Sanitation Criteria: A Comprehensive Review of Existing Sustainability and Resilience Evaluation Criteria for Sanitation Systems

Abstract

Despite the existence of numerous sanitation assessment frameworks, it remains unclear how to provide and measure sustainable access to sanitation. A systematic literature review was conducted to evaluate and collate sanitation criteria (i.e., indicators) for evaluating the sustainability or resilience of sanitation systems. The identified indicators represented 30 evaluation themes that included triple bottom line sustainability and technical and resilience considerations, but none of the individual articles had included all themes. In particular, resilience themes were not commonly integrated with other themes. Further, many indicators were not measurable, even though most literature articles (85%) applied their indicators; over a third of the identified indicators had vague or absent metrics. These findings highlight several future research needs, such as developing validation processes to help ensure a set of indicators is sufficiently measuring progress toward or away from sanitation sustainability; expanding guidance on, and options for, data collection and analysis procedures, especially for resilience; and supporting future indicator selection processes, for which a database of existing sanitation criteria was created. These all provide opportunities for improving the measurement of environmental and human well-being associated with sanitation access.

DMsan: A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework and Package to Characterize Contextualized Sustainability of Sanitation and Resource Recovery Technologies

“…3 MCDA methods were often combined to increase the robustness of the decision making framework by leveraging the advantages of multiple approaches, such as AHP paired with TOPSIS 28,38 or AHP paired with ELECTRE. 26 Some researchers argue that TOPSIS is a superior method because it yields multiple quantitative outputs, 9,11,12 whereas AHP may be preferred because it generates criteria and indicator weights with consistent pair-wise comparisons (while TOPSIS requires subjective expert judgment for inputting weights). 10,33,34 Through the literature review of commonly used criteria in sanitation and resource recovery decision making, four main criteria were identified: (i) technical or functional, relating to the system ability and function; (ii) environmental or ecological, representing the impacts a system inflicts on the environment; (iii) economic, associated with the economic costs of the system; and (iv) social or institutional, relating to technology adoption and social impacts (Table S3).…”

“…MCDA methods were often combined to increase the robustness of the decision making framework by leveraging the advantages of multiple approaches, such as AHP paired with TOPSIS , or AHP paired with ELECTRE . Some researchers argue that TOPSIS is a superior method because it yields multiple quantitative outputs, ,, whereas AHP may be preferred because it generates criteria and indicator weights with consistent pair-wise comparisons (while TOPSIS requires subjective expert judgment for inputting weights). ,, …”

“…9,10 Successful long-term adoption of sanitation technologies is influenced by multiple factors related to technological, environmental, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability. 11 Decision makers, such as engineers or community planners, commonly use a suite of techniques to assess the sustainability of sanitation and resource recovery systems, including life cycle assessment (LCA) to assess environmental impacts 12−14 and techno-economic analysis (TEA) to estimate system costs. 15 However, these techniques evaluate technologies in one pillar of sustainability at a time (i.e., environment or economic) and often fail to include the social dimensions of decision making that can be a core driver of successful long-term adoption.…”

“…Despite efforts to improve sanitation, resource-limited settings experience failure rates up to 70% within the first 2 years of installing sanitation technologies . Even with adequate planning and funding, failures arise from critical factors not assessed during technology evaluation, such as stakeholder preferences, , climate change and population growth, , system operational needs, , and user understanding and support of the system. , Successful long-term adoption of sanitation technologies is influenced by multiple factors related to technological, environmental, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability …”

Exploring Technology Acceptance in Management Accounting Tools’ Adoption in Public Sector Accounting: A Sustainability Perspective for Organizations

“…Additionally, public sector organizations strive for greater efficiency, transparency, and compliance with regulations. MATs provide the means to achieve these goals [28][29][30]. Employees in the public sector can see the tangible benefits of MATs in streamlining operations, improving financial management, and ensuring sustainability.…”