Files in this item

FilesDescriptionFormat

application/pdf

application/pdfLOHMAN-THESIS-2018.pdf (4MB)
(no description provided)PDF

Description

Title:Closing the gap in access to water and sanitation in refugee settlements by financing innovative technologies
Author(s):Lohman, Hannah A. C.
Advisor(s):Guest, Jeremy S.
Department / Program:Civil & Environmental Eng
Discipline:Environ Engr in Civil Engr
Degree Granting Institution:University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Degree:M.S.
Genre:Thesis
Subject(s):life cycle costing, techno-economic analysis, WASH, refugees, resource recovery, drinking water, sanitation
Abstract:Global humanitarian crises have resulted in the displacement of over 65.6 million people – of whom, 17.2 million refugees fall under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) mandate. UNHCR provides necessities to refugees; however, budget constraints continue to result in unmet water and sanitation standards and low access to energy and fertilizer resources in camps and settlements. Innovative sanitation technologies that meet multiple needs (e.g., energy, fertilizer) provide an opportunity for UNHCR to achieve the standards for access to basic water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) while providing a financial incentive to sell or use recovered nutrients. The goal of this work was to understand how resource recovery sanitation can impact WASH costs in refugee settlements through a techno-economic analysis framework that incorporates site specific factors influencing decision-making. This objective is achieved by developing cost models of typical UNHCR water delivery, water storage, and sanitation technologies commonly employed in refugee settlements as well as a resource recovery sanitation technology (i.e., urine diverting dry toilet, UDDT). The cost models were applied to nine refugee settlements in Uganda by incorporating context-specific inputs such as settlement-level WASH coverage (e.g., refugees per latrine) and country-level material and labor costs. The costs of different WASH technologies were compared (i.e., material, construction labor, operation, and maintenance) and demonstrated material costs were the key contributor to total costs followed by operation and maintenance. Sanitation costs were then compared across technologies demonstrating that, through resource recovery, a UDDT may achieve lower life cycle costs than a pit latrine after four years of use. More broadly, this research develops a quantitative sustainable design process to better understand the tradeoffs involved in the provision of WASH interventions, applicable in refugee-focused and/or development contexts.
Issue Date:2018-07-10
Type:Text
URI:http://hdl.handle.net/2142/101804
Rights Information:Copyright 2018 Hannah A.C. Lohman
Date Available in IDEALS:2018-09-27
2020-09-28
Date Deposited:2018-08


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Item Statistics