Abstract
A gradual increase in the importance of water environment infrastructure has provided an opportunity to bring in various initiatives for the supply of sewage. Such initiatives include the dissemination of public sewage systems and the use of subcontractors in management of sewage systems. However, despite the existence of various methods to increase the rate of sewage supply, there are few studies analyzing each alternative in terms of social, economic, and environmental aspects. Therefore, we investigated investment directions for water environment infrastructure facilities related to the supply of sewage treatment systems in rural areas through cost-benefit analysis. We analyzed the economic costs and social benefits of two sewage treatment systems: installation of a public sewage treatment system and utilization of a private sewage treatment system via service contract. When we considered only economic costs and benefits, the benefit-cost ratio for the public system (0.02) was smaller than that for the private system (0.264). However, the results of the two alternatives changed when we considered the social benefits to people in urban areas from establishment of public sewage treatment systems in rural areas. To be specific, by considering the social benefits for non-rural areas, this study found that the benefit-cost ratio for the public system increased to 0.267, which was higher than the ratio for the private system. Based on these results, we propose appropriate operations and management plans for supplying sewage treatment systems to rural areas. Further, this study indicates that policymakers who conduct cost-benefit analyses of infrastructure related to water environments should consider all social, environmental, and economic factors that can alter the analysis results.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahmed A, Masud MM, Al-Amin AQ, Yahaya SRB, Rahman M, Akhtar R (2015) Exploring factors influencing farmers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for a planned adaptation programme to address climatic issues in agricultural sectors. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22(12):9494–9504
Ambashta RD, Sillanpää M (2010) Water purification using magnetic assistance: a review. J Hazard Mater 180(1–3):38–49
Asian Development Bank (2013) Asian water development outlook 2013. Asia-Pacific Water Forum. www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/30190/asian-water-development-outlook-2013.pdf. Accessed 24 April 24 2018
Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Jones AP, Kerr GN (2001) Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Resour Energy Econ 23:191–213
Bolund P, Hunhammar S (1999) Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol Econ 29(2):293–301
Cameron TA, James MD (1987) Efficient estimation methods for closed-ended contingent valuation surveys. Rev Econ Stat 69(2):269–276
Cavagnaro P (2010) Investing in wastewater treatment upgrades: boosting the triple bottom line. Johnson Controls, Inc.
del Saz-Salazar S, Garcia-Rubio MA, Gonzalez-Gomez F (2016) Managing water resources under conditions of scarcity: on consumers’ willingness to pay for improving water supply infrastructure. Water Resour Manag 30(5):1723–1738
Ganelli G, Tervala J (2016) The welfare multiplier of public infrastructure investment. International Monetary Fund, Working Paper No 16/40
Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66(3):332–341
Hanemann M, Loomis J, Kanninen B (1991) Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 73(4):1255–1263
Herriges JA, Shogren JF (1996) Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. J Environ Econ Manag 30(1):112–131
Huang H, Schwab K, Jacangelo JG (2009) Pretreatment for low pressure membranes in water treatment: a review. Environ Sci Technol 43(9):3011–3019
Huh S, Lee J, Shin J (2015) The economic value of South Korea’s renewable energy policies (RPS, RFS, and RHO): a contingent valuation study. Renew Sust Energ Rev 50:64–72
International Monetary Fund (2014) World economic outlook 2013. Asia-Pacific water forum, legacies, clouds, uncertainties. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/02. Accessed 10 Jan 2019
Khanji S, Hudson J (2016) Water utilization and water quality in endogenous economic growth. Environ Dev Econ 21(5):626–648
Kim J, Park J, Kim H, Heo E (2012) Assessment of Korean customers’ willingness to pay with RPS. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16(1):695–703
Kontogianni A, Langford IH, Papandreou A, Skourtos MS (2003) Social preferences for improving water quality: an economic analysis of benefits from wastewater treatment. Water Resour Manag 17(5):317–336
Korea Development Institute (2007) A study on guidelines for value for money test for PPP environmental facilities projects. www.kdi.re.kr/kdi_eng/research/research_view.jsp?pub_no=10376. Accessed 10 April 2018
Korea Development Institute (2011) A study on estimation method of benefits in the environmental field (in Korean). pimac.kdi.re.kr/study/study_view.jsp?pub_no=12251andpageNo=1. Accessed 10 April 2018
Krop R, Hernick C, Frantz C (2008) Local government Investment in Municipal Water and Sewer Infrastructure: adding value to the National Economy. In: The US conference of mayors–mayors water council, Washington, DC
Kwak SY, Lee JS, Yoo SH (2008) Measuring the economic benefits of establishing the ecological sports park: a contingent valuation study. J Kor Assoc Publ Policy 10:257–276
Lazaridou D, Michailidis A, Trigkas M (2018) Socio-economic factors influencing farmers’ willingness to undertake environmental responsibility. Environ Sci Pollut Res, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2463-7
Lee KM, Lai CW, Ngai KS, Juan JC (2016) Recent developments of zinc oxide based photocatalyst in water treatment technology: a review. Water Res 88:428–448
Loomis J, Lockwood M, DeLacy T (1993) Some empirical evidence on embedding effects in contingent valuation of forest protection. J Environ Econ Manag 25(1):45–55
Maroušek J, Kolář L, Vochozka M, Stehel V, Maroušková A (2017) Novel method for cultivating beetroot reduces nitrate content. J Clean Prod 168:60–62
Maroušek J, Stehel V, Vochozka M, Kolář L, Maroušková A, Strunecký O, Peterka J, Kopecký M, Shreedhar S (2019) Ferrous sludge from water clarification: changes in waste management practices advisable. J Clean Prod 218:459–464
McLeod DM, Bergland O (1999) Willingness-to-pay estimates using the double-bounded dichotomous-choice contingent valuation format: a test for validity and precision in a Bayesian framework. Land Econ 75(1):115–125
Ministry of Environment (2008) Economic evaluation manual of sewerage plan (in Korean)
Ministry of Environment (2009) Master plan for refurbishing sewage systems (2010–2015) (in Korean)
Ministry of Environment (2011) Environmental impact assessment scoping guidelines (in Korean)
Ministry of Environment (2014) The guidelines for public sewer facilities installation project (in Korean)
Ministry of Environment (2015a) Statistics of sewerage 2014 (in Korean)
Ministry of Environment (2015b) Second national sewerage plans (2016–2025) (in Korean)
Ministry of Environment (2015c) Guidelines for establishment of basic plan for sewerage maintenance (in Korean)
Ministry of Environment (2015d) Guidelines for management of wastewater effluent and sceptic tank by use in buildings (in Korean)
Molinos-Senante M, Hernández-Sancho F, Sala-Garrido R (2010) Economic feasibility study for wastewater treatment: a cost–benefit analysis. Sci Total Environ 408(20):4396–4402
OECD (2011) Benefits of investing in water and sanitation. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development-OECD Publishing
OECD (2015) Environment at a glance 2015: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264235199-en
OECD (2017) OECD environmental performance reviews: Korea 2017, OECD environmental performance reviews. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264268265-en
RISE (2010) SROI guide to measuring return on social investment (in Korean)
Rollins KS, Shaykewich J (2003) Using willingness-to-pay to assess the economic value of weather forecasts for multiple commercial sectors. Meteorol Appl 10(1):31–38
Rupérez-Moreno C, Pérez-Sánchez J, Senent-Aparicio J, del Pilar Flores-Asenjo M (2015) The economic value of conjoint local management in water resources: results from a contingent valuation in the Boquerón aquifer (Albacete, SE Spain). Sci Total Environ 532:255–264
Scarpa R, Bateman I (2000) Efficiency gains afforded by improved bid design versus follow-up valuation questions in discrete-choice CV studies. Land Econ 76:299–311
Shin J, Kim Y, Nam H, Cho Y (2016) Economic evaluation of healthcare technology improving the quality of social life: the case of assistive technology for the disabled and elderly. Appl Econ 48(15):1361–1371
Simeonidis K, Mourdikoudis S, Kaprara E, Mitrakas M, Polavarapu L (2016) Inorganic engineered nanoparticles in drinking water treatment: a critical review. Environ Sci: Water Res Technol 2(1):43–70
The Government of the United Kingdom (2012) Public services (social value) Act 2012. London: The National Archives
Tsimplokoukou K, Eleni S, George M (2012) A feasibility study approach for underground railways—a case study: line 4 of Athens metro. Glob J Eng Educ 14(1):1–8
Vaughan WJ, Ardila S (1993) Economic analysis of the environmental aspects of investment projects. Inter-American Development Bank. Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC, p. 100
Wilson SJ (2000) The costs and benefits of sewage treatment and source control for Halifax Harbour. GPI Atlantic, the GPI water quality accounts 63
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Korea Environment Institute research project (RE2016-07).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Eyup Dogan
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
(1) Economic costs.
° Construction costs of sewage treatment facilities (alternative 1)
-
Based on a 2006 dam-associated sewerage facility expansion project, we estimated the number of treatment facilities per treatment area (number of new facilities per area, 0.0339; number of existing facilities per area, 0.0107).
-
Estimated capacity per treatment facility using the same data (90 m3/place).
-
Estimated number of new facilities and existing facilities for 82 regions.
-
Calculated construction cost per unit for a sewage treatment facility: \( Y=43.528\ast {Q}^{0.6477}\ \left(Y:\mathrm{million}\ \mathrm{KRW},Q:\frac{{\mathrm{m}}^3}{\mathrm{day}}\right) \) (Ministry of Environment 2011).
-
It was assumed that the cost of an existing treatment facility would be 30% that of a new treatment facility.
° Operating costs of sewage treatment facilities (alternative 1)
-
Calculated operating cost per unit for a sewage treatment facility: \( \mathrm{Y}=349.66\ast {Q}^{0.7931}\ \left(Y:\frac{\mathrm{thousand}\ \mathrm{KRW}}{\mathrm{year}}\ Q:\frac{{\mathrm{m}}^3}{\mathrm{day}}\right) \) (Ministry of Environment 2011).
° Pipeline construction costs (alternative 1)
-
Estimated pipe extension per area of treatment facility (137 m/km2) based on a 2006 dam-associated sewerage facility expansion project.
-
Estimated number of required pipe extensions for 82 regions.
-
Applied construction costs of sewer pipe construction (plastic pile, 200 mm; asphalt, 444,940 KRW/m, Ministry of Environment 2014).
° Pipeline operating costs (alternative 1)
-
Estimated number of required pipe extensions for 82 regions.
-
Applied dredging costs (1140 KRW/year), pipeline repair costs (1335 KRW/year), and maintenance costs per meter (KRW/m/year).
° Septic tank closure costs (alternative 1)
-
Calculated number of septic tanks in 82 regions (Ministry of Environment in Korea 2015c).
-
Use calculation methods determining the amount of sewage generation and septic tank treatment target persons by building use (Ministry of Environment in Korea 2015d) and applied 170 L waste/person/day to calculate the septic tank capacity of individual areas.
-
Use previous closure costs of septic tanks (62,000 KRW/m3).
° Septic tank consignment costs (alternative 2)
-
Use previous consigned management costs for Seoul, Yeosu, Yongin, Gapyeong, and Icheon.
-
Apply the average value (6,409,963,716 KRW/year).
(2) Social costs
-
There are no expected environmental social conflict costs for supplying sewerage systems or consigned management of septic tanks.
(3) Economic benefits.
° Septic tank consignment costs (alternative 1)
-
Use previous consigned management costs for Seoul, Yeosu, Yongin, Gapyeong, and Icheon.
-
Apply the average value (6,409,963,716 KRW/year).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ryu, J., Kim, K., Oh, M. et al. Why environmental and social benefits should be included in cost-benefit analysis of infrastructure?. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26, 21693–21703 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05475-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05475-6