment shows that O ption 2 ( Eco -sanitary t oilet) is clearly better Among the wall options, CSEB has scored the highest but the construction material options do not show a great deal of variability in scores In this method, stakeholder interests and priorities are reflected in the weights for the indicators. When there is a large set of indicators, assigning weights that add up to 1.0 or 100% is an iterative and time consuming task. Instead, rating the indicators according to their importance in the 0 10 scale first, and then convert ing them int o weights makes it easier for the stakeholders to discuss and negotiate a score, as compared to assigning a weight directly. The performance of the options related to the indicators is reflected in the scores assigned to the indicators. The scores should be discussed and assigned according to the quantitative or qualitative values derived through the assessment process. Assigning a relative score should be a straight forward task f o r the stakeholders with the above information. The weighted scores reflect the performance of the options with stakeholder interests and priorities taken into account. As mentioned above, this method is to structure and compile the economic, social and environmental indicators according to their importance to the stakeholders to reflect better performing options. Hence, the best options may not be the most viable option s but the stakeholders would be in a position to strive to negotiate on committing resources for strategizing and implementing the best options according to their context.
160 Complementary Method s and Tools U sed in the Case -S tudy Systems Assessment Tool in Understanding Current State and Formulating Options In its simplest sense, systems thinking gives a more complete picture of reality so that planners can work with a system's natural forces in order to achieve the desired results. When it is necessary to address certain issues in the system, ideally all components, but at least the main components in the system need to be examined, and interdependencies should be understood. There can be strong effects or influences as well as weak effects or influences from interrelations among system components. Issues need to be addressed accordingly to make sure th e efforts result in desired outcomes. The influences and interdependencies can be identified together with the stakeholders. Also, one should keep in mind that there can be influences or effects from outside the systems. For example, depending on the boundary of the analysis, a polluted canal running through the village system under consideration could have been polluted by a community upstream, and similarly, the respective system can have influences and effects outside of the system boundary under consi deration i.e., solid waste dumped at a neighboring village. Setting the appropriate boundary for the analysis is an important activity in the analysis process. For instance, if the issue is urban services, cp. Fig ure 4 27, the interconnectivities, effect s, and implications of the following components should be addressed when workable and sustainable solutions are sought. Li fe style of the communities Community livelihoods Community income levels Community organizations Related infrastructure facilities S tructure of the p ublic admin istration institutions and service delivery Political structures Natural environment
161 Communication channels Possible donors Figure 4 2 7 Illustration of village system Systems can be of any scale. A component of a bigger system can be another system that can be broken into smaller components for closer analysis. Coupled with Appreciated, Influenced, and Controlled (AIC) model thi nking explained in the latter part of this section, Community groups Hospitals Transport system Public institutions/ admin Housing Schools Temples / Churches.. CBOs/Social services Communica tion Agricultural industry Cultural heritage Urban services Com. spaces markets, playgrounds Fisheries industry Political environment Infrastructure facilities Natural environment Example for a village system interacting, interrelated, and interdependent components that fo rm a complex and unified whole I nfluences in I nfluences out Conserved land
162 the concept can give a very clear picture of what elements in a system can be affected and therefore select the appropriate basis for st rategies (World Bank Group, 2008) The following sy stem analysis method called Quantitative System Analysis (QSA) developed by NSSI at ETH provides a useful basis for analyzing the inf luences in a systematic manner ( Stauffacher 2006; Sprri, 2007). The me thod is used in a simplified manner to identify interlinked system elements and level of influence. The following example from the case -study elaborates the use of the method where the village water supply system needs to be analyzed in a generalized manne r revealing the interconnectivities of the system components, prior to detailed upstream -downstream LCT /A based option analysis for solutions focused on immediate implementation. First the important components of the system should be identified, a proces s called case faceting. The facets in terms of water supply in the village are as follows: Water treatment Piped water supply Well water supply Water distribution Water consumption Paying for water Wastewater Wastewater treatment Toilets Storm water drainage Tourism Diseases Maintenance Peoples participation Secondly, it would be useful to identify influences due to interconnectivities among the components or facets. The components can influence other components defined as being active or an A ctivity while they could be influenced by other components, defined as being passive or a Passivity. To get a clear perception of this, stakeholder teams perform the following simple matrix analysis:
163 Work out a square matrix with same set of facets on c olumns and rows Define influence scoring system: e.g., 0 = no influence; 1 = modera te or indirect influence; 2 = strong influence Fill the matrix using above scores reading from row to column as a rows influence on a column. Hence, rows become Activity, while columns become Passivity. For example, the influence of water treatment capacity (cf. row 1 in Fig ure 4 2 8 ) on piped water supply (column 2) is given a value of 2 or a strong influence. Add all rows and find the average (mean value). This value give s an indication of the facets ability to influence other facets. Add all columns and find the average (mean value). This value gives an indication of how much it could be influenced by other facets. A sample matrix from working in a community on water is shown in F igure 4 28. The results can also be presented in a graph for visualization (cf. Figure 4 29). According to the graph, it can be interpreted that peoples participation has the highest Activity score. This means community participation can have a strong influence on most of the other facets in general. Diseases has the lowest activity score, meaning that it has the lowest influence on other facets in consideration. However, diseases has the highest Passivity score, indicating that it could be strongly influenced by other facets in the system. This is a realistic indication as increased water supply, increased water consumption, less maintenance and community participation, improper toilets and waste treatment, and storm water have direct and strong effects on increases in diseases in the village. Similar influence s can be noticed on tourism, as a poor wastewater situation and prevalence of disease can reduce the attractiveness of the village to tourists. Peoples participation has a lower Pa ssivity score, as the majority of the other facets considered do not have much effect on community participation. I nterpreting each facet in the same way, can be clearly communicate the influences among facets
164 Figure 4 28. Activity Passivity matrix of the village water system Figure 4 30, based on the Activity -Passivity matrix, shows that wastewater has a strong influence indicated by thick arrows in the figure, on well water due to ground water contamination, wastewater treatment, s torm water drainage, and disease. Wastewater has an indirect impact, indicated by thinner arrows in the figure, on tourism in the village. The wastewater amount can be strongly influenced by the type of water supply, which affects water consumption, the n umber and type of toilets, and the level of tourism in the village. Again, peoples participation has a strong influence, which means that the stakeholders believe that positive actions by the community could contribute to reducing the wastewater problem. Similar flow charts could be worked out for all facets to clearly visualize and understand the natural forces in the system. Water treatment Pipe water supply Well water supply Water distribution Water consumption Paying for water Wastewater Wastewater treatment Toilets Stormwater drainage Tourism Diseases Maintenance People's participation Sum ActivityWater treatment x 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Pipe water supply 2 x 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 Well water supply 1 1 x 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 14 Water distribution 0 2 1 x 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 14 Water consumption 1 1 1 1 x 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 20 Paying for services 2 2 0 2 2 x 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 16 Wastewater 0 0 1 0 0 0 x 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 11 Wastewater treatment 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 x 0 2 1 2 2 0 11 Toilets 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 x 2 2 2 2 1 21 Stormwater drainage 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 x 1 2 2 0 10 Tourism 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 x 0 1 1 13 Diseases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 x 0 1 3 Maintenance 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 x 0 12 People's participation 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 x 23 Sum passivity 9 14 11 13 16 12 16 16 10 16 18 18 17 60= No influence 1= Moderate/indirect influence 2= Strong influence Pasivity Activity Activity = potential influence on other facets Passivity = potential to get influenced by other facets
165 Figure 4 2 9 Activity Passivity Chart (System Grid) of the village water system` Figure 4 30 A flow chart showing active and passive influences on wastewater Activity_Passivity Chart 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Passivity Activity Mean Water treatment well water supply People's participation Toilets Diseases Wastewater Water consumption Water distribution Paying for services Pipe water supply Wastewater Stormwater drainage Maintenance Mean Tourism Water consumption Peoples participation Toilet Tourism Maintenance Diseases Well water supply Storm water drainage Wastewater treatment Wastewater Paying for services Type of water supply
166 Spider W eb Tool for G raphical P resentation The spiderweb tool in general is used to present the status of elements of a current or desired system. In a development planning context, the too l can be used to graphically present the current status of issues in the village as perceived by the stakeholders. The magnitude of the issues can be worked out in a simplified manner, either in a quantitative, semi quantitative, or qualitative manner. The following example from the case -study shows the application of tool to graphically present the development issues in the village identified by the stakeholders. The scale used is qualitative such as poor fair good scale (Fig ure 4 3 1 ). The spokes of t he spiderweb represent the issues, while the intensity or the magnitude of the issue is identified as a point along the spoke A line linking the magnitudes of the issues forming a rim away from the center would mean a well balanced development condition i n the village; a skewed rim close to the center would mean an unbalanc ed poor development condition in the village. Figure 4 31. The village issues and the intensity of the issues identified by the stakeholders Access road Water supply Wastewater Solid waste collection Drainage Hapahazard construction Unskilled labor Solid waste disposal Decline in livelihood opportunities State land encroachments Unauthorized construction Alcohol and drugs Noise pollution Toilets and Good Fair Poor
167 AIC Framework to Support Prioritiz ing Issues for Action Appreciation, Influence and Control (AIC) Framework is a useful tool in recognizing the complexities of communities and the importance of power relationships within those community systems. This framework puts the purpose of an init iative in relationship to different levels of control and power. The name AIC originates from the fundamental and universal relationships involved in the design of a purposeful system (Smith, 1998), which is the relationship of the part to the whole ( A ppreciation), the relationship between the parts of the whole system ( I nfluence), and the relationship of the individual parts to themselves (Control). Using this framework helps to focus on the objective at hand while understanding the complexity of the system and concentrating on working out feasible processe s among the key stakeholders (World Bank Group, 2008; GTZ THSP, 2007) For example, in the case -study, haphazard construction in the village was found to be a major issue T he village development com mittee and the local officers did not have the control or power over finding solutions to the situation, as the remedy to this issue was a national level task, namely reorganizing the Urban Development Authority regulations and enforcement strategy. But vi llage development committees were in a position to influence or pressure the higher level authorities by collectively requesting action, even though the results may not be immediate. Another example was the political influence over allocating resources to the LAs where the village stakeholders do not have any control, but appreciate. This framework has the potential to help the stakeholders to prioritize issues where they have the control to take immediate action, and also get an understanding on what is po ssible and not possible as well as look into avenues where solutions could be made possible (Figure 4 3 2 ).
168 C I A Figure 4 32 AIC Framework Summary The background to the research work was laid in 2005 when post -disaster housing reconstruction guidelines were developed to integrate housing construction with the necessary infrastructure, social services and livelihood opportunities. The research partners included MIT, ETH, and SLHF. The project was initiated and funded by the Tsunami Housing Support Project of the German Technical Cooperation. In the post disa ster reconstruction guidelines, a bottom up integrated development planning approach was introduced. Some methods and tools for transdisciplinary learning and planning for integration of reconstruction programs and cross -sectoral stakeholders were outlined The pilot case -study was developed as part of operationalizing the post tsunami reconstruction guidelines at local scales in line with the governments nation-wide grassroots level village development program. The pilot case -study was conducted at a tsunami affected coastal village in the Galle District of Sri Lanka. In the case -study, the bottom up integrated and transdisciplinary development planning approach was introduced and SBLCA and other complementary tools were applied. Elements of a system that can be I nfluenced Elements of a system that can be C ontrolled Elements of a system that can be A ppreciated System boundary
169 SBLCA was applied in the planning steps assessing the current status of issues and prioritizing, and formulating, assessing and strategizing options for implementation. The application of SBLCA is elaborated using four case -study examples addressing the water supply and wastewat er issues and potential options for solutions. Context specific economic, social and environmental indicators were developed integrating stakeholders and experts knowledge and in assessing current status of issues and formulating and assessing options A rating and ranking based decision technique was introduced to structure the indicators related to service levels incorporating the stakeholder interests and priorities and performance of the levels as could be observed under indicators. The method was app lied to two indicator sets from the case -study examples on water supply levels and wastewater treatment options. The complementary tools used in planning steps along with stakeholder -based life cycle assessment includes a systems thinking method called Qu antitative System Analysis, a graphic method called Spiderweb tool, and decision framework called Appreciate Influence Control to analyze power related constraints and opportunities in a community system. The Spiderweb tool was used to compile and show the scale of the current issues and the Appreciate Influence Control tool was used to prioritize issues that can be addressed by the community. The Qu antitative System Analysis tool was used in analyzing and formulating options for wastewater treatment.
170 CHAP TER 5 APPLICATION IN OTHER PLANNING CONTEXTS Integrated Watershed Management Background of Problem A watershed is defined as the land area where precipitation, i.e., rainfall or snow runoff drains into common surface water bodies. For example, a river system with all its tributaries is one large watershed. Many smaller watersheds referred to as sub -basins can be found in large watersheds (EPA, 2007; USGS, 2008). Watershed boundaries are natural boundaries and typically cross political boundaries such as municipal, county, state, or country boundaries. Hence, integrated management of watersheds around the world has been a challenging task involving multiple stakeholders. Whereas policies and action should be negotiated and agreed at top political scales, action should be implemented at lower political levels In order for the action to be viable and sustainable, the current issues of the watershed sh ould be comprehensively understood and acknowledged by the respective stakeholders, and the solution should be developed collaboratively with due consideration to the interests and priorities of the stakeholders as well as the essential needs of the river systems ( Feldman, 2008; Leitman, 2008). In this particular problem, the focus is on Apalachicola Chattahoochee Flint (ACF) watershed management, which lies in three states. Alabama, Florida, and Georgia have been involved in water negotiations since a bout the early 1970s leading to some successes and some failures (Leitman, 2008). The three river watershed system which runs in part through each state has become a focal resource for economic and social development in Georgia, for environmental conservat ion and preservation in Florida, and for continued agricultural and future industrial and social growth in Alabama ( Leitman, 2008). The ACF watershed area
171 covers over 19,800 square miles within the three states The Apalachicola River is the southernmost river and is formed by the confluences of the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers to the n orth of the Florida border. About 75% of the ACF basin area is within the state of Georgia, 10% of the basin is in Alabama and another 10% in Florida. Georgia is responsibl e for more than 80% of the total withdrawals of the watershed, while Alabama and Florida account for the balance of 20%. A snapshot of the ACF basin is given in Table 5 1 (Abram, 2007) and the boundaries of the watershed is given in Figure 5 1 (USGS, 2008). Table 5 1. ACF Basin snapshot. Georgia Alabama Florida Population 90% 7% 3% Basin area 74% 15% 11% Withdrawals 82% 11% 7% Area 19,600 sq. mi. or 12.3 million acres Population in 1995 4 million Estimated population in 2050 7 million Land use 6% residential, 2% commercial, 25% agricultural, and the balance is mainly undeveloped forested Reservoirs hundreds of reservoirs with 16 major reservoirs on the three principal river main stems (5 federal reservoirs and 11 non-federal) Storage area W.F. George 45,000 surface acres (27.0% of the total storage area of the watershed) and Lake Lanier 38,500 surface acres (30.0% of the total storage area of the watershed) Storage capacity W.F. George 123, 219 cfs -days (15.0% of the total storage of wa tershed) and Lake Lanier 583, 332 cfs days (66.5% of total storage of watershed) Water decisions made in Georgia and Alabama have tremendous effects on the quantity and quality of water that reaches the Apalachicola, which are considered critical factors f or the health of both the Apalachicola River and the Bay (Lietman, 2005 ). Urbanization and industrialization in metropolitan Atlanta has contributed greatly toward reducing the Chattahoochees flow and subsequently, flow in the Apalachicola River. The Apa lachicola River supports the highest diversity of freshwater fish species in the state. The rivers basin
172 holds the second highest concentration of amphibian and reptile species in North America. Pine woodlands provide habitat for the worlds largest popul ation of red -cockaded woodpeckers The B ays barrier islands are nesting grounds for sea turtles and shore birds and provide a critical resting and feeding area for migrating birds and butterflies (ARROW, 2008). The shellfish industry based at the Apalachi cola Bay is valued at approximately $10 14 million which accounts for 90% of the Florida supply and 10 15% of the nation's supply of shellfish ( Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2004-2009). Upper watershed reservoir operations and wa ter withdrawals from the Flint and Chattahoochee rivers have changed the Apalachicolas natural flow, threatening the survival of native species and cutting off the states largest forested floodplain. Rapid development, deforestation, and navigational cha nnel dredging have contributed to river bank erosion and the ecological disruption of the Bay area. The dams along the rivers have altered the river flow disturbing fish movement to and from important spawning and nursery habitat, and the seasonal flood pa tterns essential for maintaining ecological services. Excessive ground water pumping and uncontrolled issuance of water withdrawal permits have led to serious low flow conditions especially along the Flint River. Clearing land for increased development and farming opportunities are recognized as serious threats to the Flint River and the surrounding ecosystems. Water quality in the ACF Basin is negatively impacted by Atlanta's old inefficient stormwater and sewer systems and inefficient irrigation practices across states. Large built areas with impervious surfaces have disrupted groundwater infiltration and the natural treatment of the runoff water. When flow is reduced in a drought period, water quality is considerably reduced along the river systems.
173 Figure 5 1. Apalachicola Chattahoochee Flint watershed boundaries and the respective state boundaries
174 Main upriver water uses include municipal and industrial water supply, irrigation, generation of thermal and hydroelectricity, flood control, wastewater dilution, navigation, and recreation. Near the headwaters of the Chattahoochee River is the city of Atl anta, where population has grown from less than 500,000 in 1950 to more than 5 million in 2000. By 2015, it is expected to increase by another 2 million ( Giacomini and Hadley, 2005; BEBR, 2008). Water demand is expected to grow extensively due to this rapi d urbanization and industrialization around the area. Georgias primary concern is to have sufficient and cheap water supply to allow this massive urban and economic growth. Lake Lanier, the primary reservoir and the main resource for water supply in the A tlanta area, maintains storage even during drought periods to safeguard meeting water needs in the region. A higher level of reservoir storage is also important for Georgia to sustain the major recreational activities based around Lake Lanier. Insufficient water releases is a major hindrance to Alabamas interest in having navigation to the Gulf of Mexico, which could potentially contribute to economic growth in the region. Alabama withdraws a large amount of groundwater for irrigation, which in turn contri butes to reducing water flow in the Apalachicola River. The core of the ACF issue has been conflicting interests of the stakeholders in the three states. So far the states have not been able to agree on how to equitably allocate water resources to meet the current and future needs of the three states. The history of the dispute and the legal procedures are summarized in Ruhl, 2005. The comprehensive study conducted upon the courts request by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) has been continuously attacked for credibility. The ACE operates 5 of the 11 major dams in the watershed. According to Leitman, 2008, some of the key reasons for failure in consensus building among the states include the following: a planning process that extensively involves the respec tive
175 stakeholders in assessing and compiling data and information had not been worked out. There had been no integrated approach to finding the solutions. The three states had individually worked out the water allocation formulas only considering the indiv idual state agendas, and no trust or agreement was built upon the data used for modeling and analysis by the individual parties. In working out formulas and reaching consensus, the working groups of the stakeholders had not been facilitated by an impartial third party. An agreeable water allocation formula that could contribute towards balancing and optimizing the human needs as well as the needs of the ecosystems in the ACF and comprehensively captures the economic, social and environmental costs and benef its to the individual states and to the watershed as a whole has not been worked out to date. Planning Scales and Recommended Action A symposium was organized by the University of Florida (UF) and the National Academy of Environmental Design (NAED) on the topic Water and Sustainability taking the ACF watershed as an exemplary case-study to investigate the issues and potential recommendations for sustainable watershed management involving design professions along with scientists and engineers including memb ers of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) The specific focus of the case -study was to investigate how the human settlements including urban infrastructure and building plannin g, design, and management have vastly changed the historic patterns of river flows, water quantity and quality, and life -supp orting ecosystems across the ACF basin. A team of faculty and students from UF extensively explored the available material on the issue and created a website to make all the necessary background information available for the participants of the symposium (UF and NAED, 2009). Participants, which included academia and practitioners from various disciplines presented, discussed, and developed
176 recommendations on how t he design professions could influence water consumption by humans and associated issues of quantity and quality, mitigate water related disasters, meet expectations for community aesthetics and ensure that natural systems are valued for their services. Th e discussions were conducted on three scales: 1) the watershed, 2) the community and the site, 3) the building or unit (Figure 5 2). Watershed scale: included discussions on three rivers, bioregion, and the human environment over the entire basin. Commun ity and site scale: included discussions on elements of specific regions within the basin, for example, Atlanta metropolitan area and Apalachicola Bay. Building or unit scale: contained discussion on human use including residential, industrial and agricultural activities. A brief summary of the discussions and recommended action at the symposium includes the following (UF and NAED, 2009): Addressing the watershed issues requires comprehensive knowledge developed by the scientists as well as relevant practi tioners in an integrated manner. Additional research is needed on unknown yet essential elements of the watershed such as relationship of stream and groundwater flow, hydrological and geological effects, evaporation, and siltation within the entire watersh ed. Refined estimates of ground water extraction through private wells throughout the watershed. A working method to connect the scale of the site with the scale of the watershed region. e.g., horizontally and vertically integrated planning methods and implementation strategies Action to address extensive water withdrawals and consumption. A new strategy to do business by the experts and stakeholders within the ACF setting a framework to: o v is ualize system -wide alternatives using trans -disciplinary scenario modeling and appropriate tools
177 o u se design charrettes, demonstrating policy and physical design scenarios, to examine alternatives such as removing dams, redesigning golf courses, lawns, or the shoreline of waterfront pro perties, or to reconsider agricultural practices. o u se comprehensive models including cost of ecosystem services and benefits of human impacts and ecosystem services to develop adaptive management plan s o i dentify implementation gaps and problems u tilizing best practices, new policies, particularly in local ordinances or trans -jurisdiction al circumstances. Application of the Planning Process According to the discussions and recommendation s above, it was clear that integrated planning and mutual learning among the stakeholders at different strategic scales o n taking appropriate action is key towards achieving sustainable water management. While some current issues are common sense to one segment of the stakeholders, they are not seen as problematic for another segment of the stakeholders. For example, increasing water demand in the upper regions of the basin has a direct effect on the often insufficient water flow and consequent salt water intrusion at the Gulf of Mexico. This not only disrupts the oyster indus try, but also other essential ecosystem functions for life support in the estuary and the mangroves along the Apalachi cola River. Similarly, Lake Lanier experiencing record low levels of storage during the recent drought cycles and fears of a water crisis in metropolitan areas in Georgia is seen as irrelevant for Florida and Alabama. Certain bounded rationalities of the stakeholders on important issues of the Basin have led to opportunistic behaviors by various key stakeholders ignoring the real facts abou t what is appropriate to protect the health of the AFC Basin. Hence, stakeholder -based integrated planning at 1) the watershed scale, 2) the community and the site scale, 3) the building or unit scale would have immense potential to bring the stakeholders at these different scales with different interests and priorities to a
178 common understanding of the current watershed issues and formulate options and strategies to solve the issues. Creating a transdisciplinary learning process integrating experts, pract itioners, and stakeholders knowledge at the above scales will enhance the ability to arrive at pragmatic solutions at each scale, which in turn would feed into a continuous loop of collaborative action (Figure 52). As described in IDP in the Literature Review, learning on data and other relevant information in a transparent manner from the very beginning of the planning process would enhance fostering consensus among the stakeholders. The planning process could be similar to the process presented in Figu re 4 5. Learning from best practices from similar watershed planning problems could also provide useful insights to the stakeholders at the different planning scales of the ACF basin (Figure 5 2). The NAED or other potential impartial organization s may be in a position to assume the role of facilitators in the transdisciplinary integrated planning process at appropriate scales. Examples of respective stakeholders at different scales of planning may include the following: The watershed scale stakeholders may include: State regulatory bodies, State Development Authorities/Councils, State Departments of Watershed Management, ACE, NRC, State Departments of Agriculture and Natural Resources, United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The site and community scale st akeholders may include: Municipalities and local governments, water conservation and floodplain management agencies, representatives from major industries and commercial services, investors, local regulatory bodies, scientists, planners, designers, and com munity organizations. The building or unit scale stakeholders may include: Municipalities and local governments, conservation and floodplain management agencies, building or unit owners, planners, designers, contractors, and community. Application of SBLCA SBLCA can be used at different planning scales and planning steps within an integrated planning process such as identifying upstream and downstream of the current issues and their interconnectivities, and similarly formulating and assessing future scenar ios for solutions
179 together with the respective stakeholders. The expert knowledge and information from different disciplines and knowledge and experience from practitioners and stakeholders can be mapped along the upstream and downstream events of the issu e or solution being analyzed. The information could be quantitative, qualitative, descriptive, or graphical. Depending on the planning context, the level of details and complexity of the analysis could be determined. Figure 5 2. Proposed integrated water management planning scales Application of SBLCA at Watershed S cale The watershed scale describes the entire river basin with the three rivers, the bioregion, and the human environment. Ideally, decisions need to be made with the broade st sense possible and consider the entire watershed s requirements. Two of the main issues identified in the watershed are water flow (quantity) and water quality. In terms of holistically analyzing Community and site scale planning Building/unit scale planning Watershed scale planning Lessons learned from other building/unit design and management practices Lessons learned from other watershed management practices Lessons learned from other site planning practices
180 the primary issues, it is necessary to identify the current level of the issues. A level would define the reference unit, i.e., functional unit, where analysis can be conducted. I n the ACF case, a suggestion for the reference unit for the current state analysis of flow could be levels of dam operation which directly controls the flow of the river by changing the levels of storage at reservoirs. It may be appropriate to consider the levels of five federal reservoirs which hold more than 95% of the total storage in the basin. In the option analysis phase, various scenarios could be assessed for alternative levels of dam operations including extreme scenarios such as no dam operation or natural drought and flood cycles t hat better mimic nature. Example current state analysis of basin river flow Step 1: Identify current levels of dam operation o Minimum storage at major reservoirs during drought period o Maximum storage at major reservoi rs during rainy season Step 2: Chain the upstream and downstream activity phases relevant to the above levels of flow Step 3: Unbundle and assess components of upstream and downstream phases in terms of stakeholder involvement resources, costs, benefits impacts using relevant economical, social, environmental indicators. A g raphical re presentation of the fr amework applied to assessing the current levels of dam operation is given in Figure 5 3 to Figure 5 5. Figure 5 3 shows the pri mary upstream and downstream phases and related stakeholder mapping for the current levels mentioned above. For both levels, upstream and downstream activity phases and responsible stakeholders are the same, while the other components such as costs, benefi ts, and impacts would be different at each phase. Figure 5 4 and Figure 5 5 show the economic, social, and environmental indicators related to the primary activity phases of the two levels mentioned above. The indicators which are variable with the seasons are highlighted in yellow in Figure 5 4 and Figure 55.
181 F igure 5 3 Activity chaining and u nbundling the primary activities mapping the respective stakeholder involvement in dam operation in the ACF watershed ACE Army Corps of Engineers Upstream and downstream phases Needs Monitor rainfall Water withdrawals Other dams Dam operation Water storage Climate change Monitor Storage levels Guidelines Federal dams Permits ACE ACE State municipalities Private sector operators Ground water withdrawals Georgia industry and community State municipalities State municipalities ACE Monitoring Guidelines ACE/ Georgia authorities? Surface water withdrawals State municipalities Reservoir use Recreation stakeholders Counties Private suppliers Counties Private suppliers Domestic self suppliers State natural resource conservation Flood control ACE ACE Private sector operators Regulations ACE/ States authorities? Regulations State authorities? Continued
182 Figure 5 3 Continued Water use Industrial use Industries Irrigational use Farmers Electricity production Power suppliers Ecological services Ecosystems Domestic use Urban communities Water pricing and fees State water authorities Rural communities Consumers Ranchers Recharge/ evaporation Rainfall Urban designers Surface runoff Building designers Building and landscape designers Stream flow and quality Deforestation Urban planners Surface ponds Irrigation communities State regulators Rainwater harvesting Building designers Hydrology and geology Natural systems Upstream use Georgia and Alabama users Water treatment State municipalities Surface drainage State municipalities Sewer systems State municipalities Pesticides Farmers Navigation Navigation industry Climatic conditions Natural ecosystems Florida estuary/ mangrove areas Shellfish industry Florida fishermen Facility owners/ operators Households Industries Upstream and downstream phases
183 Figure 5 4 Unbundling the primary activities and the respective economic, social, and environmental indicators regarding dam operation during drought cycle (Minimum storage) Continuous supply to upper watershed Water fees Withdrawal costs No. of citizens /industries benefited Economic benefits to industries Dam operation Water use Storage Withdrawals Recharge Flow and quality Economic indicators Social indicators Economic loss to oyster industry Adequacy of pricing Cost of ecosystem services Cost of treatment/ sewer system Permit fees Population growth Industry growth/ urbanization Cheap affordable water No. of citizens/ industries benefited Perceptions on evaporation Awareness on reduced water use and design Biggest polluters Livelihoods affected Damage to ecosystem services No. of citizens /industries affected Knowhow and acceptance on new technologies Adequacy of permit issuance Biggest consumers Cost of distribution Economic losses to oyster industry Economic damage to navigation industry Ecosystems affected Economic benefits to industries Insufficient water availability Disrupted flow in lower watershed Disparity in water availability Cost of treating surface run off Cost of rain water recycling systems Costs to increase recharge Incentives for reduce reuse recycle Activity Chaining
184 Figure 5 4 Continued Compliance with state guidelines and regulation Storage levels at reservoirs Damage to estuary Per capita domestic consumption Amount of water recycled Environmental indicators Water release schedule State withdrawal amounts Industry consumption Inter basin transfers Irrigation consumption patterns Damage to mangrove areas Amount of impervious areas Thermo/hydro plant consumption Amount of surface runoff Amount of siltation Rain fall Total consumptive use Groundwater use patterns Surface runoff quality Amount of evaporation Insufficient downstream flow Salt water intuition Threat to ecosystems Species lost Amount of salinity Hydrological/ geological impacts Building consumption Amount of groundwater recharge Affected ecosystems Below min levels at some reservoirs Excessive ground water pumping Wastewater loads to rivers Minimum storage vs. consumptive use of states Excess storage Storage per person Dam operation Water use Storage Withdrawals Recharge Flow and quality Activity Chaining Pollution loads to rivers
185 Figure 5 5 Unbundling the primary activities and the respective economic, social, and environmental indicators regarding dam operation during flood cycle (Maximum storage) Activity Chaining Continuous water supply Water fees Withdrawal costs Economic benefits to industries Dam operation Water use Storage Withdrawals Recharge Flow and quality Economic indicators Social indicators Economic benefit from flood control Cost of treating surface run off Cost of rain water recycling systems Cost of ecosystem services Cost of treatment/ sewer system Costs to increase recharge Permit fees Farmers, ranchers, communities benefited from no flooding Sufficient water in all states Industry growth/ urbanization Adequacy of pricing Perceptions on evaporation Lack of awareness on reduced water use and design methods Less threat to citizens No. of citizens/ industries benefited Adequacy of permit issuance Distribution costs Economic benefits to farmers, ranchers Crops saved from flood control Population growth Less threat to ecosystems Cheap affordable water No. of citizens/ industries benefited Biggest consumers Incentives for reduce reuse recycle
186 Figure 5 5 Continued Hindrance to fish movement Compliance with state guidelines and regulations Storage levels at reservoirs Per capita domestic consumption Amount of water recycled Environmental indicators Water release schedule Hindrance to fish breeding State withdrawal amounts Industry consumption State distribution distances Irrigation consumption patterns Amount of impervious areas Withdrawals from other sources Thermo/hydro plant consumption Amount of surface runoff Amount of siltation Rain fall Total consumptive use Groundwater use patterns Surface runoff quality Amount of evaporation Hindrance to natural flooding Threat to natural habitats Less salinity Hydrological/ geological impacts Excess storage Building consumption Amount of groundwater recharge Sufficient water quality Storage per person Inter basin transfers Waste water loads to rivers Activity Chaining Dam operation Water use Storage Withdrawals Recharge Flow and quality No salt water intrusion
187 The above example is a hypothetical outcome of a current state analysis exercise using SBLCA conducted together with the stakeholders facilitated by experts. Some of the knowledge missing may have to be generated using the stakeholder, practitioner, or expert knowledge in a real planning situation. As facilitators, th e experts would need to go through the background steps of gathering available information as much as possible on the issues and solutions to have thorough knowledge pertaining to the planning scale prior to assessments together with the stakeholders, whil e being open to integrating the knowledge brought into the process by the stakeholders. Certain information given above could be communicated using different graphical methods. For example, population, industry, urban growth, damage to mangrove areas, and water withdrawals and consumption can be communicated using GIS maps with data validated by the stakeholders. The number of people benefited or affected from certain activities can be graphed or numerically presented. The a mount of siltation and evaporatio n could be communicated using real -time graphics using simple hydrological modeling software such as STATA with available and agreeable data demonstrating the uncertainties. According to the exercise above, the water flow issue would be investigated considering the relevant upstream and downstream activity phases. It can be clearly seen that the dam operation can have a significant effect on many downstream phases. Analyzing the different levels of operation in the seasons reveals that dam operation does pr ovide benefit to human society. For example, flood control in rainy season and essential water supply in the drought period despite the fact that there are significant effects to ecosystems, natural cycles, and species. It also shows that how the water qua lity is very much linked to the water flow.
188 It also brings out the building and landscape issues such as impervious areas and turf grass which reduce rain water infiltration to the ground and increases evaporation, which eventually reduces river recharge. Evaluating the population growth and urbanization patterns could reveal the potential for these issues to increase in the built environment, and the need for more rainwater harvesting systems and better urban, buil ding, and landscape designs. It could be seen that to discuss certain issues such as geology and hydrology with certainty, not much information is available for the entire basin which could prevent formulating future options for dam operation, changes in d esign and construction practices, groundwater withdrawals, and alternative measures to increase recharge to the rivers in the basin that suits the basin conditions. As is apparent from the indicators, in the current context, the benefits to the human sys tem are entangled with the negative impacts to the ecological systems. Even though state guidelines and laws are available to safeguard human needs, laws and regulations to protect the needs of the ecosystems are not as prominent in the ACF discussions. He nce, when mapping the stakeholders with respective upstream and downstream phases of the above levels, natural ecosystems and species could also be rightfully represented as stakeholders in the watershed system. Finding an ethical balance between the essen tial human needs and ecological needs with thorough learning regarding system interactions could lead to sound policy negotiations and decisions. Similarly, alternative scenarios of dam operation and water consumption types could be assessed at the waters hed scale. Comparative indicators such as minimum storage amounts with consumptive use in the states could be used to examine excess or deficit storage amounts in the reservoirs to understand how the dam operation or water consumption of the states
189 could b e optimized. Eliciting the cost of ecological services and respective benefits to the human environment, and also, damage to the natural systems and subsequent costs and losses to the humans would also encourage the stakeholders to evaluate their net bene fits in a somewhat comprehensive manner. These discussions could bring out the fact that further research needs to be conducted to estimate the cost of ecological services and damage to ecosystems in a simplistic manner that could be easily communicated to the stakeholders and responsible policy makers. Application of SBLCA at other Planning Scale s As SBLCA methodology suggests, some of the subissues can be further analyzed in detail. For example, if excessive water withdrawals and stormwater runoff are su b issues, the current status of those issues could be unbundled to identify the upstream and downstream activities, resources, causes, effects, and stakeholders. Another example is, if retrofitting building and sewer systems is an alternative scenario or a future option to reduce water consumption and increase water quality, different levels of building and sewer systems could be assessed as above. When all relevant sub issues or potential options for solutions are evaluated in the same manner, the not so a pparent interconnectivities could be identified. This could lead to prioritizing issues to address with due consideration to their interconnectivities and collaborative contributions necessary. Detailed analysis could be more useful in smaller scales such as site and community scale planning, which is more focused on regional level collective action. Then the issues, scenarios, analyses, indicators, strategies would be more specific to a region. Along with water management in a region, other related issues such as regional economic and social development programs and activities need to be addressed simultaneously With such assessments, stakeholders would be able to visualize costs,
190 benefits, and strategies related to water management activities that would increase the health of the ACF B asin, while contributing to the regional development activities in a meaningful manner. As discussed at the Water and Sustainability symposium, there are various design methods and approaches which have been developed to red uce water consumption, evaporation, surface water runoff, and siltation at building or unit scale. Improved building designs, efficient irrigation methods, appropriate pricing of water, and incentives for reduced consumption and recycling were a few of those methods and approaches included in the discussion. Most methods were designed context specific and applications were limited. They were discussed as successful projects in design, construction, and operational phases, but it was unclear whether the upst ream energy, material, and water consumption were less than the savings downstream, i.e., whether significant life cycle net benefits were achieved. It was also unclear whether the designs would be suitable or acceptable when applied in a broader scale. Th e impacts from manufacture, transport, construction, and maintenance requirements are unknown. Furthermore, cost effectiveness, technical knowhow and capacities, social and cultural preferences, and stakeholder activities and commitments are essential elem ents in assessing the sustainability of new methods and technologies comprehensively, which are also unknown in this case. While improving the flow and quality issues of the ACF, the methods used should not create other forms of adverse effects in or outs ide the ACF system. Hence, at building or unit scale planning, the relevant stakeholders and experts together could use SBLCA to unify the necessary practical and scientific knowledge in working out comprehensive strategies
191 acceptable to and within the capacities of the stakeholders that would eventually contribute to minimizing the issues in the watershed. Summary ACF water management was identified as an exemplary case -study for the Water and Sustainability symposium organized by UF and NAED to investigat e the issues and develop potential recommendations for sustainable integrated watershed management involving design professions and scientists from relevant disciplines. The specific focus of the case -study was to investigate how the human settlements incl uding urban infrastructure and building planning, design, and management have vastly changed the historic patterns of river flows, water quantity and quality, and life -supporting ecosystems across the AFC basin. In this particular watershed management issu e, the states of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia have been involved in water negotiations since about the early 1970s leading to some successes and some failures with no agreeable solution to date. The major issues identified in ACF watershed are the water f low and quality. This exercise examined how SBLCA could be applied at different planning scales (watershed, site and community, and building or unit) to visualize upstream and downstream of current issues, their interconnectivities, gaps in laws and regula tions in meeting management objectives of the watershed, and formulating and strategizing future options that suits ACF basin management. A hypothetical example of the application of SBLCA in assessing the current state of the water flow issue at watershed scale is presented. The levels investigated were the current dam operations during the flood and drought cycles. The economic, social, and environmental indicators presented are exemplary and assumed to be as discussed at stakeholder -expert forums or work shops. The indicators developed during a real planning exercise could be different or more comprehensive compared to those presented in
192 the example. Application of SBLCA in site and community, and building or unit scale is also discussed.
193 CHAPTER 6 DISCU SSION CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Discussion and Conclusions A decision framework using the fundamental concept of upstream and downstream thinking inherent in life cycle assessment was developed and applied in a multi stakeholder context to support decision making for sustainable development strategies. Using the f ramework to evaluate the current state of issues and developing and analyzing future options gave a transparent picture of the inter linkages between issues, the involvement of stakeholders from different sectors, and the required resources. The economic, social, and environmental cost benefit indicators, along with applicable standards, regulations, and recommendations were used to benchmark the alternatives. Analysis of the upstream and downstream activities related to the alternative solutions created a platform for both sustainable planning and formulating sustainable strategies for regional development. The analogies and indicators used were quantitative and qualitative, and importantly, they were relevant and easily understood by different stakeholders from different backgrounds and sectors. A simplified rating and ranking based method was developed after the completion of the pilot field study in Sri Lanka. The purpose was to introduce a method to organize information derived from assessment processes and further support prioritizing development issues and selecting among alternative solutions by the stakeholders in a participatory manner. Application of SBLCA in Post -D isaster Development Planning The examples presented in Chapter 4 were developed base d on the outcomes of the pilot field study conducted in Sri Lanka. The examples were worked out from the exercises conducted at workshops involving community, field officers, and experts The methods tested
194 in the planning approaches applied in the field s tudy were developed into training material to train the government field officers on the community based participatory approaches along with other useful method and tools. One of the main methods tested in the field study included SBLCA In addition, the Q SA, AIC, and Spiderweb tools were also tested to identify in the stakeholder capacity to apply, interpret and identify appropriate planning phases to be used. The transdisciplinary knowledge produced with the involvement of the stakeholders and the expert s in a mutual learning process had practical value. For example, when addressing certain development issues, relevant social and cultural values, needs, preferences, and facts specific to the area were better known by the stakeholders in the region. In add ition existing standards, regulations and enforcement issues were better known by the local technical officers in the relevant fields such as housing, infrastructure and environmental services. Transdisciplinary learning among experts and stakeholders wa s much promoted in the pilot project and expected to be practiced in the village development programs by the field officer teams. Necessary technical knowledge and soft skills were included in the training programs. The application of SBLCA and the systems thinking frameworks open ed avenues for knowledge sharing among the local experts w ho were also a subset of stakeholders of village development and the other stakeholders. The village development teams consist of stakeholders from various disciplines, such as housing technical officers waste management technical officers and environmental officers. The LCT/A framework required them to process i nformation from their individual field and other stakeholders fields in applying the framework in their planning and implementation process. The assessment process was grasped by the field officers. From the initial planning steps, village officers were able to conduct the stakeholder meetings up to assessing the
195 current system and prioritizing issues. At the point of option analysis, where in most cases technical solutions and therefore specific expertise were required, the village officers needed assist ance from the LA or N ational H ousing D evelopment A uthority (NHDA) TOs. Therefore, TOs having good working knowledge of participatory approaches, methods, and tools for analysis were found to be very important to promote village level planning and implement ation. THSP initiated a collaborative project with the Performance Improvement Project (PIP) of GTZ Sri Lanka directed toward improving the service delivery and soft skills as well as the technical capacities o f the LAs. This project was in the proposal ph ase. Life cycle thinking and unbundling levels was expected to be a key topic in the training program, apart from other communication, leadership, and teamwork skills. Since the responsibilities of the LA TOs outlined above would be in addition to their cu rrent duties, the LAs were expected to modify and update the TO duties in a manner which would allow the TOs to take part in village development planning and implementation activities. Much of the village specific data were available to the Village Officer s, Public Health Inspectors, NHDA and LA Technical Officers. Energy use, CO2 releases, raw material consumption patterns, water purification, and wastewater treatment data needed to be extracted through research and faceto -face meetings with relevant prof essionals. As the proposed training for field officers includes basic email correspondence and internet use, links for useful data sources can be incorporated in the training modules for TOs. The purpose of the modules was to introduce several participator y planning methods and tools which can be used for different purposes in village -level development planning. Measuring how well teams utilize these techniques for sustainable planning and
196 implementation would be useful in order to evaluate the program and identify its strengths and weaknesses. THSP ha d launched a project together with the Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs for the purpose of rewarding the village development teams who have applied participatory approaches, methods, and tool s and achieved positive contributions towards sustainable development. A village to national level scheme was developed by THSP to assess the above. According to the rewards scheme, every village and workshop meeting is supposed to be documented according t o a standard format. The details on approaches, methods and tools applied with scheduled outcomes are expected to be reported to the divisional secretariat. A data base was developed at each district level to store the records for evaluation by a panel of judges at district and national level. The successful field officer teams were expected to receive carrier advancement certificates from the Ministry of Public Administration and Home Affairs and foreign exposure visits to enhance the knowledge on successf ul strategies in other countries such as Thailand. These records from the database were expected to be used to validate the usefulness of the decision frameworks introduced. Since, the database records monthly activities of the village development team activities covering sustainability aspects addressed in the process, in situations where the above tools have been applied c ould be compared against similar situations where different techniques have been used to identify potential contributions towards planning and implementing sustainable solutions in villages. The project is currently underway. Based on this field experience, the environmental indicators together with economic and social indicators made considerable impact on decision making. Cost factors w ere always the governing and deciding factors. Illuminating future economic costs as a result of lower initial investments, especially those which resulted in environmental damage, supported improved
197 decision making with a focus towards the environment. Social standards such as number of people affected and stakeholder objectives and responsibilities not fulfilled also supported changing some of the decisions initially driven by economic considerations. Application of SBLCA in Integrated Watershed Managemen t ACF watershed management was an exemplary case-study conducted on investigating issues and potential recommendations for sustainable watershed management involving the relevant academic professionals and practitioners. At the symposium held on water and sustainability with the ACF as a case -study, various recommendation s were made on how human settlements, including urban infrastructure and building planning, design, and management, river flows, water quantity and quality, and life -supporting ecosystems across the AFC basin could be improved. Available material was extensively researched to understand the history and the conflicting issues of the entire watershed. The economies, interests and priorities of the stakeholders, needs of the ecological system s, growth patterns, and legal issues of the three involved states were also explored. ACF watershed management was identified as a multi -scale, multi discipline, and multi stakeholder problem. Even though the planning could happen at several strategic scal es, certain decision s on the watershed has to be made considering the entire basin system. Sustainable action requires collaboration among multiple stakeholders in the watershed. Hence, application of SBLCA at different planning scales has the potential to communicate holistic information to the stakeholders belonging to various activity phases and foster consensus on sustainable decisions and collaborative action. The information investigated above was used to formulate the hypothetical example on the appl ication of SBLCA in an integrated planning process in a watershed scale. The example examined the current levels of dam operation in the watershed in the flood and
198 drought cycles. In a real planning situation, once the main issues of the watershed ha ve bee n identified, stakeholders and experts could chose the appropriate levels and upstream and downstream activity phases that should be included in the assessment. The indicators in the example were introduced in generic form as all the indicators presented w ere not investigated for their actual values within the first phase of the study. The indicators applicable in this example could be quantitative, semi -quantitative, qualitative, descriptive, or graphical. When the indicators are compared with reference t o their levels, the effects of the dam operation on various phases could be examined. Especially in the case of comparing alternative levels of dam operation, once the actual values for the full set of economic, social, and environmental indicators were wo rked out with stakeholder input, they could be organized to further analyze, discuss, and negotiate which levels perform better. Accordingly, sustainable strategies for sound policies and action could be negotiated at the watershed scale. From the SBLCA ex ample, it could become clear to the stakeholders how certain decisions upstream affect may affect activities and ecosystems downstream. Certain implicit costs and benefits and required organizational inputs along the activity phases could be understood. Qu antified direct benefits from protecting the ecosystems are not readily available for the ACF watershed. In this tri -state battle, not being able to find common ground identifying mutual benefits to the stakeholders has been a crucial problem. For example, protection of ecosystems in Apalachicola Bay does not have apparent direct benefits to the stakeholders in Georgia or Alabama. The needs of the state of Florida could even be seen as an attempt to protect the oyster industry. In most situations, the needs of the ecosystems are not interpreted as important compared to the needs of the human society, even though the functions of the ecosystems and their service s have significant direct and indirect effect on the
199 human environment. The cost of ecosystem servi ces is largely unknown. Hence, configuring links of human activity to disruption of the ecosystem and being able to communicate the adverse impacts using simplistic indicators would have a greater effect in educating stakeholders to make ethical decisions where monetary benefits are not governing. To do so, further multidisciplinary research may be required to make such analyses more transparent, stakeholder oriented and communicable. Considering the above, at each planning scale of the watershed, it is im portant that the planning process is more of a transdisciplinary learning process involving relevant stakeholders and experts. The SBLCA framework as demonstrated has the potential to bring in and integrate knowledge from different disciplines and sectors to promote a learning process. The framework has the ability produce transdisciplinary knowledge and information which would be more transparent and relevant to the decision makers in the watershed. In the scope of this study, other scale s of planning (si te and community scale, or, building or unit scale) were not investigated in detail. The recommendations of the symposium helped to identify innovative ways to address water reductions at the building scale, yet how to expand and integrate its application to the regional scale was not yet investigated. Hence, example applications of the SBLCA framework were not presented for the above planning scale. One of the recommendations at the symposium was to use design charrettes to visualize system -wide alternativ es using trans disciplinary scenario modeling and appropriate tools demonstrating policy and physical design scenarios such as removing dams, redesigning the shoreline of waterfront properties, improving building and landscape designs, or reconsider ing agri cultural practices. Along these lines, some of the potential issues were
200 identified at the site and community, and building or unit scale H ow the SBLCA framework could be meaningfully applied in these contexts was briefly outlined and discussed. Evaluation of SBLCA To evaluate the use of SBLCA, the same criteria that were used to assess other commonly used development assessment methods are used. The criteria are discussed relative to the methodological flexibility and stakeholder participation i ntroduced in Chapter 2 under Literature Review of the assessment methods. Example applications of SBLCA are used for the evaluation discussion. Methodological flexibility criteria 1 ) SBLCA can adapt to data scarce situations (vs. full data sets) In many deve loping countries, the lack of data for detailed analysis is a common problem. One of the challenges mentioned above is to have a method that can work with available data. The analysis could begin as simple quantitative and qualitative data and information using existing knowledge, and then proceed into more quantitative and advanced analys e s, with the data requirements depending on the life cycle of the issue. In certain instances, gathering and presenting the information in a structured manner itself would create new useful information that would enable a broader perspective of problems, and more appropriate decisions among the stakeholders. After reaching consensus on the need for broader analysis, local universities and research organizations could undert ake these tasks with aid from donors. Countryand region -specific data and information can be reused in other projects, gradually lessening the data collection required for sustainable decision making. In many cases, this process would be incremental, wi th the full application of the life cycle framework occurring over time.
201 2 ) SBLCA considers a holistic view of the issues, upstream and downstream consequences (vs. analysis limited to a few obvious phases) For example, in the wastewater treatment optional analysis example, i mplementing eco sanitary composting toilets, decisions regarding the construction phase are insufficient Some of the principal points that could be examined in parallel in this holistic framework are determining how to build awareness a nd establish the social acceptance of the technology, how skilled labor and technical assistance should be developed in design and construction, the type of construction material to be used, how materials are transported, what maintenance and operational a spects and what to do with the recycled waste (compost) Therefore, a comprehensive view of the respective upstream and downstream needs and consequences is possible. 3 ) SBLCA can deal with cross -sectoral issues (vs. sectoral focus) highlighting cross -secto ral inter linkages As shown in the example illustrated in Figures 4 24, even though the issue of household waste disposal and constructing toilets and plant beds were linked to the housing sector, it can be observed that the livelihood sector also has a major role to play by contributing to community training programs to engage in skilled labor in quality construction, and capacity building for housing authorities. Application of the framework enables the stakeholders to identify the importance of their r oles and the others in the process. 4 ) SBLCA allows for assessing all dimensions of sustainability (vs. one dimension of sustainability) The examples on SBLCA application highlights the close collaboration required among stakeholders in different sectors and disciplines in order to address the economic, social, and environmental aspects of sustainable development. For example, simplified indicators provide insights to the stakeholders for economic aspects such as the total cost of activities and
202 individual c osts to the stakeholders; social improvements, such as income generation opportunities and skill development for the labor workforce and housing authority personnel; environmental issues, such as the use of different types of construction material and cons truction methods for increased durability of construction, minimized raw material depletion and transportation distances. 5 ) SBLCA has the ability to assess alternative scenarios (vs. status quo assessment) LCA is a method for evaluating alternatives. As sho wn in the example s for water supply and wastewater treatment different levels of services can be examined together with the indicators covering relevant economic, social, and environmental aspects to select the optimum solutions that best fit with local c onditions, technologies, and available resources. Stakeholders can give inputs in developing and assessing scenarios. 6 ) SBLCA accommodates strategy building (vs. limited to assessment) Once the options are assessed, strategies could be constructed, identifyi ng the upstream and downstream activities, specific stakeholder and community involvement and responsibilities, resource allocation, and the synergies of the processes to fully interpret the collaboration necessary in joint projects. The viability of the o ptions is assessed with the stakeholders negotiating and agreeing to perform all necessary and clearly identified activities with the associated resource requirements. When the activity flows and responsibilities are already identified with relevant inform ation produced by the multi -stakeholder analysis, strategizing solutions becomes easier. Agreeing to a time line with a memorandum of understanding to perform each activity by respective stakeholders provides a way forward for sustainable implementation
203 Stakeholder participation criteria 7 ) SBLCA allows for stakeholder interaction at all stages of the process Starting from defining the sustainability goals, examining the current status, constructing scenarios, building strategies, and developing indicators for monitoring and evaluation, stakeholders are expected to be involved in the process. For example, stakeholder participation may include providing details on current construction, recognition of prevailing issues in the stages considered, prioritizing is sues, contributing knowledge and best practices from specific fields for constructing scenarios, assessing the viability of options, and strategy development, and giving inputs to developing and ranking indicators useful for supporting decisions. 8 ) SBLCA pro motes consensus building for joint projects Because stakeholders are involved throughout the process, and the framework allows them to clearly visualize the relevant activities in the relevant life cycle stages, the role of other stakeholders, the resource requirements, and therefore the net benefits, SBLCA is expected to support consensus building within the planning process. For example, stakeholders can decide on whether the CSEB, cement block or the brick walls optimize the local conditions by assessing and ranking or rating indicators with expert facilitation. 9 ) SBLCA communicates results and impacts to the stakeholders clearly and easily With simplified versions of indicators such as raw material depletion considering ecological sensitivities, transporta tion distances and costs, and livelihood opportunities, the life cycle experts and stakeholders are in a better position to clearly and easily communicate and interpret the results during the development planning process. 10) SBLCA provides transparent access to information so that stakeholders can examine the assumptions made and the projected outcomes of decisions
204 Following the traditional LCA requirement of recording and presenting all assumptions, the results and assumptions of each step would be recorded for use by the stakeholders. More or less, data should be collected, communicated and validated with the stakeholders prior to analysis. In the example s given, some of the results would be quantitative while some would be qualitative or even graphical The project data can be expected to evolve over the course of the planning process, and it is conceived that local research groups would commit to conducting some of the more detailed quantitative analysis required to improve data quality. Simple Rating and R anking Method Typically in development related assessments, the indicators, i.e., criteria used to evaluate issues or alternatives, are diverse and are often a large number. Furthermore, in a group of multi -stakeholders, the relevance or the importance of the indicators to the individual stakeholders would be different. Hence, a method is required to facilitate further negotiation on weighting the indicators to identify which issue needs to be prioritized, or which alternatives would perform better under a given set of indicators. The method developed was similar to SMART, with slight modifications to perform the weighting and ranking in a simplistic manner. Rating the indicators with 0 to 10 or 0 to 100% scale prior to converting them to weights is expecte d to avoid the tedious iterative process of making sure the total adds up to 10 or 100% during stakeholder negotiations on values for the indicators according to their needs, priorities and preferences. Equally important indicators would receive the same r atings within the above scales irrespective of whether the indicators are economic, social, and environmental, or, whether they are quantitative or qualitative. Similarly, all indicators are rated considering the relative importance of the indicators to th e stakeholders. Once the set of indicators are rated, the
205 individual ratings are divided by the totals to obtain the respective weights for the indicators. With this approach it can accommodate a large set of indicators in the analysis. However, when the n umber of criteria is too large, it would be better to eliminate the obviously less important indicators. It is estimated that an indicator set of 10 to 15 would be a manag e able. The scores for indicator performance were also expected to be assigned togethe r with the stakeholders. The scale can be 0 to 10 or 0 to 100% as above. The scores, however, are easier to assign according to the indicator values. Assigning the highest score in a given scale to the best performing alternative and relative scores to th e rest would increase the margin of difference of total weighted scores among the alternatives. Since the focus is selection of alternatives, rather than identifying the overall utility of an alternative to the stakeholders, assigning scores as above would not require them to know the minimum and maximum indicator values that would match their extreme preferences. This allows consistent scoring of the alternatives across the indicators. The importance of the indicator is decided on the weights given by the stakeholders. Hence, the total weighted average of the alternatives is a good approximation of the performance of the alternatives. This analysis directs the stakeholders to identify their priority issues or best alternative solutions systematically with r espect to their needs and preferences. As explained in the previous section, the alternative that receives the highest rank may not be the strategically implementable solution. But nevertheless, it would give stakeholders an idea of the alternatives that m ay perform better in their context and the motivation to strive for the better performing alternatives, or at least to avoid alternatives which ranked in the lowest bracket. The method was applied to two indicator sets derived from applying SBLCA in the fi eld study in Sri Lanka. Since, the method was developed after the field study the scores and
206 rates were assumed adopting a normative basis. Method application in the above examples indicated that the outcome was logical. For example, eco -sanitary toilet co nstruction with CSEB walls was found to be the best option compared to eco -sanitary toilets constructed with other wall material such as cement blocks and regular fired bricks, and traditional toilets with similar wall options. Irrespective of the wall mat erial, the traditional toilet options receive d considerabl y low er scores. Application in real planning situations is necessary to identify any necessary modifications to the procedures or certain soft skills that may be required in multi stakeholder situat ions. Concluding Remarks By its definition, sustainable development requires integrating social, economic, and environmental aspects. Therefore, when the goal is sustainable development, cross -sectoral integrated project planning is the desirable approach. However, currently used tools for environmental decision making are limited in their ability to adequately address the needs of the stakeholders in these situations. This leads to challenges in planning and implementing projects, particularly when stakeho lder collaboration across traditional planning sectors is required. Criteria were developed in terms of methodological flexibility and stakeholder participation and used to evaluate and identify limitations of EIA, SIA, and RA methods, as well as identify the attributes required for supporting decision making in these cases. The analysis indicated that the method must be flexible and work with limited as well as rich data sets, have a life cycle perspective while identifying the dependencies between sectors assess multiple aspects of sustainability and be able to generate alternative scenarios and strategy building for implementation. The method must also allow for stakeholder interaction at all
207 stages, promote consensus building, foster transparent access to information and clearly communicate implications of development to the stakeholders. SBLCA was proposed as an innovative instrument to support development planning and implementation. SBLCA provides decision support and can be used to structure and anal yze stakeholder associations and map those potentially affected by the various economic, social, and environmental aspects of the proposed development. Generating information both quantitative and qualitative together with the stakeholder knowledge contrib utes significantly to improved understanding and increased transparency contributing to reduced bounded rationalities and opportunistic behaviors This may lead to reduced uncertainty and transaction costs, and build consensus among stakeholders. SBLCA wit h its underlying concept of life cycle thinking can be both an assessment as well as a consensus building tool in an integrated development planning process. The evaluation of SBLCA based on the above criteria discussed is summarized in Table 6 1. T able 6 1. Evaluation of SBLCA Criteria Method SBLCA 1. Adapt to data scarce situations Yes 2. Consider holistic view of issues To a great extent 3. Deal with cross sectoral issues and highlight inter linkages To a great extent 4. Assess all dimensions of sustainability Yes 5. Assess alternative scenarios To a great extent 6. Accommodate strategy building Yes 7. Stakeholder involvement in all stages Yes 8. Promote consensus building To a great extent 9. Transparent assessment and results To a great extent 10. Clear and easy communication of results To a great extent There are various methods used in current participatory planning processes to streamline the information on alternatives Some of the key methods include Rating, Ranking,
208 PCA AHP, MAUT, and SMART When the current methods were reviewed to check the suitability for multi -stakeholder planning contexts where stakeholders would be in the center of applying the methods most of them were identified as tedious, time consuming, difficult to involve and communicate to larger stakeholder groups in development planning, especially when conducted in developing country contexts The methodology developed is to be used as a support tool to structure the information derived from any participatory assessment methods and assist further negotiations in situations where prioritizing or selecting among alternatives which do not show a clear dominance over the other. The evaluation of the simpl e rating and ranking based method is given in Table 6 2. Table 6 2 Comparison Evaluation of Rating and Ranking based method Criteria Rating and Ranking based method How easy to communicate the methodology E asy How easy it is for the stakeholders to participate Easy How easy it is to conduct the analysis Easy How transparent is the analysis Transparent How easy it is for the stakeholders to interpret results Easy How useful it is when the alternatives to evaluate are too many Useful How relevant it is when the criteria to be considered are too many Useful How useful it is when the stakeholder groups are bigger Useful Recommendations and Future Work According to the research experience from the pilot field study in Sri Lanka and investigating the current issues of ACF watershed management, the following general recommendations could be identified: In modern development planning situations, promoting cross -sectoral integrated planning and implementation is a necessity.
209 Application of LCA/T and its underlying concept of upstream and downstream analysis in assessing decisions and action in development planning need to be promoted to ensure sustainability. In such planning exercises getting the stakeholders on common ground by exchanging and buildin g up on each others knowledge and expertise becomes a valuable first step towards responsible decision making towards collaborative action. Researchers are required to understand the nature of the sectors and disciplines and their underlying assumptions i n order to integrate, translate, and implement research transcending, yet respecting, established norms. Specific training is required by the researchers to collaborate effectively with the multidisciplinary and cross -sectoral partners. SBLCA Method Impro vements Improving decision support methods is always a challenge to balance between scientific robustness and simplicity. Especially when applied with multiple stakeholders with different backgrounds and levels of understanding, it is compulsory that the process is sufficiently simple and transparent, such that the stakeholders would be able to involve and trust the outcome of the analysis process. Hence, the improvements should not compromise the above. The indicators used in the case -study were location specific, easy to develop (by local experts), and easy to communicate to the stakeholders. Additionally, it would be beneficial to evaluate the indicators and refine them when necessary such that they remain specific, easy to use and communicate, yet are m ore scientifically accurate. Especially, when the planning context is more sophisticated, for example, in ACF integrated water management, more scientifically accurate data may be required. How to include statistical, sensitivity, and uncertainty analyses such that they still remain transparent and participatory would need further research. When the scale of the planning is broader, it would be beneficial to include researchers from other disciplines such as architecture, urban planning, psychology, sociology, and
210 anthropology to improve the assessment process and the respective indicator development. The inputs would be useful to identify certain indicators that may be more relevant to the stakeholders. Develop ing an array of indicators including economic, social, and environmental that could be commonly used in development planning under potential issues would also be beneficial to promote the use of SBLCA among a wider audience in the development field. Guid elines with generic steps to activity chaining, stakeholder mapping and develop ing non traditional indicators i ncluding examples from developing countries as well as developed countries would also improve the potential use of SBLCA It would be useful to evaluat e the methodology and assess its contribution in real world application s. In the pilot field study conducted, it was not possible to conduct an evaluation of the methodology, as the project is still on -going. An evaluation could be conducted based on data and information gath ered from a database developed by THSP for documenting the participatory community development process. The database was for assessing the successful use of the methods and tools in participatory planning and implementation that were introduced in the gove rnment field officers training programs. The database was expected to contain the type of LCA activity analyse s conducted, the indicators used, and the short term outcomes. As outlined in Chapter 5, the methodology could be applied in relevant ACF planning scales, and measures could be taken to evaluate any positive or negative contributions towards sustainable action. It would also be beneficial to evaluate at which planning scales the SBLCA framework works better. Application of the methodology in design charrettes at UF to demonstrate upstream and downstream of urban infrastructure issues and solutions for sustainable water management in small scale regiona l watershed management planning could be a start.
211 In a planning process, participatory monitoring i s also an important element in ensuring the intended activities are implemented as planned. If the actions need to be changed, then the upstream new requirements and resulting downstream requirements or outcomes need to be investigated. To assist this cont inuous feedback, a SB LCA framework could still be useful to investigate which upstream and downstream activities are moving as planned and which are not. This was not evaluated during the pilot field study in Sri Lanka. But, in a different multi stakeholde r planning context, how SBLCA can be used for evaluation and monitoring could be researched. Development and use of appropriate information was found to be an incremental process. It was necessary to start with the data that was already available. Local un iversities can play a major role in working on gathering environmental data and information on building materials, construction processes and equipment, alternative building material and technologies. NHDA and LA can improve access to the environmental inf ormation by using the information to provide better technical assistance in planning and implementing sustainable solutions in the local regions. Rating and Ranking Method Improvements Rating and ranking method was tested for two data sets from the field study. Although the method clearly has the potential to be applied in multi -stakeholder contexts, it needs to be tested in a real development planning study. The method can be used not just as a way to prioritize and identify the best alternatives conside ring different priorities and interests, it could also be used for comparing and understanding perceptions of stakeholder groups and work towards reconciliation depending on the planning context. The application steps could be modified as necessary. The pr ocedure should always be simple, transparent and easy to communicate.
212 As discussed earlier, as the weights could be automatically worked out without having to go through the iterative process and the scoring system is straightforward and consistent among a lternatives, a comparatively larger set of indicators, i.e., criteria could be accommodated in the analysis. However, real data should be used to validate the maximum range of criteria that would make sense in an analysis. Similarly, the maximum range of alternatives that should be included in an analysis should be appropriate to test for acceptable outcomes. Summary The fundamental concept of life cycle thinking and assessment can be effectively used to incorporate stakeholders in the assessment and decis ion making process, which can lead to more comprehensive, yet simple assessments together with the stakeholders. It is not just a way to examine environmental impacts of activities, but also a way to comprehend and visualize a broader set of upstream and d ownstream consequences of decisions in development planning and implementation. Application of SBLCA in multi -sector and multi -stakeholder contexts has been able to meet the challenges of those development contexts. The method is evaluated against the crit eria used to evaluate the other environmental decision support methods. Improvements include refining non-traditional indicators to suit the planning context, and applying the method in different integrated planning contexts such as ACF watershed managemen t. Improvements and future work for the rating and ranking based method includes testing the application in a real planning situation and practically applying it for different purposes such as for stakeholder perception analysis. The maximum number of crit eria and alternatives to be used in the analysis should also be examined.
213 APPENDIX A DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS The criteria/Indicators given in Sustainable Infrastructure Development Framework (SIDF) are as follows: Source: CAA, 2003 Table A 1. Economic indicators A : SIDF for the Construction Sector: Economic Prosperity Theme Sub Theme Indicator Economics SMMEs % employed Ongoing costs Service cost as a % of income Consumption and production Material consumption Intensity of use Durability Ease of deconstruction Environmental impact Toxicity Levels of VOCs Recycling Storage Maintenance Energy consumption % of energy consumed from non renewable energy % of energy consumed from renewable source Intensity of use Embodied energy Waste generation Volume of construction waste generated Volume of solid waste generated Volume of waste recycled Transportation Distance travelled, materials Distance travelled, labo r Distance travelled, users Efficiency of use % useable space % occupied % downtime Buildability
214 Table A 2. Social indicators B : SIDF for the Construction Sector, Social Well being Theme Sub Theme Indicator Cultural heritage R esources Conservation of cultural resources Community Empowerment Community involvement Education Adult Human resource development Transfer of technology ABET Equity Poverty % previously unemployed Jobs created % local labo r Gender equity % women employed Separate amenities Employment practices Safety Labo r rights Amenities Health Preventative healthcare HIV/AIDS awareness On site health care Indoor environment Noise abatement Daylighting Access to views Ventilation and thermal comfort Waste removal Inclusitivity User control Smoking Sanitation Standard Treatment Disposal Drinking water Access Reliability of service Hygiene Crime Community programs On site measures Safety Precautions Disaster management
215 Table A 3. Environmental indicators Table C : SIDF for the Construction Sector: Environmental Stewardship Theme Sub Theme Indicator Atmosphere Climate change Greenhouse gases emitted Susceptibility to sea level rise Ozone Emissions of depleting substances Air quality Pollutants during construction Pollutants in use Biodiversity Ecosystem Selected ecosystems Species Selected species Indigenous species Connectivity Fresh water and groundwater Water quantity Intensity of use % rainwater harvested % recycled and reused Water quality Watersheds protected Aquifers protected Land Trees % retained % added Soft landscaping CO absorption Heat sinks created Ease of maintenance Hard landscaping Heat island creation Light reflected Brownfield development % rehabilitated Density of use Greenfield development % open land retained Density of use Pollution Leeching of chemicals Light Storm water Erosion control
216 APPENDIX B TSUNAMI HOUSING SUPPORT PROJECT Overview of Project Activities The Tsunami Housing Support Project ( THSP ) is a Sri Lankan German Development Cooperation project that is in partnership with the Sri Lankan Ministry of Housing and Common Amenities and is financed by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. THSPs primary objective was to promote participatory approaches and sustainability in rec onstruction by capacity building in the responsible government institutions. The project was formed in early 2005. The Sri Lankan contribution of the project was implemented by a steering committee composed of a number of governmental organizations includi ng the Ministries of Public Administration and Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government, National Housing Development Authority, National Building Research Organization and chaired by the Ministry of Housing and Common Amenities Objectives THSP worked towards the objective that the responsible government institutions coordinate and implement the post tsunami reconstruction activities in an effective and participatory manner. Towards achieving this objective, THSP supported stakeholder based quality assessment of reconstruction and development of soft skills for public officers at various levels. To monitor the impacts of the inputs while providing incentives to use capacities developed, THSP supported an initiative for encouraging the achievements of sustainable development objectives. Fig ure A 1 summarizes THSP activities in brief
217 Figure B 1. THSP capacity building projects towards sustainable post tsunami reconstruction (Source: GTZ THSP Brochure, 2007)
218 APPENDIX C SRI LANKA COUNTRY PROFILE Overview of Profile Data When searching for sustainable solutions in development, the country context does matter. The geography, demography, economy, environment, consumption, for example, provide background and context to iss ues and influence the viability of solutions to a certain extent. Due to the differences mentioned above, and many other specific factors together, what is sustainable in one country context can vary to a great extent in another country. Table C 1 is an attempt to gather some useful indicators to get a general overview of the country. The indicators are categorized under three aspects of sustainability economic, social, and environmental; some of the important indicators are compared against correspond ing statistics for India and the US. Most of the statistics are extracted mainly from the Central Intelligence Agency s (CIA) World Factbook, 2007 (CIA, 2007) Sri Lanka is still a developing country and has been affected by an ethnic conflict over two de cades. Sri Lanka is ranked 110th in the world in terms of per capita gross domestic product ( GDP ). 80% of the wealth in the country is owned by 20% of the population, showing a clear disparity in social well being. The economy has been predominantly agricu ltural; however, currently the agriculture sector has declined to 35% of GDP, while service and industry sectors have risen to 25% and 40% of GDP respectively. The public debt, which is more than 85% of annual GDP, and the inflation rate of 16%, explains t he intense dependency on international funding for development activities. Low per capita income, and 22% of the rural population under the poverty line indicate the capacity of the people to afford basic needs including safe water, electricity, and taxes for services F or example, only 55% of the population has access to the national electricity grid,
219 and 35% of the population has no direct access to potable water (UNDP Equator Initiative 2005, NWSDB, 2007) Hence, indicators such as per capita electricity consumption and water use are as small as 2KWh per day and 130 liters per day respectively (CIA, 2007) However, rainfall and year -round sunshine leave potential options for alternative solutions for water and electricity supply. The forest cov er, which is approximately 30% of the land -cover, is decreasing at an annual rate of 1% due to weak enforcement of forestry regulations. Considerable numbers of indigenous species are classified as endangered. Much of this decline is due to biogas producti on, irr igation, and the wood industry ( MONGABAY.COM. 2005; UN FAO, 2007) The air quality in the country is poorest in the capital city and the peripheries. According to United St ates Department of Energys Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (US D OE CDIA ) reports, per capita CO2 emissions average 0.6 tonnes per year, out of which 60% is from the transport sector ( US DOE -CDIAC 2005) 75% of the rural areas indicate good outdoor air quality. However, poor indoor air quality is prominent in all areas due to extensive use of b iomass and LPG for household cooking purposes, fired br ick manufacturing, and others (WRIs Earth Trends, 2003; WBs Environment, 2004) In social terms, the main aspects such as health and education are free for all citizens in the country, although the facilities in rural parts of the country are barely sufficient. These policies have created an impact in two distinct ways in the society: higher health, sanitation, and literacy standards compared to other developing countries in the region, and higher de pendency upon the government for providing services and managing common property, which hinders strategies for growth. However, the literacy rate of over 90%, life expectancy close to 75 years with GDP growth rate of 8.5% despite the civil war, positions t he country for prospective future development.
220 Table C 1. General overview of economic, social, and country indicators Unit Sri Lanka India US Economic GDP (ppp), (2007) US $ 83.2 billion 2.97 trillion 13.86 trillion Per capita GDP, (2007) US $ 4,100 2,700 46,000 Livelihood (agriculture:industry:services) (2007) % GDP ratio 35: 25:40 17:28:55 1:20:79 GDP growth rate, (2007) % 6 8.5 2.2 Inflation rate, (2007) % 16 5.9 2.7 Public debt (2007) % GDP 86 59 37 Social Population, (2007) Number 20.9 million 1.3 billion 301.1 million Rural:Urban, (2007) ratio 75:25 72:28 21:79 Population growth rate, (2007) % 0.9 1.6 0.89 Life expectancy, (2007) years 74.8 68.6 78 Literacy rate, (2007) % 92 61 99 Population below poverty line, (2007) % 22 25 12 Environmental Land cover, (2007) km 2 65,610 3,287, 590 9,826,630 Population density, (2007) per km 2 316 336 31 Forest cover, (2007) % 30 11 23 Deforestation rate, (2007) % 1 1 1.3 Critically endangered/Endangered/Vulnerable (2007) number 78/73/129 50/98/98 ? Arable land, (2007) % 14 49 18 Electricity consumption (2005) KWh per year 7 billion 488.5 billion 4,062 billion Per capita electricity consumption, (2005) KWh per year 363 432 12,672 Access to electricity grid, (2007) % 55 30 ~100 Total fresh water withdrawal (domestic %), (2000) km 3 per year (%) 12.6 (8) 645.8 (8) 477 (13) Per capita domestic water consumption, (2000) liters per day 130 128 438 A nnual average rainfall (southwest, northwest) mm per year 2550 (900 6000) Access to Pipe water:Well water:No direct access to water, (2006) % ratio 29:36:35
221 Table C 1. Continued Unit Sri Lanka India US Environmental CO2 releases (2004) tonnes per year 11.5 million 1,343 million 6,050 million Per capita CO2 releases (2004) metric tons per year 0.6 1.2 20.4 GDP per CO2 $ per tonnes per year 1,740 500 1,940 Solid waste generation (rural:urban) (2004) ratio tonnes per year 1,800:2,500 Per capita waste generation (rural urban) (2004) kg per day 0.2 0.85 ources: CIA World Fact Shee,2007; UNDP Equator Initiative ,2005; NWSDB, 2007; UN FAO, 2005; MONGABAY, 2005; US DOE -CDIAC ,2005; WRI Earth Trends, 2003; WB Environment Department,2004. When providing housing with access to water, electricity, and other basic sanitation, the country capacity and use patterns need to be considered. According to the statistics, in I ndia and Sri Lanka, the urban rural population ratio remains approximately the same as 30:70, while in US it is the reverse (71:29). Population below the poverty line in India and Sri Lanka are around 25% of the population, which is approximately twice the amount in the USA (12%). Per capita GDP of Sri Lanka is 9% of the US GDP, and occupants consume 3% of the electricity and 30% of the water per capita compared to the US (Fig ure C 1 ). Per capita GDP of Sri Lanka is 1.5 greater than India, and the electrici ty and water consumption are in the same range. The dominating agricultural sector (35%) and service sector (40%) as compared to the industrial sector (25%) together with lower level of living conditions contribute to the differences.
222 Figure C 1. Comparison of per capita GDP, electricity, and water consumption (Source: CIA World Fact Sheet 2007) Fi gure C 2 Comparison of per capita CO2 emissions per year and $GDP per ton of CO2 emissions (Source: US DOE -CDIAC, 2004) Also, due to the tropical climate, with temperatures ranging from 25 to 35 centigrade, and w ith the majority of typical housing units not exceeding two stories, energy for heating, cooling, and ventilation is comparatively insignificant. Per capita CO2 emissions are 50% of India and 3% of USA per capita emissions. However, when comparing the GDP per release of CO2, it can be seen that Sri Lanka and the US are in the same range while in India it is approximately 70% less (Figure C 2 ). One of the major issues in the country includes solid waste disposal. Solid waste generated in most municipalities is mainly organic which exceeds 80% of the total waste. Household waste is not separated at the source; wastes are either burnt or buried on-plot in most rural areas. Waste collection is limited to urban areas, and it is 0.6 1.2 20.4 0 12 24 Per capita CO2 (metic tons) Sri Lanka India US 1,740 500 1,940 0 1000 2000 GDP per CO2 release ($/ton CO2) Sri Lanka India US 4,100 2,700 46,000 0 25,000 50,000 Per capita GDP (US$ million) Sri Lanka India US 338 432 12,672 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 Per capita electricity use (KWh) Sri Lanka India US 133 128 438 0 250 500 Per capita daily water use (liters) Sri Lanka India US
223 transported to inadequately manage d landfills (open dumping). Cost recovery systems in terms of taxes and fees are not well orga nized in the local authorities ( GTZ -IFSP, 2006). Housing Sector A typical low income -house design in Sri Lanka is shown in Figure C 3 The minimum floor area regu lated by the government for post tsunami reconstruction is 50m2. Typical floor area ranges within 550 1,000 s quare f eet According to the Chamber of Commerce in Sri Lanka, yearly building construction has ranged from 4,000 5,000 units for the 20 years before the tsunami. After the tsunami, it was expected to be increased to 13,000 per year. This is assuming that the governments expectation is to complete building 80,000 housing units within 10 years, adding 8,000 more housing units per year over usual construction. The current typical construction technologies do not comply with disaster resistance standards. Figure C 3 Typical house design for low income families Construction materials in demand in the country are cement, s and, wood, steel, and asbestos ( Ceylon Chamber of Commerce, 2007). The annual cement demand in the country in
224 2006 was 3.8 million tonnes with a growth rate of 7% in the past year; annual river sand demand has been 7,000 million m3 with a growth rate of 10% after the tsunami. T he Ministry of Environment and Natural resources has launched a restrictive policy for river sand extraction, and has drafted a stricter national policy in 2005, which is still under public circulation. With the above situation in the country, a greater ne ed has evolved for promoting sustainable alternative building materials to reduce the burden on heavily demanded materials and respective massive price escalations. Sustainability issues in terms of present housing reconstruction are summarized in Table C 2 (GTZ THSP, 2007) : Table C 2. Sustainability issues in housing reconstruction (Source: Quality Assessment Methods, GTZ THSP 2007) Issue Severity Quality construction using quality material Severe Quality site management systems Moderate Unavailability of quality criteria and methods for assessment Severe Lack of infrastructure facilities (access roads, drainage systems, common spaces for recreational activities, schools, hospitals, markets, etc.) Severe Access to income opportunities Se vere Lack of social and communication services Moderate Lack of transport facilities Severe Access to safe water Moderate Access to improved sanitation (functioning toilets, sludge treatment systems, wastewater disposal, solid waste management) Sever e Access to electricity Moderate Continuous supply of skilled labor Moderate Lack of labor capacity to construct with alternative material Severe Lack of social acceptability to new technologies and materials Moderate Lack of participatory planning and involvement of the beneficiaries Severe Lack of community community, community local authority arrangements for operation and maintenance of essential services Severe Concern for surrounding ecological sensitivities Moderate Lack of capacity and motivation of Urban Development Authority to reduce haphazard construction Severe
225 APPENDIX D UNAWATUNA PILOT FIELD STUDY DOCUMENTATION Overview Geographical and Physical Characteristics Unawatuna is a village located at the tip of the southern coastal belt of Sri Lanka Its geographical boundary belongs to the Habaraduwa Division of the Galle District. Unawatuna village consists of four Grama Niladhari (GN) i.e., Village Officer Divisions. They are called, Yaddehimulla Unawatuna West Unawat una Central and Buona Vista Unawatuna village exhibits unique characteristics in terms of its rich natural environment, strong cultural heritage, and cohesive social networks among the communities Due to the t ourism industry, the income of one segment of the community is relatively higher than the communities in the neighboring villages. Other than the fishing industry which has now collapsed due to excessive off -shore fishing by the outsiders, all other livelihood opportunities are centered around the tourism industry. The village has several temples with historic importance and deep ties to the life style of the communities. The n atural beach environment with rich biodiversity is the main attraction to the local and foreign tourists. With the recent ts unami, many lost their homes as well as their restaurants and guesthouses. Unplan ned haphazard reconstruction had resulted in destroying much of the natural environment of the village causing serious issues in the region. For study purposes, the four GN D i visions were further divided into six distinct areas for easier analysis and presentation on physical characteristics and prevailing issues of the region. Figure C 1 shows the six main areas of Unawatuna included in this study. Table D 1 summarizes the fe atures and characteristics of the above areas.
226 Figure D 1. Distinct areas in Unawatuna
227 Table D 1. Feature/Characteristics of the distinct areas in Unawatuna Area Features/Characteristics 1. Beach front Densely b uilt up area; rapid new construction activities Illegal construction in the coastal buffer zone Prime space for tourism based commercial activities Devalaya (Temple) Mainly occupied by restaurant owners Prime source of wealth creation in the area Main market place for tourism related prod ucts and services Low level of coastal zone m anagement (sever e ly damaged by tsunami) Water supply from common wells or taps outside the beach front area (expecting piped-water supply) 2. Jayakotuwa Located between Rummassala Hills and Beach front Relatively larger home plots Extensive unplanned new construction activities Mangrove area affected with siltation Mainly h ome based guest houses E ncroach ed canal reservation mangrove areas and common spaces Water supply from private wells, common wells and taps, and individual piped connections Poor access roads and drainage system 3. Danwala D ensely built up area H aphazard construction Main commercial activities include h ome -based tourism, kiosks and restaurants Concentration of fisher folk Mee gaha devalaya (Temple) Subject to water logging Blocked canal s causing drainage and environmental problems
228 Table D 1. Continued Area Features/Characteristics 4. Kajjugahahena Large home plots in the hill terrain Mainly private and common w ell water supply Relatively low environmental issues Not yet connected to high earning tourism related activities Only through secondary services ( e.g. cloth and trinket trading) Rapid change from non tourism to tourism occupations with Sevalanka (micro -finance organization) Occupied by the fishing community (low income) 5. Bonawista Large home plots in hill terrain Well water supply Relatively low environmental issues Rapid land use change due to scenic view over the bay Not yet connected to high earning tourism -based commercial activities ; o nly through secondary services ( e.g. cloth and trinket trading) and supporting services such as carpentry, masonry, painting Poor access roads 6. Yaddehimulla Relatively l arge r home plots Environmental issues due t o drainage Rugged ter rain less hospitable to housing and tourism Not yet directly co nnected to high earning tourism -based commer activities Inhabitants commute to beach area for income opportunities The main stakeholder groups in the Unawatuna: Beach restaurant owners Guesthouse owners Beach vendors Fishermen
229 The main institutions and CBOs active in Unawatuna: Temple Unawatuna Tourism Development Society Welle Devala Pinkam Kamituwa Fisheries Development Society Samurdhi (Micro -finance scheme) Beneficiaries Small Trade Association Fisheries Corporation Cost Conservation Village Development Program The present Sri Lankan government under the Presidents Mahinda Chinthana program (vision statement for the development of the country) has initiated a village development program called Gama Neguma to formalize and promote participatory approaches in village reconstruction and development programs. Gama Neguma is a multi -faceted development project covering 4000 GN d ivisions with 12, 000 villages isl and -wide. All villages in the island are scheduled to be developed in three stages under the Gama Neguma program. The total number of GN (Village Officer) divisions to be developed within three year s is 14, 000 (MNBEID 2006) Objectives of the Gama Neguma program: Ensure community participation by motivation, organization and community empowerment for total development of the rural community based on self reliance Introduce a formal mechanism for participatory decision making and project planning at village level Obtain optimum benefits from the development program by implementing integrated village development plans to avoid duplication Co -ordination of human resources which is crucial for rural development, other rural and external resources, throug h an efficient mechanism of resource allocation Introduce a results based participatory progress review and evaluation mechanism at village level
230 Ensure improvement of living standards of the village communities through development of the physical, economi c, social and cultural environment Create total development of the village under a community based planned development program Proposed strategy of the Gama Neguma program: Prepare integrated village development plans with community participation targeting all development efforts to achieve a common objective Make opportunities for the rural community to participate actively in their economic, social, cultural and spiritual development efforts Organize and empower rural community to ensure their total commi tment and contribution in the development process Pool all resources utilized in village development, and implement productive transparent integrated village development plans for proper co -ordination at village and divisional level Transform the rural com munity to a group of activists with ideological and comparative thinking abilities and enhance self determination by developing their abilities and skills demand for sustainable development dependant on self help, while changing the subsistent mentality wi th an orientation towards achieving targets. Simultaneous rural livelihood development, with infrastructure development for economic resurgence and social development Proposed activities of the Gama Neguma program: Educate all state officers at village level and the rural community on Gama Neguma development strategy. Identify village level problems, disparities, local res ources, livelihood development and opportunities using surveys of resources and information, the methodology of participatory rural ap praisal. Establish a data base of o rural needs o rural resources and scarcities o identification of required external assistance
231 o preparation of rural development plans o preparation and updating of profiles of families and village resources Co -ordination of financial allocations for project proposals Establishment of suitable mechanisms for implementation, evaluation and review of development projects Co -ordination of institutions involved in project implementation with divisional and district secretariats. E stablishment of Jana Sabha (Village Development Committees (VDC)) Purpose of the Pilot Field Study to Unawatuna Village O ne aspect of the field study was to contribute to the above national efforts, while assisting the local stakeholders to formulate a p ractical development program for the Unawatuna village Due to resource limitations, involving resource persons or consultancy service s in conducting and facilitating village development programs was not practically feasible Hence, it was suggested that developing the skills of the local field officers who work close to the communit ies to involve in this process as experts would be an opportunity to commence this program in all affected villages. Hence, in this pilot study, the capacity of the local field officers was tested to train them adequately for conducting and facilitating the above participatory development process. It was also expected that issues encountered, limitations, and possible solutions would be reported to design training material for s kill development of local field officers, and to take necessary actions at different organizational planning levels. It was expected that this exercise would provide a useful framework for appl ying th e integrated development planning process in other villa ges.
232 Approach Guiding Principles Unawatuna field study explore d how participatory approaches methods and tools could facilitate the stakeholders to develop their own development program for the village It adopt ed the following guiding principles: Responsible involvement of stakeholders in fact finding, discussions and decision making throughout the process f acilitating ownership of concepts and strategies among stakeholders based on a well founded and structured participatory process. Continuous visualization of facts and ideas from different rationalities for mutual learning in an overall process of concept development to implementation enabling integration of objectives, strategies and good practices, based on multi -stakeholder needs, priorities capacities and resources. Community centered process making the local community as the main entry point and the forum for conducting participatory development activities. Rights based approach to information, in striving to provide stakeholders with equ al access to information to make informed choices and decisions through deliberations. Planning Process and Activities The participatory approaches are typically focused on creating awareness among the stakeholders addressing needs and aspirations of res pective parties building consensus on issues, and establish ing participation and commitment to sustain a development program within the communities To establish such a participatory development program in a community the following sequence of activities were proposed (Figure 4 5 ) It served as the planning strategy contr ibuting to the Gama Neguma reconstruction and development program in Unawatuna. Since, this strategy was tested for the first time in Unawatuna, the process was assisted by resource perso ns from SLHF, GTZ, and UF. The main steps include the following : Background preparation (for fair and continuous representation of all community groups) Initiation ( an introductory meeting to formally commence the development process with aware ness building on sustainability and layout the next steps)
233 Where are we now? (exploring the current status of issues and prioritizing them ) What can we do? ( formulating alternative options for solutions ) How can we do? ( assessing options and strateg izing ) Joint activity implementation program ( fine tuning strategies and implementation ) Background preparation Th is preparation was mainly required for appointing a VDC involving CBO representatives and active community leaders representing all community gr oups in the village. This step required sufficient time and effort for personally meeting the community building interest, and getting them on board to initiate the process. In summary, the following tasks were included in the background preparation. Form lead team s: t he active local field officers (GN, Samurdhi Officer, and Land Officer) form ed a team to lead the development program in the village. In Unawatuna it was a GN-based lead team. Establish support from community: t he lead team personally me t with the Un awatuna community leaders to discuss the need for a development program for the area and obtain ed consent and support to initiate the Unawatuna participatory development program. Meet key governmental officials: t he lead team and the community leaders of Unawatuna met with the key government officials to inform the purpose, the scope, and the expected outcome of the program and to obtain necessary support and assistance for the proposed activities The key off icials included DS Galle, DSD, Habaraduwa, DSD development coordinators and TOs, and other GNs and Samurdhi Officers of the relevant divisions. Identify stakeholder groups: t he lead team and the community leaders jointly identif ied the main stakeholder groups linked to Unawatuna. A preliminary ana lysis of different interests and priorities among and within different stakeholder groups was conducted by the team. The differences, for instance the frict ion among these groups and the likely impact on the participatory process were also assessed by the local officials. Focal group meetings: t he lead team conduc t ed focal group meetings with the main stakeholder groups, i.e., community organizations such as the Unawatuna Tourism Development Society, Fisheries Development Society, Sumurdhi Beneficiari es, Welle Dewala Pinkam Kamituwa, and Parakum Sports Society and ma de them aware of the purpose, the scope and the expected outcome of the development program which was scheduled to be initiated in the village. In these meetings, community representatives were
234 appointed to participate throughout the development process. These community representatives were responsible for communicating needs and aspirations of their group and obtaining support and assistance to wards the process. Initiation Community meetin g: After background preparation, with the presence of key officials (DS Galle, and DSD, Habaraduwa) (2) religious leaders (1), local field officers (RADA area engineer, PHI, TOs) (5), community representatives (9), and resource persons (2), a meeting was organized to formally initiate the development program in the villages. The local field officers and the community representatives together form ed the VDC The content of this meeting included the following: Introduce Gama Neguma national village development program introduced by the Presidential Secretariat and its relevance to the Unawatuna development program Explain representation and responsibilities of the VDC under the Gama Neguma program. Describe the process of the development program, an d the need for stakeholder participation and representation of their interests throughout the process to develop a sustainable and feasible development strategy for Unawatuna. The following was established together with the participants of the meeting: Ide ntify special characteristics and features of Unawatuna Identify objectives and scope of the development process Introduce the development planning process that focuses on historical, environmental, economic, and social issues Introduce aspects of sustaina bility (social, economical, and environmental) with relevance to main features and characteristics of the village, and how they are interlinked. Identify the need for an integrated development process Identify What individuals could contribute to an inte grated planning process? Identify participation and commitment that c ould be achieved within and outside Unawatuna
235 Identify the opportunities and challenges for an integrated development process, in terms of specific features, social and institutional res ources Organize field visits to identify problems and issues in general Identify representatives from stakeholders and community groups to organize interviews for identifying different perspectives of issues, specific problems for their activities, issues of vulnerable groups Document discussions and conclusions Where are we now? (exploring the current status and prioritizing): This phase was dedicated to investigating reconstruction and development issues in the village. The issues had to be identified a nd analyzed together with the stakeholders. Field visits, stakeholder interviews and a community workshop were organized by the lead team involving the members of the VDC and external resource persons as discussed at the introductory meeting. Field visits were organized for identifying development issues in the village in general, and s takeholder interviews were conducted and recorded for identifying the specific problems of different stakeholder or community groups and their perspective of the problems Field visits: As certain issues are common to different area of the village, field visits were organized to cover 6 distinct areas in the village. The main issues identified were documented as given in Table D 2. Interviews: Stakeholder interviews were conducted with representatives from different community groups (fishermen, guest house owners, beach restaurant owners, beach vendors, etc.). During these discussions, information was gathered informally in terms of their activities, costs and resource uti lization for these activities, and positive and negative benefits involved with these activities to get an understanding of their specific issues and their perspective of the issues The following include the list of stakeholders interviewed:
236 Galle GA, DS office Director Planning, DS office DSD, Habaraduwa Chairman, Habaraduwa PS office Assistant Director Planning, Habaraduwa DSD office Land Officer, Habaraduwa DSD office TO, Habaraduwa DSD office, TO, Habaraduwa PS office GNs Yaddehimulla, Unwatuna Central, Unawatuna West, Bouna Vista Samurdhi Officer, Yaddehimulla Beach restaurant owner (3) Guest house owners (4) scuba diving training and boating owner (1) Fishermen (2) Beach vendors (1) Community workshop: After the fact finding mission and inform al visits to ensure attendance of members of the VDC, a two day workshop was organized to present the findings, analyze the current status of issues, and prioritize issues for action in the village development program. A cross -section of participation incl uded representatives from community groups and businesses (12), local field officers (5), district and divisional government officials (3), and resource persons (4). The main purpose of this meeting was to enable the VDC to gain a holistic view of the issu es to be able to stimulate the ability to understand the interlinks of certain issues, where to take necessary action, what may hinder taking action, and how to go about possible options for solutions under the present political structure and competition f or limited resources. The expected outcome of this workshop was that the community gain a thorough understanding of their present system, issues limitations, and distance to development standards to achi eve consensus on the priority issues to be addressed in the village development program. The content of this workshop included the following:
237 Recap on the introductory workshop. Identify issues and problems in the distinct areas in Unawatuna (add any issue missing from the observations made during field v isits). Use Spiderweb tool to identify the magnitude of the issues (scale poor, fair, good). Analyze and discuss the reasons for the above scale for the issues in each area (thoughts on the issues). Apply SBLCA to analyze upstream and downstream of the i ssues identified : c hain upstream and downstream activities of current issues map stakeholders, and unbundle each activity in terms of costs, resources, and benefits and effects. Identify cause, effects and interconnectivities in upstream and downstream activities of different issues Identify standards, regulations, and recommendations, if applicable, relevant to each activity Identify and distance to target in meeting stipulated standards, r egulations, and recommendations Apply Appreciate Influence Cont rol (AIC) tool to identify issues which are in control of VDC, could influence LA to take certain action, and leave out the issues that could only be appreciated Identify priority issues through a structured dialog considering the interconnectivities of is sues, the urgency of an issue, and the potential for an issue to be implemented given local capacities. Document discussions and conclusions What can we do ? (formulating alternative options for solutions) The scope of this planning step was to develop potential solutions for the prioritized issues in the form of a joint activity program. Since the solutions had to be worked out with due consideration to technical and other relevant standards and aspects of sustainability, i.e., social, economic, and en vironment, the lead team require d assistance from external resource persons. In Unawatuna, the resource persons together with the relevant TOs from different local institutions developed the alternative options for the prioritized issues. Necessary
238 informa tion was gathered using publicly available data and through personal communication. These options were presented at a community workshop for assessing viability as well as sustainability The community representatives, field officials and respective Government officials attend ed this workshop. Lead team meetings: A ser ies of meeting s were held by the lead team (3) involving technical officers from the LAs (3) and resource persons (2) prior to the workshop to develop options for water supply, wastewater, st ormwater drainage, and solid waste management. The portable water supply options included piped-water for all households expecting individual connections and piped-water for households which do not have well water supply. These options had to be considered due to upstream water treatment constraints in some part s of the Galle district which were beyond the control of the VDC, and downstream wastewater disposal issues, as revealed in the current state analysis. For wastewater treatment, options were consider ed along with the poorly designed toilet issue as well. The o ptions included the traditional toilet with septic tank and soakage pit or seepage bed and Eco -sanitary toilets with plant beds. Different material types were also included in the analysis. Canal reconstruction for adequate stormwater drainage in the area was also included. The following activities were conducted during lead team meetings. Introduce six thinking hats concept to prepare the lead team and the TOs to effectively engage in analyzing facts, creative thinking and building scenarios (LA TOs already had training on the above concept through the PSTI program). The intention was to promote developing solutions that could promote cross -sectoral integration Identify future scenarios and pot ential options Apply SBLCA to analyze upstream and downstream of potential solutions Chain upstre am and downstream activities related to implementing potential options and unbundle each activity in terms of costs, resources required and benefits and e ffects Use design and construction standards, regulations, recommendations, guidelines
239 Formulate indicators ( e stimate costs, resources, benefits, and effects in quantitative or qualitative form) Prepare information in graphical forms where necessary Id ent ify standards, regulations, recommendations and guidelines relevant to implementing activities Identify potential stakeholders who could contribute for joint activities. How can we do it? (assessing options and strategizing) In this step the focus was to actively engage stakeholders in assessing the options developed for prioritized issues at the previous community workshop. Stakeholder inputs were expected in finding necessary modifications and identifying whether all upstream and downstream activitie s could be fulfilled by the stakeholders. The donor agencies that were expected as possible contributors were invited for the community workshop through the DSD office, Habaraduwa. Community workshop: In this workshop the alternative options were presented to VDC by the lead team (3) and the TOs (2). The DS, Galle, DSD, Habaraduwa, RADA area engineer, PHI, LA environmental officer, Donor TOs (1), community representatives (12), and representatives from GTZ and SDC (2 ) participated in this workshop. When pre senting the options with relevant information the stakeholders actively involve d themselves in assessing the viability and sustainability of the options. Proposed options represent ed different levels of service meeting acceptable standards, regulations and recommendation s The local stakeholders took a central role negotiating and identifying what levels of development would be feasible within their capacities, resources and local conditions. To achieve a certain level, and to contribute to achieving that level, the stakeholder had to realize the forthcoming costs and benefits forthcoming. Also, they need ed to understand the upstream and downstream of activities and net benefits and effects to get a better p icture of who should contribute, t ake
240 responsibilities and commit to achieve a preferred level. The following activities were included in the workshop. Introduce a brief six thinking hats exercise to encourage stakeholders to assess options in a positive and beyond conv entional manner. Introduce do no harm principle Present options with activity -stakeholder mapping and relevant information, i.e., indicators, to the whole group Assess different options in detail in groups and present and discuss at a plenary session D iscuss, negotiate and identify necessary modifications or additions to the proposed options Organize information, i.e., indicators and rank them to identify better performing options Discuss, negotiate and identify viable and sustainable options in a ple nary session Discuss and negotiate strategies Document discussions and conclusions How can we do it? ( developing strategies for suitable options ) In this step the focus was to build consensus on the optimum course of action for the joint activity program s in order to implement it with available resources and capacities and to a specific timelines. The lead team and the TOs who were involved in formulating options organized a meeting to incorporate the stakeholder inputs and necessary modifications discussed at the previous community workshop. Only the preferred options by the stakeholders were considered at this stage. When the options were assessed for viability, the options were more or less strategized, as who could contribute what and which way were ne gotiated and agreed. However, at this stage the strategies need to be discussed in detail and fine tuned for implementation. Evaluation and monitoring process throughout the implementation phase need s to be identified.
241 T he strategies identif ied at the previous workshop for selected options were expected to be further reviewed to be implemented within a joint action plan A detailed mapping of who will do what? was expected to be negotiated involving the respective stakeholders. The stakeholders who woul d decide to actively participate and commit resources were recommended to apply unbundling concept s on respective activities within their organization. It was intended with unbundling at this stage, that internal members of each stakeholder organization would gain a reasonable understanding of the required activities, the resources the ir organization would have to provide and the corresponding cost s and benefits. However, due to unavoidable circumstances in the country at the time, the international don or agencies withdrew support for new interventions in the country. As a result, the project could not hold the next planned community workshop on fine tuning strategies to finalize joint activity programs within a workable timeline. However, the DVC commit tee could come up with implementable strategies for their wastewater and stormwater issues, which could be taken up as donors resume development assistance to the country. In strategy building, SBLCA was a key instrument in planning as it enable d the stake holders to view the environmental, social as well as economic inputs a nd likely impact s on different stakeholders in following a particular strategy for implementing a selected option. It was expected that an understanding of each others future activitie s and corresponding resource requirements and the way in which they are interlinked among different stakeholders would facilitate willingness to exchange resources at the implementation stage as well. Lessons Learned The following are the lessons lear ned from the pilot study, which were communicated to GTZ THSP to assist program development: Application of SBLCA
242 Listing the issues together with the community is a good starting point for the analysis of the current issues. Chaining of upstream and downstrea m activities and unbundling may not necessarily be applied to all issues Choosing the important issues could be a decision of the facilitator s together with the participants. Stakeholder participation should be anticipated when chaining and upstream and d ownstream of activities and unbundling levels of services The exercise should happen in a plenary session as all community representatives of different stakeholder groups should be aware of different observations, magnitude, and perspectives of the proble ms in different areas of the village, and who is contributing to the problems. The exercise may have to be limited to no more than one day as the community representatives participate on voluntary basis and most of them are businessmen. The facilitator s sh ould have the practice to perform SBLCA with skills to identify interlinks of issues and their social, economical, and environmental factors. For developing options including the technical details considering social, economic, and environmental factors would need substantial involvement of resource persons. TOs, Environmental officers, planning officers from DSD office, PS office, NHDA, UDA, NW SDB, CEB, and PRDA are capable of providing some of these inputs provided they are given training and skills to be able to work with the local stakeholders and have the know -how to assist in providing the correct technical inputs where necessary. Games (i ntroduced at PSTI trainings) can b e incorporated to build trust on gains from stakeholder coordination and cooperation, but conducting these games during the workshop should be decided depending on the mood, time, and atmosphere of the workshop. Applicatio n of Process Organizing i nformal meetings at early stages of the process for approaching community leaders to get them involved in the VDC is a must in the process. The lead teams ha ve the capacity to lead the VDC provided they have received the PSTI rain ing on leadership and facilitation When the needs and problems are common to several adjoining GN divisions (e.g. roads, water supply, and drainage systems), the lead teams need flexibility and guidance from DSD level to corporate and coordinate their ac tivities across GN divisions. The lead teams has the capacity to carry out the tasks up to exploring the current status, but from there onwards to build alternative options for solving issues in an integrated
243 manner, they need assistance from resource per sons who could provide technical, managerial and operational inputs. For developing options for various issues, resource persons with different knowledge bases and with training in working in multi -stakeholder contexts and open for mutual learning would be needed. For understanding needs and problems and also building options and formulating strategies for most preferred and suitable options, the officials from the relevant responsible agencies (e.g., NWSDB P S and UDA) need to be present and available. The presence of these officials in the above meetings and workshops should be included in their mandated tasks and responsibilities. During these meeting the officials should not be allowed to be confronted by the local communities, but to seek inputs to joi ntly understand the issues, practical solutions and funding for activities. Possible actions towards implementation should be initiated while the process is continuing to sustain the interest of the community and other stakeholders. The communities and other local stakeholders must be made aware of the practical limitations in human and material resources right from the background preparation stage. As the DSD office is coordinating the development programs in and among GN divisions more support and involvement from DSD office is required Local officials were able to grasp SBLCA, but need practice and assistance from resource persons (for instance TOs who can be trained easily and will also remain as resource persons) for chaining upstream and downstream of activities and unbundling in te rms of stakeholders responsible or impacted, resources, costs and benefits. The assistance may come from more than one TO as the required expertise of these resource persons may be different. When necessary obtaining specific professional inputs (e.g. solid waste disposal landfill, counseling for those affected by drug abuse) has to be arranged through coordination with DSD and DS offices and other stakeholders (e.g. INGO and UN) The alternative op tions for improvement should be more focused on exploring things that could be done with active involvement of the community. For exploring options and building strategies, community prefers to have relevant Government officials to be present to make t hem aware of their preferred options, their contribution, and how the officials may support in their strategies.
244 Field officers, especially GNs do not have sufficient resources to fulfill the responsibilities of the Gama Neguma program (traveling for meet ings, meeting community stationery and other materials for community meetings and workshops). Even though the responsibilities of Gama Negume are additional to GNs current duties related to serving about 30 Government Ministries and Departments, how they would be receiving more resources and rewards for this additional work needs to be identified.
245 Table D 2 Issues identified in Unawatuna Area (jointly with the community representatives) Issue Beach Area Yaddehimulla Jayakotuwa Danwala Kajjugashena Buona Vista Lack of drinking water supply No wells No piped -water supply Well water supply No piped -water supply Well water supply Piped -water supply to some households and businesses Private and common well water supply Limited access to water in dry season Common well and tap water supply No wells in the area due to rocky terrain Private and common well water supply Poor access roads Encroached road Major potholes Floods during rainy reason Encroached road Major potholes Floods during rainy reason Encroached road Major potholes Floods during rainy reason Dusty during dry season Narrow roads poor access Narrow roads poor access Narrow roads poor access Overflowing septic tanks (black water) and non functioning toilets Small home plots and high water table Small home plots and high water table Relatively larger plots and high water table Hilly terrain and larger home plots Moderate issue Hilly terrain and larger home plots Moderate issue Hilly terrain and larger h ome plots Moderate issue Lack of arrangements for wastewater disposal Densely built up plots released to beach Densely built up plots released in home plots and to canal Densely built up plots released in home plots and to canal No arrangement released in home plots No arrangement home plots No arrangement home plots Lack of arrangements for stormwater drainage No provision for drainage along main roads Water logged area No provision for drainage along main roads Water logge d area Stagnant canal No provision for drainage along main roads Water logged area Stagnant canals Not arrangements Stormwater drains to surrounding areas Not arrangements Stormwater drains to surrounding areas Not arrangements Stormwater drains to surrounding areas
246 Table D 2 Continued Issue Beach Area Yaddehimulla Jayakotuwa Danwala Kajjugashena Buona Vista Solid waste collection Limited collection by LA Open dumping locations Limited collection by LA Open dumping locations Limited collection by LA Open dumping locations Dump to sea No service by LA No service by LA No service by LA Solid waste disposal Dump to sea No landfill area Dump to sea or canal No landfill area Burry or burn in backyards No landfill area Burry or burn in backyards Burry or burn in backyards Burry or burn in backyards Unauthorized constructions U nauthorized constructions in conserved beach area U nauthorized constructions encroached state roads and canal reservation U nauthorized constructions encroached state roads and canal reservation U nauthorized constructions encroached state roads Unauthorized construction in conserved forest land Unauthorized construction in conserved forest land Haphazard construction No compliance with UDA or LA standards and regulations No compliance with UDA or LA standards and regulations No compliance with UDA or LA standards and regulations Some compliance with UDA or LA standards and regulations Some compliance with UDA or LA standards and reg ulations Some compliance with UDA or LA standards and regulations Declining livelihood opportunities Due to reduced tourism activities Due to reduced tourism activities Due to reduced tourism activities And collapse of fishing industry Due to reduced tourism activities And collapse of fishing industry Due to reduced tourism activities
247 Table D 2 Continued Issue Beach Area Yaddehimulla Jayakotuwa Danwala Kajjugashena Buona Vista Unskilled labor (preventing value added services) K iosk and eatery operators Youth engaging in low skilled jobs Guest house and other service providers Youth engaging in low skilled jobs Guest house and other service providers Youth engaging in low skilled jobs Fishermen (no activity) Unskilled for construction labor, or other valued added services Beach vendors Unskilled for construction labor, or other valued added services Beach vendors Unskilled for construction labor, or other valued added services Drug and alcohol abuse Largely affected Large ly affected Largely affected Not yet affected Not yet affected Not yet affected Noise pollution New open discos (night clubs) Affected New open discos (night clubs) Affected New open discos (night clubs) Affected Not yet affected Not yet affected Not yet affected Lack of trust among communities (e.g. between castes) and business groups (e.g. beach eatery and guest house operators) Walle Devalaya based community Not much interaction with Meegaha Devalaya based community Walle Devalaya based community Not much interaction with Meegaha Devalaya based community Meegaha Devalaya based community Not much interaction with Walle Devalaya based community Not largely affected Not largely affected Not largely affected
248 APPENDIX E ANALYSIS OF WATER SUPPLY IN UNAWATUNA Data Table E 1. Water energy, costs, and CO 2 emission data Item Amount Source Water treatment cost (Rs./m 3 ) 15 National Water Supply and Drainage Board website Energy(KWh/m 3 ) 0.2 National Water Supply and Drainage Board website Energy cost(Rs.) 3.5 National Water Supply and Drainage Board website CO 2 (kg/KWh) 0.0007 Wijetunge et al Energy Conversion and Management, 2003 CO 2 (kg/thousand m 3 ) 0.14 Estimated Village data Village Officer, Public Health Officer records Table E 2. Well water supply breakdown in the community Village group Households Restaurants Guest houses Yaddehimulla 197 48 38 Unawatuna Central 252 62 57 Unawatuna West 165 4 12 Buona Vista 153 6 3 Table E 3. Expect ed piped water connections in the community Village group Households Restaurants Guest houses Yaddehimulla 113 41 29 Unawatuna Central 164 47 42 Unawatuna West 0 0 0 Buona Vista 0 0 0 Table E 4. Water supply and consumption data in the community Service and consumption data Number units Households Restaurants Guest houses Pipe water supply 0 0 0 Well water supply 767 120 110 Expecting pipe water connection 277 88 71 Avg. daily demand per unit(m 3 /day) 0.17 0.6 3 Total avg. daily well water demand (m 3 /day) 130 72 330 Total avg. daily well water demand per unit (m 3 /month) 3,912 2,160 9,900 Total avg. daily well water demand per unit (m 3 /yr) 47,592 26,280 120,450
249 Analysis Table E 5. Option1: pipe d water supply only for households with no wells Option 1 Number units Households Restaurants Guest houses TOTAL Pipe water supply 277 88 71 Well water supply 84 7 9 Expecting pipe water connection 37295 559429 7459 Avg. daily demand (m 3 /day) 0.34 1.2 4.5 Total avg. daily pipe water demand (m 3 /day) 94 106 320 519 Total avg. daily pipe water demand per unit (m 3 /month) 2,825 3,168 9,585 15,578 Total avg. daily well water demand per unit (m3/yr) 34,376 38,544 116,618 189,537 Table E 6. Option 2: pipe d water supply only for all households Option 2 Number units Households Restaurants Guest houses TOTAL Pipe water supply 767 120 110 Well water supply 84 7 9 Expecting pipe water connection 0 0 0 Avg. daily pipe water demand (m 3 /day) 0.25 1.2 4.5 Total avg. daily pipe water demand (m 3 /day) 192 144 495 831 Total avg. daily pipe water demand per unit (m 3 /month) 5,753 4,320 14,850 24,923 Total avg. daily well water demand per unit (m 3 /yr) 69,989 52,560 180,675 303,224 Table E 7. Option 1 consumption, energy, costs, and CO 2 releases Option 1 Piped water (m 3 ) Cost (Rs.) Energy (KWh) Energy cost (Rs.) CO2 (kg) Consumption (daily) 519 7,785 104 1,817 0.07 Consumption (monthly) 15,578 233,670 3,116 54,523 2.18 Consumption (yearly) 189,537 2,843,055 37,907 663,380 26.54
250 Table E 8. Option 2 consumption, energy, costs, and CO 2 releases Option 2 Piped water (m 3 ) Cost (Rs.) Energy (KWh) Energy cost (Rs.) CO2 (kg) Consumption (daily) 831 12,465 166 2,909 0.12 Consumption (monthly) 24,923 373,845 4,985 87,231 3.49 Consumption (yearly) 303,224 4,548,360 60,645 1,061,284 42.45 Table E 9. Difference of consumption, energy, costs, and CO2 releases between options Option 2 option 1 Piped water (m3) Cost (Rs.) Energy (KWh) Energy cost (Rs.) CO2 (kg) Savings (daily) 312 4,680 62 1,092 0.04 Savings (monthly) 9,345 140,175 1,869 32,708 1.31 Savings (yearly) 113,687 1,705,305 22,737 397,905 15.92
251 APPENDIX F ANALYSIS OF WASTEWATER IN UNAWATUNA The following tables summarize the w astewater r eleases a ccording to c urrent and f uture of portable w ater s upply l evels : Table F 1. Wastewater release data Category Households Restaurants Guest houses Data source Number of units releasing grey water to canals 280 35 30 Village Officer, Public Health Officer records Number of units releasing backwater to canals 115 0 0 Village Officer, Public Health Officer records Approximate grey to black water ratio 3:1 3:1 4:1 Estimated using SLSI 745 : 2003 Table F 2. Current wastewater discharge breakdown in the community Current wastewater releases Households Restaurants Guest houses Avg. daily demand per unit (m3/day) 0.17 0.6 3 Grey water (bathroom and kitchen) (m 3 /day) 0.13 0.45 2.4 Black water (toilets) (m 3 /day) 0.04 0.15 0.6 Grey water released to canals (m 3 /day) 35.7 15.75 72 Black water released to canals (m 3 /day) 4.9 0 0 Grey water released to canals (m 3 /month) 1,071 473 2,160 Black water released to canals (m 3 /month) 147 0 0 Grey water released to canals (m 3 /year) 32,130 14,175 64,800 Black water released to canals (m 3 /year) 53,518 0 0 Table F 3. Future wastewater discharge breakdown in the community Future option: piped -water for all Households Restaurants Guest houses Avg. daily demand per unit (m 3 /day) 0.34 1.2 4.50 Grey water (bathroom and kitchen) (m 3 /day) 0.26 0.9 3.60 Blackwater (toilets) (m 3 /day) 0.09 0.3 0.90 Grey water released to canals (m 3 /day) 71.4 31.5 108 Black water released to canals (m 3 /day) 9.8 0 0 Grey water released to canals (m 3 /month) 2,142 945 3,240 Black water released to canals (m 3 /month) 93 0 0 Grey water released to canals (m 3 /year) 4,260 28,350 97,200 Black water released to canals (m 3 /year) 1 07,036 0 0
252 Table F 4. Expect ed wastewater increase with piped water connections for all units in the community Wastewater increase Households Restaurants Guest houses Grey water released to canals (m 3 /day) 36 16 36 Black water released to canals (m 3 /day) 5 0 0 Grey water released to canals (m 3 /month) 1,071 473 1,080 Black water released to canals (m 3 /month) 147 0 0 Grey water released to canals (m 3 /year) 32,130 14,175 32,400 Black water released to canals (m 3 /year) 53,518 0 0
253 APPENDIX G BLACK AND GREY WASTEWATER TREATMENT Treatment Options Typical Conventional T oilet and Rectangular and Cylindrical Septic T anks S eptic tanks constructed below ground level are the most common black water treatment method found in Sri Lanka. They are not the solution that people often believe them to be when designed poorly. E ven good septic tanks alone do not remove all pathogens. Septic tanks discharge almost the same volume of water that they receive. This effluent is only partially treated and still contains pathogens The effluent has to soak away into the ground. In Sri Lanka, one of the common problems in individual houses as well as urban settlements is that there are many poorly designed and built septic tanks without proper soakage pits or seepage beds The situation is particularly worse when the septic tanks and pit latrines penetrate the wate r table especially in the rainy season. In coastal areas where the water table is almost at the ground level, the septic tank for black water treatment is not a solution. This could easily pollute the wells, surface water bodies and also the ground water (Figure G 1) Typical design of toilet and rectangular and cylindrical septic tanks are shown in Figure G 2. The rectangular septic tanks built with fired clay bricks are the most commonly used. The cylindrical ones are precast concrete and available in o nly standard one size. Sludge removal period is much shorter compared to the rectangular ones which could be sized according to the effluent load. Cylindrical septic tanks are not popular among the communities and hence, no large scale construction that c ould accommodate varying wastewater loads. The design details including daily black and grey water flows for households and other small commercial entities, working capacities of the septic tanks, typical septic tank and soakage pit or seepage bed arrangem ents need to be in compliance with Draft Sri Lanka Standard (SLS
254 745: 2003), a code of practice for the design and construction of septic tanks and associated effluent disposal systems. The code of practice also covers c onstruction, testing and maintenance of septic tanks and several other black water and grey water treatment systems. It recommends guidelines for the selection, design, construction and maintenance of systems for the on-site disposal of effluents from septic tanks. The systems recommended ar e soakage systems for the disposal of septic tank effluent below ground (soakage pits, seepage trenches and seepage beds), and anaerobic bio -filters, constructed wetlands and percolation beds for the disposal of septic tank effluents above ground, or for on -site effluent reuse. The design details are as shown in Figure G 2 and Figure G 3. Figure G 1. Septic tanks in high water table conditions (Source: Practical Action, 2005)
255 Figure G 2. A t ypical conventional toilets structure. A ) A front view of the typical conventional toilet B) A pit latrine. C) A rectangular septic tanks D) A precast concrete septic tank. A B C D
256 Figure G 3. Design details of a typical septic tank arrangement. A) Plan view of a typical septic tank arrangement with design parameters B) A section view of a typical septic tank arrangement with design parameters. A B
257 Figure G 4. Design details of a typical soakage pit arrangement. A) Plan view of a soakage pit arrangement with design parameters B) A section view of a typical soakage pit arrangement with design parameters. A B
258 Figure G 5. Design details of a typical seepage bed arrangement. A) Plan view of a seepage bed arrangement with design parameters B) A section view of a typical seepage bed arrangement with design parameters. A B B
259 Typical Double Vault Eco -sanitary T oilets with Plant Beds The e cological sanitation concept, also known as eco -san is viewed as an approach that recognizes human excreta and household wastewater not as just waste but as resources that can be recovered, treated where necessary, and reused. Unlike most conven tional sanitation methods, ecological sanitation processes seek to protect human health and the environment while reducing the use of water in sani tation systems and recycling nu trients to help reduce the need for artificial fertilizers in agriculture. Ec ological sanitation is often explained as a four -step process that includes source -separation, con tainment, sanitization and recy cling (Practical Action, 200 8 ). It is recognized as a financially and environmentally effective solution for reducing groundwat er pollution in water logging regions in developing countries (Figure F 6). Figure G 6. Septic tanks in high water table conditions (Source: Practical Action, 2005)
260 Ecological Sanitation techniques available on the market include toilet designs ranging from low -flush to dry urine -separating toilets that separate urine and faeces at source. Because these techniques reduce large quantities of black water, it reduces th e need for pipelines that is regarded as one of the most expensive part of the conventional sewer system. Also, it reduces enormous costs associated with sludge collection and treatment logistics to the municipalities. There are two main types of Eco -san toilets. They are dehydrating and composting toilet systems. Within these types, there is a distinction between urine diversion which separate urine from faece and systems which mix both urine and faeces. Many favor systems that separate the urine component from the faeces. Urine contains more nutrients and less pathogen K eeping urine relatively free of pathogens from faeces allow s reduced volume s of dangerous material and avoid s odors making fa cilities more pleasant for the use rs. Urine and wash water could be diverted to specially constructed plant -beds, or wetlands. Various techniques have been developed to operat e in slightly different ways depending on the field requirements. Specific details about a form of Eco -sanitary toilets are given in the Practical Action technical brief Compost toilets and eco -sanitation toilets (Practical Action, 2008 ). D ouble v ault toilet systems consist of two water -tight chambers which are referred to as vaults to collect faeces. Urine is coll ected separately as the contents of the vault s have to be kept relatively dry. Initially, a layer of absorbent organic material is put in the vault and after each use, the faeces needs to be covered with ash or lime to absorb the excess ive moisture and imp rove carbon -nitrogen ratio, which ensures that sufficient nitrogen is retained to make a good fertilizer. When the first vault is three quarters full, the remaining space is completely filled with dry earth and sealed to allow the components to decompose i n anaerobic conditions The second vault is used similarly until it is three quarters full At this point, the first vault needs to be
261 emptied manually. T he contents can be used as a fertilizer. According to the design the intervals for emptying the vault s would vary. The toilet s tructure is built over both the vaults with a squat hole over each vault which can be sealed -off. The latrine can be built any at desired location as there is no pollution to the surrounding environment from the water tight chambe rs (UNICEF, 2005) While there are many advantages of using Eco -sanitary systems, there could be potential problems and risks associated with the mismanagement of the systems, poor construction of facilities, or both. Proper operation and maintenance is ke y to the su ccess of the technology and this requires responsible action from users. Eco Solutions systems have been introduced to Sri Lanka since 1994. The technique had proved to work among communities in Chennai the capital of Tamil Nadu in southern Indi a. In Sri Lanka, the technology is still not well accepted among rural or urban communities. In post tsunami construction, Practical Action of Sri Lanka has contributed to promote Eco -san toilets in new settlements. Design and construction guidelines are a vailable free of charge to be used by any interested contractors, developers or community. Figure G 7 shows the typical construction of an Eco-sanitary toilet in a rural village in Sri Lanka. Design details of a typical design in South Asian countries are given in Figure G 8.
262 Figure G 7. A Typical Eco -sanitary toilet structure. A) A f ront view of a model Eco -sanitary toilet construction in Sri Lanka, B) Rear view of a typical Eco -sanitary toilet C) Urine diverting pan. D) A typical plant bed for urine diversion and wash water disposal. A B C D
263 Figure G 8. Design details of a typical Eco -san Toilet (Source: UNICEF, 2005).
264 APPENDIX H COST ANALYSIS OF WAS TEWATER TREATMENT OP TIONS Conventional Toilet with Septic Tank and Soakage Pit or Seepage Bed Option 1 (i): Conventional T oilet and Rectangular Septic Tank with Cement Block Wall (For an average household with five members in Unwatuna village) Design parameters: Size: 4x5x6.5 Foundation: Rubble Wall type: Cement block Roof type: RCC roof slab Floor type: RCC floor slab Septic tank type: Brick rectangular septic tank (5m3) Secondary treatment: Soakage pit (1.8m3) Construction cost: in LKR as at 2007 Table H 1. Bill of Quantities (BOQ) for Option 1(i) Item Unit Qty Rate Amount 1 Foundation up to DPC 1. Rubble m 3 1.4 1,000 1,400.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 1,786 625.00 3. Cement bag (50kg) 1 630.00 630.00 2 Cement block wall 1. Cement block numbers 220 28 6,160.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 1,786 625.00 3. Cement bag (50kg) 2 630.00 1,260.00 4. Red cement kg 0.25 200.00 50.00 3 RCC Floor slab (2") 1. 3/4 Metal f t 3 7 40.00 280.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 1,786 625.00 3. Cement bag (50kg) 1.5 630.00 945.00 4. Steel shear links (10 mm) length 5 120.00 600.00 5. Binding wire kg 0.25 85.00 21.25 6. Wire nail kg 0.125 85.00 10.63 7. Pol y thene kg 0.25 150.00 37.50 4 RCC roof slab (2") 1. 3/4 Metal ft 3 7 40.00 280.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 1,786 625.00 3. Cement bag (50kg) 1.5 630.00 945.00
265 Table H 1. Continued Item Unit Qty Rate Amount 4. Steel shear links (10mm) length 5 120.00 600.00 5. Binding wire kg 0.25 85.00 21.25 6. Wire nail kg 0.125 85.00 10.63 7. Pol y thene kg 0.25 150.00 37.50 5a Septic tank (rect angular 5m3) 1. Brick wall (9") item 14,000.00 2. Roof slab (5") item 5,000.00 3. Bottom slab (6") item 6,000.00 5b Soakage pit (rect angular 1.8m3) 1. Brick wall (honey comb) numbers 1,400.00 2. Roof slab (5") 5,000.00 6 Shuttering 1. 1" Timber plank ft 2 40 26.00 1,040.00 2. 2"x1" Rea pers ft 2 40 3.25 130.00 3. 2"x4"x7' Timber numbers 3 140.00 420.00 7 Door, door fram e and fixtures item 2,214.50 (2'x6', class II timber) 8 Internal plumbing item 100.00 (PVC, 15mm, tap) 250.00 9 External plumbing item 250.00 (PVC, 100mm) 11 Labor skilled days 5 1,000.00 5,000.00 unskilled days 7 600.00 4,200.00 12 Sq u atting pan numbers 1 850.00 850.00 Total cost 61,643.25 Contingencies (10%) 6,164.33 Estimated cost 67,808
266 Capital costs (LKR): To beneficiary 67,808 For toilet construction local authority 1,750,000 F or gully bowser and other equipment Maintenance cost (LKR): To owner 2,000 For emptying septic tank per 2 yrs To owner 153 Water bill per month local authority 2,000 T ransport and labor per 2 yrs per unit (10 12 units per day) Option 1 (ii): Conventional T oilet and Rectangular Septic Tank with CSEB Wall (For an average household with five members in Unwatuna village) Design parameters: Size: 4x5x6.5 Foundation: Rubble Wall type: CSEB Roof type: RCC roof slab Floor type: RCC floor slab Septic tank type: Brick rectangular septic tank (5m3) Secondary treatment: Seepage bed (3mx15mx4m) Construction cost: in LKR as at 2007 Table H 2. Bill of Quantities (BOQ) for Option 1(ii) Item Unit Qty Rate Amount 1 Foundation up to DPC 1. Rubble m 3 1.4 1,000 1,400.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 1,786 625.00 3. Cement bag (50kg) 1 3000 630.00 2 CSEB wall 1. CSEB numbers 450 10.00 4,500.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 1,786 625.00 3. Cement bag (50kg) 1.50 630.00 945.00 4. Red cement kg 0.25 200.00 50.00 5. Protective coating liters 1 300.00 300.00 3 RCC Floor slab (2") 1. 3/4 Metal ft 3 7 40.00 280.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 ,786 625.00 3. Cement bag (50kg) 1.5 30.00 945.00 4. Steel shear links (10mm) length 5 20.00 600.00 5. Binding wire kg 0.25 85.00 21.25
267 Table H 2 Continued Item Unit Qty Rate Amount 6. Wire nail kg 0.125 85.00 10.63 7. Pol y thene kg 0.25 150.00 37.50 4 RCC roof slab (2") 1. 3/4 Metal ft 3 7 40.00 280.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 1,786 625.00 3. Cement bag (50kg) 1.65 630.00 1,039.50 4. Steel shear links (10mm) length 5.5 120.00 660.00 5. Binding wire kg 0.275 85.00 23.38 6. Wire nail kg 0.1375 85.00 11.69 7. Pol y thene kg 0.275 150.00 41.25 5a Septic tank (rect angular ) 1. Brick wall (9") item 14,000.00 2. Roof slab (5") item 5,000.00 3. Bottom slab (6") item 6,000.00 5b See page bed (12'x30'x2') 1. Top soil m 3 5 28.00 140.00 2. Aggregate m 3 15 00.00 13,500.0 6 Shuttering 1. 1" Timber plank ft 2 40 6.00 1,040.00 2. 2"x1" Re a pers ft 2 40 3.25 130.00 3. 2"x4"x7' Timber numbers 3 40.00 420.00 7 Door, door frame and fixtures item 2,214.50 (2'x6', class II timber) 8 Internal plumbing item 100.00 (PVC, 15mm, tap) 250.00 9 External plumbing item 600.00 (PVC, 100mm) 11 Labor skilled days 5 ,000.00 5,000.00 unskilled days 7 600.00 4,200.00 12 Sq u atting pan numbers 1 50.00 850.00 Total cost 67,719.69 Contingencies (10%) 6,771.97 Estimated cost 74,492
268 Capital costs (LKR): To beneficiary 74,492 For toilet construction local authority 1,750,000 F or gully bowser and other equipment Maintenance cost (LKR): To owner 2,000 For emptying septic tank per 2 yrs To owner 153 Water bill per month local authority 2,000 T ransport and labor per 2 yrs per unit (10 12 units per day) Option 1 (iii): Conventional T oilet and Cylindrical Septic Tank with Brick Wall (For an average household with five members in Unwatuna village) Design parameters: Size: 4x5x6.5 Foundation: Rubble Wall type: Brick Roof type: Sheet roof Floor type: RCC floor slab Septic tank type: Precast cylindrical septic tanks (2m3) Secondary treatment: Soakage pit (1.8m3) Construction cost: in LKR as at 2007 Table H 3. Bill of Quantities (BOQ) for Option 1(iii) Item Unit Qty Rate Amount 1 Foundation up to DPC 1. Rubble m 3 1.4 1,000 .00 1 ,400.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 1 ,786 .00 625.00 3. Cement bag (50kg) 1 630.00 630.00 2 Brick wall 1. Bricks numbers 600 7.00 4,200.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 1,786 .00 625.00 3. Cement bag (50kg) 2.30 200.00 200.00 4. Red cement kg 0.25 200.00 50.00 3 RCC Floor slab (2") 1. 3/4 Metal ft 3 7 40.00 280.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 1,786 .00 625.00 3. Cement bag (50kg) 1.5 630.00 945.00 4. Steel shear links (10mm) length 5 120.00 600.00 5. Binding wire kg 0.25 85.00 21.25
269 Table H 3 Continued Item Unit Qty Rate Amount 6. Wire nail kg 0.125 85.00 10.63 7. Poly thene kg 0.25 150.00 37.50 4 RCC roof slab (2") 1. Asbestos sheets numbers 2 1,000.00 2,000.00 2. Batte ns (2"x2") ft 20.00 100.00 2,000.00 3.Accessories 1,200.00 5a Septic tank (cylindrical, 2m2) 1. St an d ard precast unit (1mx2.5m) item 16,000.00 5b Soakage pit (rect angular 1.8m3) 1. Brick wall (honey comb) numbers 1,100.00 2. Roof slab (5") 4,000.00 6 (No shuttering) 7 Door, door frame and fixtures item 2,214.50 (2'x6', class II timber) 8 Internal plumbing item 100.00 (PVC, 15mm, tap) 250.00 9 External plumbing item 600.00 (PVC, 100mm) 11 Labor skilled days 5 1,000.00 5,000.00 unskilled days 7 600.00 4,200.00 12 Sq u atting pan numbers 1 850.00 850.00 Total cost 49,763.88 Contingencies (10%) 4,976.39 Estimated cost 54,740 00 Capital costs (LKR): To beneficiary 57,740 For toilet construction local authority 1,750,000 F or gully bowser and other equipment
270 Maintenance cost (LKR): To owner 2,000 For emptying septic tank per 9 10 months To owner 153 Water bill per month local authority 2,000 T ransport and labor per 2 yrs per unit (10 12 units per day) Eco -sanitary Toilet with Plant Bed Option 2 (i): Eco -sanitary toilet with Urine and Wash water Diversion with Cement Block Wall (For an average household with five members in Unwatuna village) Design parameters: Size: 4x5x6.5 Foundation: Rubble Wall type: Cement block Roof type: RCC roof slab Floor type: RCC floor slab Plant bed: Cement hollow block Vault: Double brick vault Construction cost: in LKR as at 2007 Table H 4. Bill of Quantities (BOQ) for Option 2(i) Item Unit Qty Rate Amount 1 Foundation up to DPC 1. Rubble m 3 1.4 1,000 .00 1,400.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 1,786 .00 625.00 3. Cement bag (50kg) 1 630.00 630.00 2a Cement block wall 1. Cement block numbers 220 28 .00 6,160.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 1,786 .00 625.00 3. Cement bag (50kg) 2 630.00 1,260.00 4. Red cement kg 0.25 200.00 50.00 2b Brick vault 1. Brick numbers 220 28.00 6,160.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 1,786 625.00 3. Cement bag (50kg) 2 630.00 1,260.00 4. Plaster (15mm) m 2 2 150.00 300.00 3 RCC Floor slab 1. 3/4 Metal ft 3 7 40.00 280.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 1,786 625.00 3. Cement bag (50kg) 1.5 630.00 945.00
271 Table H 4 Continued Item Unit Qty Rate Amount 4. Steel shear links (10mm) length 5 120.00 600.00 5. Binding wire kg 0.25 85.00 21.25 6. Wire nail kg 0.125 85.00 10.63 7. Polythene kg 0.25 150.00 37.50 4 RCC roof slab 1. 3/4 Metal ft 3 7 40.00 280.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 1,786 625.00 3. Cement bag (50kg) 1.5 630.00 945.00 4. Steel shear links (10mm) length 5 120.00 600.00 5. Binding wire kg 0.25 85.00 21.25 6. Wire nail kg 0.125 85.00 10.63 7. Polythene kg 0.25 150.00 37.50 5 Plant bed 1. Cement block numbers 60 28.00 1,680.00 2. Sand, cement, 3/4 metal 450.00 6 Shuttering 1. 1" Timber plank ft 2 40 26.00 1,040.00 2. 2"x1" Reapers ft 2 40 3.25 130.00 3. 2"x4"x7' Timber numbers 3 140.00 420.00 7 Door, door frame and fixtures item 2,214.50 (2'x6', class II timber) 8 100mm PVC pipe, fittings, item 1,650.00 for venting system 9 11/4 PVC pipe, fittings, item 758.00 for urine/wash water pipe 10 Railings for the step item 3,000.00 11 Labor skilled days 4 1,000.00 4,000.00 unskilled days 5 600.00 3,000.00 12 Cost of eco pan numbers 1 1,500.00 1,500.00 Total cost 43,976.25 Contingencies (10%) 4,397.63 Estimated cost 48,373.88
272 Capital costs (LKR): To beneficiary 48,374 For toilet construction To local authority No cost Maintenance cost (LKR): To owner No cost; Possible income from compost To l ocal authority No cost Option 2 (ii): Eco -sanitary toilet with Urine and Wash water Diversion with CSEB (For an average household with five members in Unwatuna village) Design parameters: Size: 4x5x6.5 Foundation: Rubble Wall type: Cement block Roof type: RCC roof slab Floor type: RCC floor slab Plant bed: Cement hollow block Vault: Double brick vault Construction cost: in LKR as at 2007 Table H 5. Bill of Quantities (BOQ) for Option 2(ii) Item Unit Qty Rate Amount 1 Foundation up to DPC 1. Rubble m 3 1.4 1,000 .00 1,400.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 1,786 .00 625.00 3. Cement bag (50kg) 1 630.00 630.00 2a CSEB wall 1. CSEB numbers 450 10.00 4,500.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 1,786 625.00 3. Cement bag (50kg) 1.50 630.00 945.00 4. Red cement kg 0.25 200.00 50.00 5. Protective coating liters 1 300.00 300.00 2b Brick vault 1. Brick numbers 220 28.00 6,160.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 1,786 .00 625.00 3. Cement bag (50kg) 2 630.00 1,260.00 4. Plaster (15mm) m 2 2 150.00 300.00 3 RCC Floor slab 1. 3/4 Metal ft 3 7 40.00 280.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 1,786 .00 625.00
273 Table H 5 Continued Item Unit Qty Rate Amount 3. Cement bag (50kg) 1.5 630.00 945.00 4. Steel shear links (10mm) length 5 120.00 600.00 Item Unit Qty Rate Amount 5. Binding wire kg 0.25 85.00 21.25 6. Wire nail kg 0.125 85.00 10.63 7. Polythene kg 0.25 150.00 37.50 4 RCC roof slab 1. 3/4 Metal ft 3 7 40.00 280.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 1,786 625.00 3. Cement bag (50kg) 1.65 630.00 1,039.50 4. Steel shear links (10mm) length 5.5 120.00 660.00 5. Binding wire kg 0.275 85.00 23.38 6. Wire nail kg 0.1375 85.00 11.69 7. Polythene kg 0.275 150.00 41.25 5 Plant bed 1. Cement block numbers 60 28.00 1,680.00 2. Sand, cement, 3/4 metal 550.00 6 Shuttering 1. 1" Timber plank ft 2 40 26.00 1,040.00 2. 2"x1" Reapers ft 2 40 3.25 130.00 3. 2"x4"x7' Timber numbers 3 140.00 420.00 7 Door, door frame and fixtures item 2,214.50 (2'x6', class II timber) 8 100mm PVC pipe, fittings, item 1,650.00 for venting system 9 11/4 PVC pipe, fittings, item 758.00 for urine/wash water pipe 10 Railings for the step item 3,000.00 11 Labor S killed days 4 1,000.00 4,000.00 U nskilled days 5 600.00 3,000.00
274 Table H 5 Continued Item Unit Qty Rate Amount 12 Cost of eco pan numbers 1 1,500.00 1,500.00 Total cost 42,562.69 Contingencies (10%) 4,256.27 Estimated cost 46,818.96 Capital costs (LKR): To beneficiary 48,374 For toilet construction To local authority No cost Maintenance cost (LKR): To owner 1,000 Wall maintenance cost Possible income from composting To l ocal authority No cost Option 2 (ii i ): Eco -sanitary toilet with Urine and Washwater Diversion with Brick Wall (For an average household with five members in Unwatuna village) Design parameters: Size: 4x5x6.5 Foundation: Rubble Wall type: Cement block Roof type: Sheet roof Floor type: RCC floor slab Plant bed: Cement hollow block Vault: Double brick vault Construction cost: in LKR as at 2007 Table H 6. Bill of Quantities (BOQ) for Option 2(ii1) Item Unit Qty Rate Amount 1 Foundation up to DPC 1. Rubble m 3 1.4 1,000 .00 1,400.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 1,786 .00 625.00 3. Cement bag (50kg) 1 630.00 630.00 2a Brick wall 1. Bricks numbers 600 7.00 4,200.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 1,786 .00 625.00 3. Cement bag (50kg) 2.30 200.00 200.00 4. Red cement kg 0.25 200.00 50.00 5. Plaster (15mm) m 2 10 150.00 1,500.00
275 Table H 6 Continued Item Unit Qty Rate Amount 2b Brick vault 1. Brick numbers 220 28.00 6,160.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 1,786 .00 625.00 3. Cement bag (50kg) 2 630.00 1,260.00 4. Plaster (15mm) m 2 2 150.00 300.00 3 RCC Floor slab 1. 3/4 Metal ft 3 7 40.00 280.00 2. Sand m 3 0.35 1,786 .00 625.00 3. Cement bag (50kg) 1.5 630.00 945.00 4. Steel shear links (10mm) length 5 120.00 600.00 5. Binding wire kg 0.25 85.00 21.25 6. Wire nail kg 0.125 85.00 10.63 7. Poly thene kg 0.25 150.00 37.50 4 Sheet roof 1. Asbestos sheets numbers 2 1,000.00 2,000.00 2. Battens (2"x2") ft 20.00 100.00 2,000.00 3.Accessories 1,200.00 5 Plant bed 1. Bricks numbers 90 7.00 630.00 2. Sand, cement 1,200.00 6 (No shuttering) 7 Door, door frame and fixtures item 2,214.50 (2'x6', class II timber) 8 100mm PVC pipe, fittings, item 1,650.00 for venting system 9 11/4 PVC pipe, fittings, item 758.00 for urine/wash water pipe 10 Railings for the step item 3,000.00 11 Labor S killed days 4 1,000.00 4,000.00 U nskilled days 5 600.00 3,000.00 12 Cost of eco pan numbers 1 1,500.00 1,500.00
276 Table H 6 Continued Item Unit Qty Rate Amount Total cost 43,246.88 Contingencies (10%) 4,324.69 Estimated cost 47,571.56 Capital costs (LKR): To beneficiary 48,374 For toilet construction To local authority No cost Maintenance cost (LKR): To owner No cost; Possible income from compost To l ocal authority No cost
277 LIST OF REFERENCES Abram RH. 2009. Presentation to USDA -CSREES, National Water Conference; 2007 31 January; Savannah (GA), USA. [AirMAC] Air Resource Management Center of Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Sri Lanka.2005. Sri Lanka emission standards. http://www.airmacsl.org/download.html#airmonitoring. Accessed 20 February 2008. Akai M. 1999. Economic valuation in LCA -potential in supporting decision making. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing; 1999 Feb 1 3; Tokyo, Japan.IEEE Xplore. p 802 805. Akpofure EA, Ojile M. 2003. Social impact assessment: An interactive and participatory approac h. In: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Training Resource Manual: Case Studies from developing countries. Addis Ababa (ET), Ethiopia: UNEP, Economic Commission for Africa. Allen W, Kilvington M, Horn C. 2002. Using participatory and learning -based app roaches for environmental management to help achieve constructive behaviour change. Lincoln (NZ): Ministry for the Environment. Landcare research contract report LC0102/057. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/social/envinfsys.asp. Accessed 30 June 2008. Allen WJ, Kilvington MJ. 1999. Why involving people is important: The forgotten part of environmental information system management. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Multiple Objective Decision Support Systems for Land, Water a nd Environmental Management; 1999 Jan 6; http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/social/envinfsys.asp Accessed 20 June 2008 [ANSI / ISO] American National Standards Institut e and the International Organization for Standardization. 1997. Environmental management life cycle assessment principles and framework. American National Standards Institute / International Organization for Standardization, ed. Andrews RNL. 1999. Environmental impact assessment and risk assessment: learning from each other. In: Wathern P, editor. Environmental Impact Assessment Theory and Practice. London (UK), England: Unwin Hyman. Aoki M. 2008. Endogenizing institutions and their changes. Journal of Institutional Economics (forthcoming). [ARROW] Apalachicola Region Resources on the Web. 2008. General information. http://www.fnai.org/ARROW/almanac/biology/biology_index.cfm Acc essed 30 March 2009. [ADB] Asian Development Bank. 2005. Promoting cross sectoral actions to achieve the health MDGs. In: Proceedings of the high level forum on the health MDGs in Asia and the Pacific; 2005 Jun 21 22; Tokyo Japan: ADB.
278 [ADB] Asian Develo pment Bank. 2007. sri lanka country assistance program evaluation: water supply and sanitation sector assistance evaluation report. Asian Development Bank. http://www.adb.org/Documents/Evaluation/CAPES/SRI/CAPE -SRI -WaterSupply Sanitation -Sector.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2008 Auroville Earth Institute. 2007. Comparison of building materials in Auroville Earth Institute Ind ia. Auroville Earth Institute, Auroville, India. http://www.earth auroville.com/index.php?nav=menu&pg=earthauroville&id1=7. Accessed 20 February 2008. Bare JC, Gloria TP. 2006. Critical analysis of the mathematical relationships and comprehensiveness of life cycle impact assessment approaches. Environmental Science and Technology 40: 11041113. Bare JC, Hofstetter P, Pennington DW, Udo de Haes HA. 2000. Life cycle impac t assessment workshop summary; midpoints versus endpoints: The sacrifices and benefits. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 5: 319 326. Barthel L, Wolf MA, Eyerer P. 2005. Methodology of life cycle sustainability for sustainability assessments. Presentation on the 11th Annual International Sustainable Development Research Conference (AISDRC); 2005 6 8 June; Helsinki, Finland. Becker HA. 2001.Social impact assessment. European Journal of Operational Research 128:311321. Becker J. 2004. Making sustainable development evaluations work. Sustainable Development 12:200 11. Benson JF. 2003.Whats the alternative? Impact assessment tools and sustainable planning. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 21:261 266. Berke PR, Campanella TJ. 2006. Planni ng for post -disaster resiliency. American Academy of Political and Social Science 604:192 207. Berke PR. 2002. Does sustainable development offer a new direction for planning? Challenges for the twenty -first century. Journal of Planning Literature 17:21 3 6. Boustead I. 1996. LCA how it came about: the beginning in the UK. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 1: 147 150. Boyed R. 1998. Wholistic systems thinking: Healthy sustained community collaboration.http://www.uwex.edu/ces/flp/community_building/sysview.html. Accessed 2 March 2008 Briggs de SX. 2003. Planning together: How (and how not) to engage stakeholders in charting a course. Cambridge (MA): The Community Problem -Solving Project, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
279 Bruder MB. 1994 Working with members of other disciplines: Collaboration for success. In Wolery M, Wilbers JS, (Eds.). Including children with special needs in early childhood programs Washington (DC), USA: National Association for the Education of Young Children. p. 4 5 70. Caeque FC.2002. Evaluacin de la situacin laboral de empresas: El Anlisis del Ciclo Vida como herramienta para el Desarollo Sostenible. Departamento de Economia i Organisacin de Empresas, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Cape Town Gateway. 2007. Integrated development planning. http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eng/pubs/public_info/I/11198. Accessed 30 June 2008. Cashmore M, Gwilliam R, M organ R, Cobb D, Bond, A. 2004. The interminable issue of effectiveness: Substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of EIA theory. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 21:295310. [CEA] Central Environmental Authority of M inistry of Environment and Natural Resources. Environment Guideline publications. Colombo, Sri Lanka: CEA. [CIA] Central Intelligence Agency. 2008. The world factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the -world -factbook/geos/ce.html. Accessed 02 March 200 9. Ceylon Chamber of Commerce. 2007. Economic information report. http://www.chamber.lk/inpages/informationbank/economicinfo.asp. Accessed 26 February 2008. Chen C, Fan Y, Farn C. 2007. Investigating factors affecting the adoption of electronic toll collection: A transaction cost economics perspective. In : Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; 2001 Jun 3; Hawaii. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. http://csdl2.comp uter.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2007/2755/00/27550107a.pdf Accessed 30 June 2008. Chin SK. 1999. Mineral industry of Sri Lanka. Far Eastern Economic Review 162: 57. City of Cape Town. 2001. Water services development plan, chapter 3: Customer profile and service levels of City of Cape Town. http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/Water/WaterservicesDevPlan/Documents/chapter3_Cu sto m_Profile.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2008. CMU Green Design Institute. 2009. Economic input output. http://www.eiolca.net/ 20 March 2009. Coe R. 2002. Analyzing ranking and rating data from participatory on-farm trials. In: Bellon, M.R. and J. Reeves (eds). Quantitative Analysis of Data from Participatory Methods in Plant Breeding. Mexico, DF: CIMMYT. p 4464.
280 Coe R. Franzel S. 2000. Keeping research in participatory research. Presented at the 3rd International PRGA Confe rence; 2000 611 November; Nairobi, Kenya. Commonwealth Architects Association. 2005. Infrastructure and the millennium development goals: A Framework for Enhancing the Efficacy of the Role of the Construction Sector. Pretoria, South Africa: CAA. 8p. Coope r JS. 2003. Life cycle assessment and sustainable development indicators. Journal of Industrial Ecology 7:12 15. Costanza R. 1994. Three general policies to achieve sustainability. In: Jansson, A., Hammer, M., Folke C, Costanza, R. (Eds.), Investing in Nat ural Capital Washington (DC), USA. Island Press. Deng FF. 2007. Social asset specificity and a positive view of transaction cost. http://ssrn.com/abstract962795.Accessed 30 June 2008. Dreyer L.2006. Interpretation of the fundamental ILO conventions into business context background for development of indicators for social LCA. Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Management, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark. Dyer JS, Fishburn PC, Steuer RE, Wallenius J, Zionts, S. 1992. Multiple Cr iteria Decision making, multiattribute utility theory: The next ten years. Management Science 38: 645 654. Eco -solutions. 2007. Building ecotoilet systems: Press releases on success stories. http://www .eco -solutions.org/press.html Accessed 20 February 2008. Edwards W, Barron FH. 1994. SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurements. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60: 306325. Edwards W. 1977. How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decisionmaking. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. SMC 7: 326340. Emmanuel R. 2004. Estimating environment suitability of wall materials. Building and Environment 39:12531261. [EIA] Energy Information Administration. 1993. Emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States 1985 1990. Washington (DC), USA: US Department of Ene rgy, DOE: EIA 0573. [ELAW] Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide. 2007. Sri Lanka national policy on sand as a resource for the construction industry (draft). http://www.elaw.org/resources/text.as p?ID=2793. Accessed 20 February 2008. Feldman DL. 2008. Barriers to adaptive management: Lessons from the Apalachicola Chattahoochee -Flint compacts. Society and Natural Science 21: 512525.
281 Fisher F. 1991. Risk assessment and environmental crisis: Toward a n integration of science and participation. Industrial Crisis Quarterly 5:113 132. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 20042009 Flysj A. 2006. Indicators as a complement to life cycle assessment a case study of salmon. Presentatio n held 2006 June 17; Lausanne, Switzerland. Flp J. 2005. Introduction to decision making methods. laboratory of operations research and decision systems, Computer and Automation Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Gauthier C.2005. Measuring corpor ate social and environmental performance: The extended life cycle assessment. Journal of Business Ethics 59: 199 206. [GSMB] Geological Survey and Mines Bureau. 2007. Mining permit documents. Colombo, Sri Lanka: GSMB. Geyer Y. 2006. Integrated development planning handbook series for communitybased organizations. Pretoria, South Africa: Institute for Democracy in South Africa. Giacomini R, Hadley J. 2005. Georgia 2015 population projections. Office of Planning and Budget: Atlanta, Georgia. Global Developm ent Research Center. 2008. Participatory approaches for local agenda 21. http://www.gdrc.org/uem/la21/jl -la21.html.Accessed 26 June 2008. Goodland R, Daly H, El Serafy S, v on Droste B. 1991. From empty world economics to full world economics. Paris, France: UNESCO. Googins BK, Rochlin SA. 2000. Creating the partnership society: Understanding the rhetoric and reality of cross -sectoral partnerships. Business and Society Review 105:127 145. Grandzol JR. 2005. Improving the faculty selection process in higher education: A case for the analytic hierarchy process. IR Applications, using advanced tools, techniques and Methodologies. http://www.airweb.org/?page=1154. Accessed 30 March 2009. Green California. 2008. Life cycle cost assessment model factsheet. http://www.green.ca.gov/LCCA/FactSheet.htm 20 March 2009. Griehammer R, Be not C, Dreyer LC, Flysj A, Manhart A, Mazijn B, Mthot A, Weidema B. 2006. Feasibility study: Integration of social aspects into LCA. Freiburg (DE): United Nations Environment Program, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Life Cycle Initiati ve. Task force report. Grosskurth J, Rotmans J. 2005. The SCENE model: getting a grip on sustainable development in policy making. Environment, Development and Sustainability 7:135 51.
282 Hendrickson CT, Horvath A, et al. 1998. Economic input -output models f or environmental life cycle assessment. ACS Environmental Science and Technology 4:184A 191. Horvath A, Hendrickson CT, Lave LB, McMichael FC, Wu TS. 1995. Toxic emissions indexes for green design and inventory. Environ Science and Technology 29:A86 A90. Hunkeler D. 2006. Societal LCA methodology and case study. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11:371 382. Hutchcroft I. 1996. Local authorities, universities and communities: alliances for sustainability. Local Environ: The International Journ al of Justice and Sustainability 1: 219 24 Innes JE. 1996. Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association 62:460 472. [GTZ IFSP] Integrated Food Security Program of Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Technische Zusammenarbiet. 2003. Solid waste management: Concepts and strategies for local authorities in Trincomalee District. http://www.ifsp -srilanka.org/wp 48 -swmII trincomalee -text.pdf.Accessed 20 June 2008. [ISSD] International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2006. What is sustainable development. http://www.iisd.org/sd/ Accessed 3 June 2009. [ISO] International Organization for Standardization.1998. Environmental management Life cycle assessment Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis ISO 14041. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO/FDIS. Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer, G, Rosenbaum R. 2003. IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 8: 324 330. Jrgensen A, Le Bocq A, Nazarkina L, Hauschild M. 2008. Methodologies for social life cycle assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13: 96 103 Kasemir B, Van Asselt MBA, Dqrrenberg C, Jaeger CC. 1999. Integrated assessment of sustainable development: multiple perspectives in interaction. International Journal of Environment and Pollution 11(4):407 25. Kelly G, Walker P. 2004. Community-level systems thinking. In: Proceedings of International Conference of the Systems Dynamics Society; 2004 Jul 25 29; Oxford (UK): Systems Dynamics Society. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCUMeXD4kS8. Accessed 20 June 2008. Klein JT, Grossenbacher -Mansuy W, Hberli R, Bill A, Scholz RW, and Welti M. 2001. Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, an effective way for managing complexity. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhuser Verlag 332p. Klein JT. 2004. Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Future 36: 515 526.
283 Landcare Research. 2003. Risk assessment fundamentals. from: http://contamsites.landcareresearch.co.nz/risk_assessment_fundamentals.htm ; 2006. Accessed 24 November 2006. Lang DJ, Binder CR, Scholz RW, Schleiss K, Stubli B. 2006. Impact factors and regulatory mechanisms for material flow manage ment: Integrating stakeholder and scientific perspective The case of bio -waste delivery. Resource Conservation and Recycling 47:101 132. Lanka Business Online .2008. Industries: Building bhlocks. http://www.lankabusinessonline.com/fullstory.php?newsID=976370250&no_view=1&SE ARCH_TERM=17 Accessed 20 February 2008. Lawrence R J. and Desprs C. 2004. Futures of transdisciplinarity, Futures 36: 397 405 Lee N 2006. Bridging the gap between theory and practice in integrated assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26:57 78. Leflar M. 2008. What's the difference between life cycle thinking and assessment?. Converting Magazine : AllBusiness.com, Inc. http://www.allbusiness.com/environment -natural resources/pollution -environmental/117107101.html Accessed 30 March 2009. Leitman S. 2005. An appraisal of the consumptive withdrawal limit for the upper Chattahoochee basin. In: Proceedings of the 2005 Georgia Water Resources Conference; 2005 2527April ; University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Athens (GA), USA: Kathryn J. Hatcher, editor, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia. Leitman S. 2008. Lessons learned from transboundary management efforts in the Apalachicola Chattahoochee -Flint Basin, USA. Transboundary Water Resources: A Foundation for Regional Stability in Central Asia. Springer Netherlands 2008: 195208. Ludwig D, Hilborn R, Waters C. 1993. Uncertainty, resource exploitation and conservation: lessons from history. Science 260: 17 36. Luks a F, Siebenhner B. 2007. Transdisciplinarity for social learning? The contribution of the German socio -ecological research initiative to sustainability governance. Manhart A, Griehammer R. 2006. Social impacts of the production of notebook PCs Contribu tion to the development of a Product Sustainability Assessment (PROSA). koInstitute V, Freiburg, Germany. Marsden T, Bristow G. 2000. Progressing integrated rural development: A framework for assessing the integrative potential of sectoral policies. Regional Studies, Taylor and Francis Journals 34:455 469. Meppem T, Gill R. 1998. Planning for sustainability as a learning concept Ecological Economics 26:121 137.
284 Mthot A. 2005. FIDD: A green and socially responsible venture capital fund. Presentation on the Life Cycle Approaches for Green Investment 26th LCA Swiss Discussion Forum, 2005; Lausanne, Switzerl and. Mind Tools. 19952009. Paired comparison analysis. http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_02.htm. Accessed 30 March 2009. [MNBEID] Ministry of N ation Building and Estate Infrastructure Development. 2006. Village upliftment program. http://www.mnbd.gov.lk/gama.htm Accessed 20 October 2008. MONGABAY.COM. 2005. Tropical rainforests. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/20srilanka.htm Accessed 02 March 2008. Moss T. 2004. Regional sustainable development as a cross -sectoral task. In: Proceedings of the REGIONET Workshop; 2004 Jan 14 15; Brussels (BE): ICCR. http://www.iccr international.org/regionet/docs/ws4 -moss.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2008. Mller DB, Tjallingii SP, Canters KJ. 2005. A transdisci plinary learning approach to foster convergence of design, science and deliberation in urban and regional planning. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 22:193 208. [NWSDB] National Water Supply and Drainage Board. 2006. Key facts and figures: NWSDB. http://waterboard.lk/scripts/ASP/Performance.asp.Accessed 20 June 2008. [NWSDB] National Water Supply and Drainage Board. 2007. history of national water supply and dr ainage board. http://waterboard.lk/scripts/ASP/adout_us.asp. 02 March 2008 Nazarkina L, Le Bocq A. 2006. Social aspects of sustainability assessment: Feasibility of social lif e cycle assessment (S -LCA). EDF 2006; Moretsur Loing, France. Norris GR. 2006. Social impacts in product life cycles Towards life cycle attribute assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11 (Special Issue): 97 104. Novek J. 1995. Environmental impact assessment and sustainable development: Case studies of environmental conflict. Society and Natural Resources 8:145159. Owens S, Rayner T, Bina O. 2004. New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory, practice, and research. Environ ment and Planning A 36:19431959. Pegasus Communications, Inc. 2004. Whet is systems thinking?. http://www.pegasuscom.com/aboutst.html. Accessed 2 March 2008. Pinson D. 2004. Urban planning: An undisciplined discipline. In: R.J. Lawrence and C. Desprs (Eds.). Transdisciplinarity in theory and practice. Futures 36(4), Special issue on transdisciplinarity: 503 513.
285 Practical Action. 2008. Ecological sanitation A concept. http://practicalaction.org/practicalanswers/product_info.php?products_id=296 Accessed 20 February 2008. PR Consultants. 1996 2009. Life cycle inventory databases. http://www.pre.nl/simapro/inventory_databases.htm. Accessed 20 March 2009 Reconstruction and Development Authority. 2006. Risk management. http://www.tafren.gov.lk/porta l/index.jsp?sid=1&id=87&pid=1 Accessed 17April 2006. Rowe J, Fudge C. 2003. Linking national sustainable development strategy and local implementation: A case study in Sweden. Local Environment 8:125 140. [RADA] Reconstruction and Development Authority. 2006. Risk Management. http://www.tafren.gov.lk/portal/index.jsp?sid=1&id=87&pid=1 Accessed 17April 2006. Ruhl JB. 2005. Water wars, Eastern style: divvying up the Apalachicola Chattahoochee -Flint river basin. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education 131: 47-54. Saaty TS. 1994. Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 74: 426447. Saaty, TS. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw Hill (NY), USA. Schmidt I, Meurer M, Saling P, Kicherer A, Reuter W, Gensch C.2004. SEEbalance managing sustainability of products and processes with the socio -eco -efficiency analysis by BASF. Gree ner Management International 45: 79 94. Scholz RW, and Tietje O. 2002. Embedded case study methods: Integrating qualitative and quantitative knowledge. Thousand Oaks (CA), USA: Sage Publications. Scholz RW, Lang D, Wiek A, Walter AI, Stauffacher, M. 2006. Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: Historical framework and theory. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 7: 226 251. Scholz RW, Marks D. 2001. Learning about transdisciplinarity. In: Klein JT, Gros senbacher Mansuy W, Hberli R, Bill A, Scholz RW, Welti M, (Eds.). Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, an effective way for managing complexity. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhuser Verlag. p. 236 251. Sheate WR. 2003. EIA: Theres life in the old dog yet response to Benson. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 21:273 274. Shepard A, Bowler C. 1997. Beyond the requirements: improving public participation in EIA. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 40:725 738. Slocombe L. 2 003. Integration in the regions: cross -sectoral housing policy coordination at regional level. Housing Studies 18(2):235 48.
286 Smith K, Barrett CB, and Box PW. 2001. Not necessarily in the same boat: Heterogeneous risk assessment among east African pastorali sts. The Journal of Development Studies 37:1 30. Smith K, Barrett CB, Box PB. 2000. Participatory risk mapping for targeting research and assistance: With an example from east African pastoralists. World Development 28:1945 1959. [SETAC] Society for Envir onmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 1991. A technical framework for life cycle assessments. Washington (DC), USA: SETAC Foundation for Environmental Education, Inc. Spillemaeckers S, Vanhoutte G, Taverniers L, Lavrysen L, van Braeckel D, Mazijn B, Rivera JD. 2004. Integrated product assessment the development of the label 'sustainable development' for products ecological, social and economical aspects of integrated product policy. Belgian Science Policy, Belgium. Sprri, A., Lang, D.J., and Scholz, R.W. ( 2007). The future of recycled construction minerals from construction and demolition waste. Journal of Resources, Conservation and Recycling, (submitted). [SLSI] Sri Lanka Standards Institute. 2006. Design and construction of septic tank and associated ef fluent disposal, part 1 -Small system disposing to ground -SLSI 745: Part 1. Colombo, Sri Lanka: SLSI. State of Alaska Department of Education & Early Development. 1999. Handbook for life cycle cost analysis. Juneau (AK), USA: State of Alaska Departmen t of Education & Early Development. Sri Lanka Virtual Library Index. 2005. Summary report on tsunami disaster Sri Lanka. http://www.lankalibrary.com/news/summa ry.htm. Accessed 17 April 2006. State of Alaska Department of Education & Early Development. 1999. Handbook for life cycle cost analysis. Juneau (AK), USA: State of Alaska Department of Education & Early Development. Stauffacher M, Walter AI, Lang DJ, Wiek A, Scholz RW. 2006. Learning to research environmental problems from a functional socio-cultural constructivism perspective: The transdisciplinary case study approach. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 7:252 275. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. 1998 2009. ecoinvent data v.2. http://www.ecoinvent.org/ Accessed 20 March 2009. Synergetics Lanka. 2003. Solid waste management: Concepts and strategies for local authorit ies in Trincomalee District. Trincomalee, Sri Lanka: [GTZ IFSP] Integrated Food Security Program of German Technical Cooperation Sri Lanka.
287 The Environmental Quality Board, 1998. Sustainable development: the very idea. Minnesota (US), United States: Min nesota Planning Environment Quality Board. The World Bank Group. 2008. The World Bank participation sourcebook. http://worldbank.org/wbi/sourcebook/sba101.htm Accessed 20 February 2008. [GTZ THSP] Tsunami Housing Support Project of the German Technical Cooperation. 2007. Quality Assurance Methods for assessing post tsunami housing, Sri Lanka, Final Report for Matara District. Colombo, Sri Lanka: GTZ THSP. [GTZ THSP] Tsunami Housing Support Project of German Technical Cooperation. 2007. Rewards manual for participatory project planning and implementation. Colombo, Sri Lanka. GTZ THSP. Udo de Haes HA, Heijungs R. 2007. Life -cycle assessment for energy analysis a nd management. Applied Energy 84:817 827 [UNICEF] United Nations Childrens Fund. 2007. MDG -based planning for development: Policy interface and synergies of outcomes for South Asia. http://www.unicef.org/rosa/Rosa_Regional_interagency_MDGI_consultations_report_final _revision.pdf.Accessed 30 June 2008. [UNDP] United Nations Development Program China. 2002. Social impact assessment survey of the china west -east gas pipeline project, overall report. Beijing (CN), China: UNDP China. [UNDP] United Nations Development Programs Millennium Project. 2005. Investing in development: a practical plan to achieve the millennium development goals. New York (NY), USA: UNDP. 356p. [ENDP] United Nations Development Programs Equator Initiative. 2005. Electric Revenue in Sri Lanka. http://tve .org/ho/doc.cfm?aid=1674&lang=English. Accessed 02 March 2008. [UNEP] United Nations Environment Program. 2003. UNEP initiative on capacity building for integrated assessment and planning for sustainable development. Geneva (CH): UNEP, Division of Technol ogy, Industry and Economics. [UNEP -SETAC] United Nations Environmental Protection Society of Environmental Toxicology and Assessment. 2006. Feasibility study: integration of social aspects into LCA. Task Force Report. Freiburg (DE): Germany, UNEP -SETAC L ife Cycle Initiative. [UNFAO] United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. 2007. FAO Forestry Country Profile. http://www.fao.org/forestry/site/18308/en/lka/ Accessed 02 March 2008. [UN] Un ited Nations. 1992. Agenda 21: the United Nations program of action from Rio. United Nations, New York, USA. http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentI D=52 Accessed 2 March 2009
288 [UN] United Nations. 2002. Report of the world summit on sustainable development Johannesburg South Africa; 26 August 4 September 2002; Johannesburg (ZA). New York (NY), USA: UN, Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for Sustainable Development A/CONF.199/20. [UN] United Nations. 2004. Agenda 21. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/i ndex.htm Accessed 20 June 2008. [US DOE's CDIAC ] United States Department of Energys Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center for the United Nations Statistics. 2005. List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_ dioxide_emissions_ per_ capita. Accessed 26 February 2008. [UNEP] United States Environment Protection Agency. 2007. http://www.epa.gov/ednnrmrl/publications/waterquality/geographicunit/index.htm Accessed 30 March 2009. [USGS] United States Geological Survey. 2007. 2005Mineral yearbook, Sri Lanka. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/country/2005/cemyb05.pdf. Accessed 20 February 2008. [USGS] United States Geological Survey. 2008a. Water resources inventory area 1 watershed manag ement: Introduction to watershed boundaries. http://wa.water.usgs.gov/projects/wria01/wb_intro.htm. Accessed 30 March 2009. [USGS] United States Geological Survey. 2008b. Apalachicola Chattahoochee -Flint River basin: The national water -quality assessment study. http://ga.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/basinall.html#basin2 Accessed 11 June 2009. Un iversity of Cape Town and [UNITAR] United Nations Institute for Training and Research. 2006. Draft observations, conclusion and recommendations. National Workshop on Public Participation in Environmental Decision making in South Africa. Cape Town (ZA), So uth Africa: UCTs Environmental Evaluation Unit. University of Florida, [ NAED] National Academy of Environmental Design. 2009. Water and Sustainability Symposium: Apalachicola -Chattahoochee -Flint River Basin. ht tp://naedacf.pbworks.com/ Accessed 12 May 2009. University of Southern California. 1999 2000. Transaction costs and planning. http://www pam.usc.edu/volume4/v4i1a2s2.html. Accessed 2 March 2008. Van Asselt MB, Rijkens -Klomp N. 2002. A look in the mirror: reflection on participation in integrated assessment from a methodological perspective. Global Environmental Change 12:167 84.
289 Wallenius J, Dyer J, Firshburn, P, Steuer, R, Zionts, S, Deb, K.2008. multiple criteria decision making and multiattribute utility theory: Recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Management Science, 54.Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (I NFORM S), USA. Weidema BP. 200 6. The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11 (Special Issue): 89 96. Wiek A, Binder C, Scholz RW. 2006. Functions of scenarios in transition processes. Futures 38:740 7 66. Wiek A, Brundiers K, Ries R, Thabrew L, Kuruppu ID. 2006. Guidelines for communitycentered transdisciplinary integrated planning (CTIP) for sustainable post tsunami reconstruction in Sri Lanka. Report on request of the Reconstruction and Development Agency (RADA) of the Sri Lankan government supported by the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbiet (GTZ). Colombo, Sri Lanka: Tsunami Housing Support Project of the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbiet. Wijetunga PDC, Fernando WJLS, Shrestha RM. 2003. Greenhouse gas emission mitigation in the Sri Lanka power sector supply side and demand side options. Energy Conservation and Management 44: 32473265 Wijetunga PDC, Fernando WJLS, Shrestha RM. 2003. Greenhouse gas emission mitig ation in the Sri Lanka power sector supply side and demand side options. Energy Conservation and Management 44:3247 3265. Wilson EO. 1992. The Diversity of Life. Cambridge (MA), USA: Belknap Harvard Press. Wood C. 2003. Environmental impact assessment: A c omparative review, 2nd ed. Harlow (UK), England: Prentice Hall. [WB] World Bank. 1991. Environmental guidelines environmental assessment sourcebook, vols. I III. Washington (DC), USA: WB. 252p. [WB] World Banks Environment. 2004. Country environmental fac tsheets. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/ENVIRONMENT/EXTEEI/0,,c ontent MDK:20733046~menuPK:2117063~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:408 050,00.html Accessed 02 March 2008. [WCED] World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future. London, England: Oxford University Press. [WHO] World Health Organizati on. 2005. Promoting cross sectoral actions to achieve the health MDGs. In: Proceedings of the High Level Forum on the Health MDGs in Asia and the Pacific; 2005 Jun 21 22; Tokyo, Japan. WHO West Pacific Regional Office. p 8 11. [WHO] World Health Organizati on. 2008. Water sanitation and health. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/en/.Accessed 20 June 2008.
290 [WRI] World Resource Institutes Earth Trends. 2003. Climate and atmosphere Sri Lanka. http://earthtrends.wri.org/country_profiles/index.php?theme=3 Accessed 02 March 2008. [WRI] World Resources Institute. 1994. World Resources 1994 95: A Guide to the Global Environment. New York (NY), USA: Oxford University Press. Yankelo vich D. 1991. Coming to public judgment: Making democracy work in a complex World. Syracuse (NY), USA: Syracuse University Press. 290p.
291 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Lanka Thabrew received her Bachelor of Science degree in c ivil e ngineering at the University of Mo ratuwa of Sri Lanka in June 2001. She completed her Master of Science degree in c ivil and e nvironmental e ngineering at the Carnegie Mellon University, USA in May 2004. She complet ed her Doctor of Philosophy degree in Design Construction and Planning at the University of Florida in August 2009. Her focus of research has been life cycle assessment, international sustainable development, transdisciplinary learning in development planni ng and policy assessment.