Adapting Life-Cycle Thinking Tools to Evaluate Project Sustainability ...

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE Volume 24, Number 7, 2007 © Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/ees.2006.0225

Adapting Life-Cycle Thinking Tools to Evaluate Project Sustainability in International Water and Sanitation Development Work Jennifer R. McConville and James R. Mihelcic* Civil & Environmental Engineering Sustainable Futures Institute Michigan Technological University Houghton, MI 49931

ABSTRACT The United Nations Millennium Development Goals have called issues of water and sanitation to the forefront of international development efforts. Engineers and other development workers are answering this call in increasing numbers. In order to achieve these goals it is necessary to overcome the historically low sustainability rates of development projects. This paper presents a logical framework for identifying and analyzing the factors that affect sustainable development of water and sanitation projects. It identifies five sustainability factors that are common in development literature and the policies of international aid organizations: (1) sociocultural respect, (2) community participation, (3) political cohesion, (4) economic sustainability, and (5) environmental sustainability. A life-cycle thinking approach is used to assess how project sustainability can be improved throughout the project life. Five life stages are identified to represent the life of a development project: (1) needs assessment, (2) conceptual designs and feasibility, (3) design and action planning, (4) implementation, and (5) operation and maintenance. Using the defined sustainability factors and life-cycle stages, an assessment matrix is developed. A series of guidelines for each matrix element are given for scoring the sustainability of a project. The guidelines are derived from best practice approaches to effective international development. The proposed sustainability matrix can be used as a guide for project planning or as an evaluation system to identify strengths and weaknesses in project approaches. Key words: life-cycle thinking; sustainability; water; sanitation; development projects INTRODUCTION

A

of international attention, lack of improved water, and sanitation sources remains a serious world health and environmental issue. Over 1.1 FTER A HALF CENTURY

billion people use water from unimproved sources, and 2.4 billion have no access to any form of improved sanitation (United Nations, 2005). Improvements in these services could reduce mortality rates due to diarrheal diseases by an estimated 65% and related morbidity by 26%

*Corresponding author: Civil & Environmental Engineering, Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, MI 49931. Phone: 906-487-2324; Fax: 906-487-2943; E-mail: [email protected].

937

938 (World Health Organization [WHO], 2000). The lack of sanitation services is also compounding problems of environmental degradation and associated poverty levels around the world. In response to this crisis, international organizations have listed water and sanitation interventions among the top development priorities, and specifically targeted water and sanitation measures under Goal 7 of the United Nations Millennium Goals (United Nations, 2000). Since the start of the modern international development movement in the 1960s, engineers in development work have recognized the need for appropriate technology and improved project planning to overcome the historically low success rates of water and sanitation projects (Feachem et al., 1977; Cairncross et al., 1980; Cairncross, 1992; Pickford, 1995). Yet, only 50–66% of water supply and sanitation projects evaluated by the World Bank in 2001 were deemed to be satisfactory, and less than half were rated likely to be sustainable (World Bank, 2003). A rapid rural appraisal study performed in the Ikonga region of Madagascar showed that although local capacity for managing rural water supply systems is available, only 13–50% of the total population served by these systems use them on a daily basis (Annis, 2006). Numerous project evaluations have cited reasons for the low success rate of these projects, including economic, cultural, and political obstacles. Projects consistently fall into disrepair because communities do not feel they are responsible or because they do not have the capacity to sustain the system (e.g., Howe and Dixon, 1993; Breslin, 2003; Ratner and Gutierrez, 2004). Project planners also fail to understand cultural and political obstacles or make appropriate adjustments to account for local conditions. Likewise, there is often undue emphasis on getting projects constructed without enough attention to selecting appropriate technology or planning for long-term sustainability (Howe and Dixon, 1993). Thus, projects generally fail because they do not recognize a broad range of factors that affect the sustainability of a project throughout its lifetime. The struggle to find a sustainable approach to improved water and sanitation systems remains a key issue today. This is especially true in light of the growing recognition within the environmental science and engineering community of the role that engineering can play in addressing international concerns over poverty, health, and environmental sustainability. The result is a rising number of organizations dedicated to international engineering, such as Engineers Without Borders (EWBUSA), Engineers for a Sustainable World (ESW), Water for People, and the Millennium Water Alliance. For example, since its founding in 2000, EWB-USA has grown to 143 professional and student chapters with over 40

MCCONVILLE AND MIHELCIC projects in 22 countries, while ESW has chapters at 21 universities and impending chapters on another 29 campuses. In addition, water and sanitation projects located in the developing world are increasingly becoming part of the capstone senior design experience and graduate school research (Mihelcic, 2004a, 2004b; Mihelcic et al., 2006; Hokanson et al., 2007). In the international setting, engineers have entered a field of development that reaches beyond technology to promote the dignity of people and their capacity to improve their own lives (Peace Corps, 2002). In this context, responsible engineering must integrate technology into a social framework that incorporates issues of cultural respect, education, and capacity building. The objective of this paper is to use the concepts of sustainability and life cycle assessment to build an inclusive framework that can assess the effectiveness and viability of international water and sanitation projects. The results will assist engineers and other development workers in recognizing factors that affect sustainability and suggest ways to mitigate them over the course of the project life. This is especially important as the environmental science and engineering community begins to play a greater role in the planning and implementation of improved international water and sanitation systems. The proposed assessment provides a series of checklists and guidelines to evaluate the social, economic, and environmental sustainability of water and sanitation development projects. The guidelines are derived from best practice approaches to effective international development and personal experience of the first author during 2 years as a water and sanitation Peace Corps volunteer in Mali, West Africa. The framework can be used as a set of guidelines for planning an individual project or as a scoring mechanism for postproject evaluations within an organization. It has the flexibility to serve as a formalized method of self-assessment or as an educational tool for teaching engineering students about the process of project planning and implementation within a developing country.

METHODOLOGY Life cycle thinking tools have developed in response to the sustainability movement. Sustainable development is defined as a process that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs (WCED, 1987). Life cycle thinking is a holistic approach that considers sustainability factors over the entire life of a product or process, from conception through use and disposal. The systems approach of life cycle thinking is a prerequisite to

INTERNATIONAL WATER AND SANITATION DEVELOPMENT WORK any sound sustainability assessment, as it does not allow for shifting of detrimental effects to other timeframes or phases in the life cycle (Klöpffer, 2003). Perhaps the most well-known applications of life cycle thinking are the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tools that were developed by industrial ecologists to evaluate the environmental impacts of products and services during all phases of their life. The methodology behind LCA is well defined, and includes international standards, such as ISO 14040 (1997). The results have provided companies and engineers with a broader view of the environmental impacts of products and services. Life Cycle proponents have also developed economic assessment tools such as Life Cycle Costing (LCC), and are beginning to integrate social factors into the traditional LCA models (e.g., Hunkeler and Rebitzer, 2005). Existing methodologies in life cycle evaluations were initially considered for adaptation to water and sanitation development projects. However, tools such as LCA and LCC are too limited in scope for useful application in developing countries. The success of international development projects depends heavily on a variety of social, political, and economic factors that are not adequately considered in current life cycle tools. The existing methods are also data intensive, making them impractical for development work. A life cycle evaluation of development projects must incorporate diverse factors in a practical and qualitative manner. The tool must be consistent with successful development practices and simplified for use as a common tool. The tool developed in this study is a matrix approach that uses life stages and factors in sustainability as the matrix dimensions.

LIFE-CYCLE STAGES Although the idea of a project life cycle is familiar in industry, the definition of separate stages varies. The emphasis each agency places on certain life stages determines the detail and number of independent steps in the cycle. However, it is possible to identify a generic set of stages that are present in most project cycles. The life cycle of water and sanitation development projects can be divided into five stages as shown in Fig. 1: 1) needs assessment, 2) conceptual designs and feasibility studies, 3) design and action planning, 4) implementation, and 5) operation and maintenance. The general activities involved in each life stage are given in Table 1. Each project begins with a needs assessment, which determines the motivation for intervention and the extent of need. The result of this phase is a commitment to project action. This is followed by the development of conceptual designs and feasibility studies.

939

Figure 1. Five life cycle stages of water and sanitation development projects located in the developing world. Solid arrows indicate the flow of the life cycle process. The dotted arrow indicates the potential for iteraction between stages 2 and 3.

A list of possible solutions is generated and evaluated during this phase. The outcome of the second stage is the selection of an appropriate technology to implement. The third step is design and action planning, where the details for the technical design and implementation plan are finalized. Action planning may uncover logistical constraints that affect the feasibility of the selected design. There is potential, therefore, for simultaneous and iterative planning between stages two and three. The design and planning stage is followed by physical implementation of the project. Project implementation includes resource procurement and construction. Actual use of the improved system is defined by the operation and maintenance stage, which includes project monitoring and evaluation. Many life cycle approaches include an endof-life stage involving the disposal or recycling of the product. However, in order to simplify use of this tool, end-of-life considerations are included in the feasibility studies rather than a separate life stage.

SUSTAINABILITY FACTORS The World Summit on Sustainable Development recognizes the existence of three interdependent and mutuENVIRON ENG SCI, VOL. 24, NO. 7, 2007

940 Table 1.

MCCONVILLE AND MIHELCIC Examples of specific tasks to be performed during each of the five life stages.

Needs assessment • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Receive a request for project intervention Determine the demand for services Obtain community liaisons Gather information on socio-cultural, political, environmental, economic, and technical constraints Site visits Participatory evaluations Stakeholder interviews Literature reviews

Conceptual designs and feasibility • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Brainstorm potential solutions. Consider multiple designs Consider parameters for system operation, maintenance, and disposal. Solicit community feedback. Perform feasibility assessments based on social, economic (willingness to pay), and environmental constraints Select most appropriate technology

Design and action planning • • • • • • • • • •

Finalize the chosen design, including: sketches, schematics, budgets, and resource inventories Prepare an action plan for project implementation - Identify tasks - Assign roles • and • responsibilities - Develop a • project timeline

ally reinforcing pillars of sustainability: economic development, environmental protection, and social development (United Nations, 2002). Sustainable development is created when all three pillars are integrated (Mihelcic et al., 2003). Environmental and economic sustainability are consistently defined throughout the literature, but social sustainability has been widely interpreted. It has been implicated in issues of cultural sensitivity, conflict resolution, community building, institution building, and political stability (Estes, 1993). Attempts by industrial ecologists to integrate social sustainability into life cycle assessment tools have produced 18 separate criteria for evaluation (Labuschagne and Brent, 2006). Table 2 shows that many international development agencies define general headings related to social sustainability and the specific criteria needed for improved development efforts. National level agencies tend to focus on the importance of community participation in capacity building and the need for improved donor coordination (e.g., Canadian International Developmental Agency [CIDA], 2002), while other organizations combine factors in succinct criteria for sustainability. For example, EWB-USA combines donor agency coordination and good governance under the heading of political sustainability (EWB, 2005). Some agencies identify the factor of cultural sus-

Operation and maintenance

Implementation • • • • • • • • • •

Procurement of supplies and financing Site preparation Construction Progress monitoring Technical training and community education

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Daily operation of the system Routine maintenance Unexpected maintenance Monitoring Adaptive management Continued technical training and community education (optional) Evaluation and measurement of project objectives

tainability, which includes community participation, as development that remains consistent with core values, expectations, and morals of the society (Estes, 1993). The United States Peace Corps breaks social sustainability down one step further by separating out the issue of managerial sustainability, or the capacity of the community to continue a project after the departure of donor agencies (Peace Corps, 2002). Social sustainability is therefore a complicated issue that defies a single definition. For that reason it is broken into three factors for the purpose of this study: sociocultural respect, community participation, and political cohesion. The social factors are defined by combining similar principles from published literature and personal experience. Community participation aims to foster local ownership and managerial skills, while sociocultural respect attempts to integrate the project into the existing fabric of society. The remaining social factor, political cohesion, accounts for the larger political environment in which the project takes place. It recognizes the call for coordinated development efforts by the international development community and the role that local politicians can play in project success. Accordingly, as shown in Table 3, sustainability as applied to the successful engineering of a water and sanitation project can be defined

INTERNATIONAL WATER AND SANITATION DEVELOPMENT WORK Table 2.

941

Criteria for social sustainability in the international development literature.

Organization

General category

Criteria

United Nations (Millennium Declaration, 2000)

Fundamental values

Freedom Equality Solidarity Tolerance Respect for nature Shared responsibility

Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA, 2002)

Principles of effective development

Local ownership Improved donor coordination Stronger partnerships Results-based approach Greater coherence Good governance Building capacity Engaging civil society

United States Peace Corps (2002)

Factors in sustainable development

Engineers without Borders (EWB, 2005)

Dimensions of sustainable development

Cultural Political Managerial Cultural Political

Note that each agency defines a different heading for the components of social sustainability.

by five key factors: (1) sociocultural respect, (2) community participation, (3) political cohesion, (4) economic sustainability, and (5) environmental sustainability. Application of the five sustainability factors throughout the project life will result in the design and implementation of appropriate technology.

MATRIX FRAMEWORK A matrix framework is an effective assessment tool because it allows each element of the matrix to be evaluated separately. An assessment of individual elements can highlight strengths and weaknesses in project approaches,

Table 3. A summary of the five factors identified in this study that affect the sustainable development of water and sanitation projects. Social sustainability Sociocultural respect Community participation

Political cohesion

Economic sustainability

Environmental sustainability

A socially acceptable project is built on an understanding of local traditions and core values. A process that fosters empowerment and ownership in community members through direct participation. in development decision making affecting the community. Involves increasing the alignment of development projects with host country priorities and coordinating aid efforts at all levels (local, national, and international) to increase ownership and efficient delivery of services. Implies that sufficient local resources and capacity exist to continue the project in the absence of outside resources. Implies that nonrenewable and other natural resources are not depleted nor destroyed for shortterm improvements.

ENVIRON ENG SCI, VOL. 24, NO. 7, 2007

942

MCCONVILLE AND MIHELCIC with sample questions to assist project scoring in each of the 25 matrix elements (McConville, 2006). Similar to a streamlined LCA, a project evaluator assigns a rating (0–4) to each matrix element, depending on the number of sustainability recommendations completed. Each matrix element is equally weighted with a possible score of 4. If none of the recommendations are met the matrix element is 0 (poor evaluation). If all of the recommendations are met the matrix element is 4 (excellent evaluation). Therefore, the potential score for each sustainability factor or life stage is 20, while the total possible project score is 100. Increasing project scores reflect greater probabilities of project success. The matrix framework laid out in this report can be used in two ways. First, the scoring system provides a rapid evaluation of project strengths and weaknesses. This type of assessment can be useful for organizations performing postproject evaluations in order to build on a body of knowledge for future projects. It could also be used to evaluate previous projects in a given area prior to the start of a new project. Such an outside evaluation can highlight potential risk factors and draw attention to key areas of concern for project planners. The matrix framework can also be used as guidelines for initiating new projects. The concept of a project life cycle along with recommended actions to take during each step can be useful in project planning, especially when the project is initiated by a stu-

allowing decision makers to identify key areas for improvement. As shown in Table 4, the matrix dimensions are defined by the five sustainability factors (sociocultural respect, community participation, political cohesion, economic sustainability, environmental sustainability) in one direction, and the five project life stages (needs assessment, conceptual designs and feasibility, design and action planning, implementation, operation and maintenance) in the other. A system for evaluating the matrix elements was derived from examples of streamlined LCA which use specific questions and guidelines to reduce qualitative information into comparable quantitative scores. The result is a 60-page appendix detailing a scoring system based on recommended actions for sustainability in each of the 25 matrix elements. The complete document can be found on the Web: (McConville, 2006). The matrix elements represent distinct opportunities to address sustainability factors during each life stage. A series of checklists within each matrix element are used to quantify sustainability. The checklists are derived from a variety of best-practice guidelines (Cairncross, 1992; Pickford, 1995; Peace Corps, 2000, 2002; CIDA, 2002; EWB, 2005) and personal experience of the authors. In each element there are four equally weighted actions recommended to increase project sustainability. Due to space limitations only one sample element is shown in Table 5. The complete scoring guidelines are available on the Web, and provide details for each of the 100 recommended actions, along

Table 4.

The sustainability assessment matrix developed in this study. Sustainability factor

Life stage Needs assessment Conceptual designs and feasibility Design and action planning Implementation Operation and maintenance Total possible score

Sociocultural respect

Community participation

Political cohesion



Total possible score

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

20

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

20

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

20

4.1 5.1

4.2 5.2

4.3 5.3

4.4 5.4

4.5 5.5

20 20

20

20

20

20

20

100

The matrix dimensions show five life stages of a water/sanitation development project and five factors of sustainability that cover environmental, economic, and societal issues. The possible score for each matarix coordinate is 4. Totals indicate possible evaluation scores for each life stage or sustainability factor.

INTERNATIONAL WATER AND SANITATION DEVELOPMENT WORK

943

Table 5. The scoring guidelines for matrix element: 1.1 (Needs Assessment, Socio-cultural Respect), including questions to clarify the recommended actions. Generate a yearly calendar of work and social life in the community. How is a year defined? How are the seasons identified? What are the characteristics of each season? What is the primary employment in the area? (For men? For women? For children?) Is this work constant throughout the year? What time of year is the businest? Are there patterns of seasonal migration? When are the major holidays? When do weddings, baptisms, and other social ceremonies take place? Identify social preferences and traditional beliefs associated with water supply and sanitation practices Are certain water sources preferred over others? Is there folklore or old stories associates with water sources or water use? Are there traditional methods for protect a water source? Do people add things to their water? At the source or at home? Do people consider sanitation issues around the water sources? Are their social caste issues about the use of water from certain sources? Is there a history of filtering or screening water sources? Are there seasonal changes in the quality of the water supply? How are they explained? What is the preferred sanitation method in the community? What are preferred methods of anal cleansing? How do people feel about handling excreta (even when decomposed)? How will this affect maintenance issues? Are the religious constraints to be considered? Do people believe that excreta are harmful? Are people afraid to use latrines? Why? Are there taboos associated with washing hands with soap?

Recognize differences in gender roles in water and sanitation. How do men use water? How much? How do women use water? How much? Who provides water for the household? Agriculture? Business? How much time do men/women spend per day on water collection? Do men and women follow separate sanitation practices? Are there separate latrines for men and women? Who is in charge of the children’s hygiene? Determine the level of health education in the community. Have community members been involved in answering questions on community health? In formal and informal settings? What is their education background? What health education issues are covered in schools? Who receives education? Men or women? (Note: that there may be discrepancies between who receives education and who performs water/ sanitation related tasks) How often do people get sick in the community? Why do people get sick? (According to them) Do people connect water and sanitation issues with disease? What is the community motivation for improved water and sanitation services? Are there health care facilities available? How is the quality of the water? How is quality perceived in the community? How do you perceive the cleanliness of the community? How do community members perceive it? Do they wash their hands with soap? Do they have a latrine? Do they use a latrine? Do the children?

The bold print types next to the boxes indicate recommended actions that can be checked off if completed. The number of boxes checked for each element gives the score to be entered in the assessment matrix. This table illustrates the level of detail that is provided in the scoring guidelines for each of the 25 elements. Scoring guidelines for the other 24 matrix elements can be found in McConville (2006).

dent organization. The details provided in the scoring guidelines suggest questions that need to be answered and tasks to be performed throughout the project. Following the guidelines throughout the project or using the scoring after each life stage as a progressive monitoring tool will increase the scope and sustainability of the project.

CASE STUDY The assessment tool is applied as part of a post-project evaluation to a water project in Mali, where the first author served as a community liaison and consultant for a nongovernmental engineering organization (NGO) in the rural village of Zambougou-Fouta (pop. 1,500). Mali ENVIRON ENG SCI, VOL. 24, NO. 7, 2007

944

MCCONVILLE AND MIHELCIC

is a land-locked country in West Africa with a population of 11 million and per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of $277 USD. According to the United Nations Development Reports, 55% of the population lack sustainable access to improved sanitation and 52% lack sustainable access to improved water source (UNDP, 2005). This region of Mali is characterized by a 4-month rainy season (June–September), that is followed by 8 months of little rain. The primary concern in the village is the reduced water supply during the hot season (March–May). Zambougou-Fouta is served by four deep wells (30–35 m) with hand pumps and dozens of shallow, hand-dug wells (8–14 m). The shallow wells frequently run dry during the hot months leading up to the rainy season, and the hand pumps often fall into disrepair. If the four deep wells are functioning properly they can provide enough water for domestic use in the village. However, they cannot supply enough water for the livestock or the small gardens that many families use to supplement their income between harvests. The engineering organization is promoting the harvesting of surface runoff generated during the rainy season as a way to increase the potential water supply for agriculture and animal husbandry without placing additional pressure on the aquifer. The project needs assessment was completed through a series of three site visits over 2 years (2002–2003) by members of the organization. These visits consisted of meetings with a variety of community members and government representatives, a baseline health survey, and collection of technical information on the area. The needs assessment identified seasonal water shortage as a major concern in the village.

Table 6.

The feasibility of several proposed designs was discussed with community members, through the Peace Corps liaison, during a year-long planning process. The designs revolved around the central idea of providing a water storage unit for captured rainwater that could be used to irrigate a garden or water the livestock. The concept of rainwater harvesting was relatively new to the community and months of discussion on conceptual designs did not result in agreement on an appropriate project. Therefore, the engineering organization planned another site visit to continue discussions on project feasibility. However, early in the 5-day visit, an idea was selected and efforts shifted into design and action planning. The project aimed to deepen a natural depression in the ground to increase its capacity to provide additional water for agriculture and livestock for several months after the end of the rains. Excavation of the pond was performed by the villagers, and work had started before the engineers left the area. Initial excavation was completed during the following months with the intention of annual maintenance to gradually increase the pond depth. After the following rainy season, the pond held water 2 months longer than unimproved ponds in the area. However, the villagers showed no inclination to maintain the pond or continue improvements. One year after completion of the excavation the first author evaluated the project using the matrix guidelines and detailed appendix (McConville, 2006); the results are shown in Table 6. The evaluation of individual life cycle and sustainability factors indicates project strengths

Results of sustainability assessment tool applied to the Zambougou-Fouta rainwater pond water supply system. Sustainability factor

Life stage Needs assessment Conceptual designs and feasibility Design and action planning Implementation Operation and maintenance Total possible score

Sociocultural respect

Community participation

Political cohesion



4

4

2

4

4

18/200

2

3

3

1

3

12/200

3

2

1

1

4

11/200

3 2

2 1

1 2

2 0

2 2

10/200 7/200

14/20

12/20

9/20

8/20

15/20

58/100

The totals by life stage and sustainability factor are shown in bold.

Total possible score

INTERNATIONAL WATER AND SANITATION DEVELOPMENT WORK and weaknesses. An assessment overview of the five life stages is shown in Fig. 2. The project scores highest in the first stage of needs assessment (18/20), reflecting the amount of time and effort that the organization put into information gathering. The needs assessment scored full marks in socio-cultural respect (element 1,1) and community participation (element 1,2) for considering the yearly calendar of social life, recognizing gender roles, and determining stakeholders and the level of political organization within the community. It also met the needs assessment recommendations for economic (element 1,4) and environmental sustainability (element 1,5) by assessing the community’s willingness-to-pay for current water and sanitation services, identifying economic resources within the community, and collecting data on local climate and environmental concerns. Examination of Fig. 2 illustrates a declining trend in scores over the course of the project life cycle. This trend reflects a failure to transfer ownership of the project. A successful project will see increasing involvement of local players throughout the life stages, until community members take control during the operation and maintenance stage. The failure to properly address operation and maintenance issues is most evident in the evaluation of the operation and maintenance stage itself (score 7/20). This low score is due to the lack of a long-term financial management plan (element 5,4), and low community participation in performing the necessary upkeep and management of the system (element 5,2). However, these weaknesses crept into the project in the earlier stages related to planning for use of the system. For example, conceptual designs and feasibility studies (element 2,4) neglected cost estimates for operation and maintenance, and

Figure 2. Life cycle thinking assessment overview of Zambougou-Fouta rainwater harvesting projected by the project’s five life stages. The scores for each life stage are given in parentheses. The figure indicates a declining trend from the highest score during the first stage of Needs Assessment to the lowest score during the last stage of Operation and Maintenance.

945

Figure 3. Life cycle thinking assessment overview of Zambougou-Fouta rainwater project by the five sustainability factors developed in this study. The figure indicates greater attention to issues of environmental sustainability than to those of economic sustainability or political cohesion.

the community’s willingness to pay the costs in either monetary or labor contributions. The relatively short time devoted to the planning and implementation stages is reflected in poorer scores during these stages. The speed with which the project was implemented did not allow time to build up management organizations either within the community or local government organizations that could encourage community ownership and financial support for maintenance. The low scores for political cohesion during implementation (element 4,3) reflect this failure to communicate with other organizations and discuss potential partner roles in system maintenance. Project sustainability could thus have been improved by increasing attention to operation and maintenance requirements throughout the life cycle. An assessment overview of the five sustainability factors is shown in Fig. 3. It indicates project strength in environmental sustainability (15/20), in part due to the level of environmental information gathered during the needs assessment (element 1,5) and a design and action plan that used local resources, minimized ecological disturbances, and created negligible waste emissions (element 3,5). Socio-cultural respect (14/20) and community participation (12/20) score moderately well due to extended discussions on conceptual designs and feasibility with community members and the use of community work crews during implementation. However, both these factors neglected recommendations to assess how the project would affect socio-cultural roles and activities within the community or determine the willingness and capacity of the community to manage and maintain the finENVIRON ENG SCI, VOL. 24, NO. 7, 2007

946


ished system. The result was that neither the community nor the organization had a clear idea of how the system would be managed and incorporated into the daily life of the village. The low economic sustainability score (8/20) is mostly the result of a failure to plan for operation and maintenance or assess the community’s willingness to pay for the new system. The apparent lack of ownership exhibited by the community at the end of the project can be the result of insufficient economic incentive for proper operation and maintenance or unrealistic evaluations of the community willingness to pay and participate.

DISCUSSION The case study clearly illustrates an imbalance in efforts across sustainability factors and the project life cycle. The use of the assessment framework in post-project evaluation has highlighted areas for improvement that the organization should consider during future projects. It also suggests key issues to be resolved if the project were to be continued and upgraded. In such case, the project would also benefit from using the framework as a progressive monitoring tool during planning and implementation of the new project. While there are many advantages of using a life cycle tool to assess project sustainability, there are several limitations to this framework. By creating guidelines for sequential project steps, there is a danger of planning for each life stage separately. The divisions between the life cycle stages are based on arbitrary decision points and changes in levels of involvement and effort. However, the life cycle itself is a continuum in which the life stages interact and affect each other. Project planners need to be aware of the entire process at all times. The planning stages will need to consider future stages of implementation and operation, and the later life stages will rely on information gathered early in the process. The sustainability of a project will be increased by reading ahead in the guidelines and reviewing completed work during planning for each subsequent step. There is also the quandary of how to address sustainability factors that may be in conflict with each other. For instance, a technology that is economically sustainable may not be environmentally sustainable, or one that is environmentally sustainable might not be politically sustainable. There are also potential conflicts between involving women and respecting traditional gender roles, or between political players inside and outside the community. Just as the life stages cannot be treated completely independently, decision makers will need to be aware of potential tradeoffs and interactions between sustainability factors.

This life cycle framework does not address the weighting of sustainability factors in the scoring section. However, there may be unconscious weighting of certain factors when they are related to multiple checkboxes. For example, the importance of cost estimates for operation and maintenance is stressed during the conceptual designs and feasibility studies. Social sustainability is also weighted strongly in the sense that it is represented by three factors as opposed to one for environmental and economic sustainability. Social factors are stressed because there is greater potential for cultural problems when working in a foreign country. They are also the factors that often get the least amount of attention in engineering education, as it is known that conventional engineering education does not do an adequate job of integrating technological development with development that is compatible with society and the environment [e.g., Vandenberg and Khan, 1994; Hokanson et al., 2007]. Due to the variety of situational factors present in development projects, it is difficult to introduce additional weighting that would be universally applicable. Each project manager will need to weigh for themselves the consequences of tradeoffs between sustainability factors. The scoring system can be arbitrary, depending on how users interpret the level of involvement from different organizations. It is possible that two individuals involved in the same project could score it differently. However, the objective in the development of this framework is not to provide a universal tool for comparing the success of water and sanitation projects, but rather to aid engineers, organizations, and other individuals in improving their project approach. This framework offers a logical approach to managing the complexities in achieving sustainability in development work. Yet, successful development work demands a certain level of flexibility and creativity that is difficult to integrate into an assessment tool. The framework has been designed to work in a variety of geographical locations; therefore, users must recognize the generality of it and adapt their individual projects appropriately. Ultimately, it may not be practical for engineers and other development workers to address all of the sustainability recommendations. Indeed, the size and complexity of the project will affect how important each recommendation is to the overall sustainability. However, an increased awareness of the larger picture will always augment the potential for a successful project.

CONCLUSIONS This research developed an evaluation framework for water and sanitation projects in developing countries. The framework is based on a life cycle thinking approach to

INTERNATIONAL WATER AND SANITATION DEVELOPMENT WORK sustainability assessment. It considers the multifaceted aspects of sustainability in development work by integrating social, economic, and environmental issues. These issues have been identified by a variety of organizations as fundamental principles in effective development (e.g., United Nations, 2000; CIDA, 2002). However, many of these issues are outside the scope of most engineering curricula (National Academy of Engineering [NAE], 2004). The new wave of engineering students and professionals responding to the call of the Millennium Development Goals will need guidance to effectively meet the goals of a more sustainable world. The scoring checklist and matrix evaluation developed in this paper are tools to guide users through project planning and evaluation. For example, service-learning international senior design students and instructors can use the checklists and accompanying guidelines to increase the scope and detail of their project planning. Service engineering organizations (e.g., EWB-USA, EWS) working on water and sanitation development projects and donors who fund such projects can incorporate life cycle evaluations into postproject reviews and share lessons learned for future project improvements. A development project is a process that takes time and effort. There are numerous factors that affect project sustainability at a variety of points in its life cycle. A responsible project is one that respects the complexity of the life cycle process by using sufficient time and resources to make sure that the project benefits will endure. While this matrix was designed to assess the process of implementing water and sanitation systems, it could be adapted and applied to a broader range of development projects, or expanded to assess the feasibility of alternative designs. By underlining the complexities involved in development work, this tool will help engineers and other development workers to recognize the need for increasing the scope and time line of projects.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge support for Ms. McConville from the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program, the U.S. Peace Corps, and the D80 Center and Master’s International Program in Civil & Environmental Engineering at Michigan Technological University (www.D80.mtu.edu).

REFERENCES ANNIS, J.E. (2006). Assessing progress of community managed gravity flow water supply systems using rapid rural appraisal in the Ikongo District, Madagascar. M.S. Research

947

Report, Civil & Environmental Engineering, Michigan Technological University. Last accessed September 17, 2006, from http://www.cee.mtu.edu/sustainable_engineering/resources.html. BRESLIN, E.D. (2003). The demand-responsive approach in Mozambique: Why choice of technology matters. UNICEF WATERfront 16, 9. CAIRNCROSS, S., CARRUTHERS, I., CURTIS, D., FEACHEM, R., BRADLEY, D., and BALDWIN, G. (1980). Evaluation for Village Water Supply Planning. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. CAIRNCROSS, S. (1992). Sanitation and water supply: Practical lessons from the decade. UNDP–World Bank Water and Sanitation Program Discussion Paper No. 9. Washington, DC: The World Bank. CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CIDA). (2002). Canada Making a Difference in the World: A Policy Statement on Strengthening Aid Effectiveness. Hull, Quebec: CIDA. ENGINEERS WITHOUT BORDERS EWB-USA. (2005). Community Development Guidelines. Accessed May 25, 2006, from http://www.ewb-usa.org/index.php ESTES, R.J. (1993). Towards sustainable development: from theory to praxis. Social Dev. Issues 15(3), 1. FEACHEM, R., MCGARRY, M., and MARA, D. (1977). Water, Wastes, and Health in Hot Climates. London: John Wiley & Sons. HOKANSON, D.R., MIHELCIC, J.R., and PHILLIPS, L.D. (2007). Educating engineers in the sustainable futures model with a global perspective: Education, research and diversity initiatives. Int. J. Eng. Ed. 23(2), 254. HOWE, C.W., and DIXON, J.A. (1993). Inefficiencies in water project design and operation in the third world: An economic perspective. Water Resources Res. 29(7), 1889. HUNKELER, D., and REBITZER, G. (2005). The future of life cycle assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 10(5), 305. KLÖPFFER, W. (2003). Life-cycle based methods for sustainable product development. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 8(3), 157. LABUSCHAGNE, C., and BRENT, A.C. (2006). Social indicators for sustainable project and technology life cycle management in the process industry. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 11(1), 3. MCCONVILLE, J.R. (2006). Applying life cycle thinking to international water and sanitation projects: An assessment tool for project managers in sustainable development work. M.S. Research Report, Civil & Environmental Engineering, Michigan Technological University. Last accessed July 31, 2007, from http://www.cee.mtu.edu/sustainable_engineering/resources.html MIHELCIC, J.R. (2004a). Educating the future’s water professional. Water Environ. Technol. 16(9), 86.

ENVIRON ENG SCI, VOL. 24, NO. 7, 2007

948


MIHELCIC, J.R. (2004b). Educating tomorrow’s global engineer through a unique partnership with the U.S. Peace Corps. Woman Eng. 25(1), 30.

UNITED NATIONS. (2000). Millennium Development Goals. Accessed June 24, 2006, from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/.

MIHELCIC, J.R., CRITTENDEN, J.C., SMALL, M.J., SHONNARD, D.R., HOKANSON, D.R., ZHANG, Q., CHEN, H., SORBY, S.A., JAMES, V.U., SUTHERLAND, J.W., and SCHNOOR, J.L. (2003). Sustainability science and engineering: Emergence of a new metadiscipline. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37(23), 5314.

UNITED NATIONS. (2002). Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August–4 September 2002). New York: United Nations. Accessed June 24, 2006, from http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/.

MIHELCIC, J.R., PHILLIPS, L.D., and WATKINS, D.W., JR. (2006). Integrating a global perspective into education & research: Engineering international sustainable development. Environ. Eng. Sci. 23(3), 426. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING (NAE). (2004). The Engineer of 2020: Vision of Engineering in the New Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. PEACE CORPS. (2000). The New Project Design and Management Workshop Training Manual. Information and Collection Exchange, ICE#T0107. Washington, DC: Peace Corps. PEACE CORPS. (2002). Roles of the Volunteer in Development, Toolkits for building Capacity. Information and Collection Exchange, ICE#T0005. Washington, DC: Peace Corps. PICKFORD, J. (1995). Low-Cost Sanitation, A Survey of Practical Experience. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. RATNER, B.D., and GUTIERREZ, A.R. (2004). Reasserting community: The social challenge of wastewater management in Panajachel, Guatemala. Hum. Organizat. 63(1), 47.

UNITED NATIONS. (2005). The Millennium Development Goals Report. New York: United Nations. UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (UNDP) (2005). Human Development Report. New York: United Nations Development Programme. VANDERBURG, W.H., and KHAN N. (1994). How well is engineering education incorporating societal issues. J. Eng. Ed. 83(4), 357. WORLD COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT (WCED). (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. WORLD BANK. (2003). Efficient, Sustainable Service for All? An OED Review of the World Bank’s Assistance to Water Supply and Sanitation. Operations Evaluation Department, The World Bank, Report No. 26443. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO). (2000). Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000 Report. Geneva: World Health Organization and the United Nations Children’s Fund Publishing.