Abstract
A WHO and UNICEF joint report states that in 2008, 884 million people lacked access to potable drinking water. A life-cycle approach to develop potable water systems may improve the sustainability for such systems, however, a review of the literature shows that such an approach has primarily been used for urban systems located in resourced countries. Although urbanization is increasing globally, over 40 percent of the world’s population is currently rural with many considered poor. In this paper, we present a first step towards using life-cycle assessment to develop sustainable rural water systems in resource-limited countries while pointing out the needs. For example, while there are few differences in costs and environmental impacts for many improved rural water system options, a system that uses groundwater with community standpipes is substantially lower in cost that other alternatives with a somewhat lower environmental inventory. However, a LCA approach shows that from institutional as well as community and managerial perspectives, sustainability includes many other factors besides cost and environment that are a function of the interdependent decision process used across the life cycle of a water system by aid organizations, water user committees, and household users. These factors often present the biggest challenge to designing sustainable rural water systems for resource-limited countries.
Highlights
Providing sustainable potable water systems for rural areas in resource-limited nations remains at the forefront of national and international agendas
The cost data is adjusted for inflation to 2005 levels using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and converted to US dollars to allow for comparison
In general and as expected, community standpipe systems for all water sources are less costly over the life cycle than individual household taps
Summary
Providing sustainable potable water systems for rural areas in resource-limited nations remains at the forefront of national and international agendas. Once the vouchers are used up, the user weighs the “cost” of being ill occasionally vs the cost of purchasing the chlorine tablets and rationally makes a decision for herself and her family moving forward These three characteristics are largely affected by the user’s “time and place information,” as well as how he/she understands the social and environmental characteristics of the area, the production capacity, and the institutional capacity to maintain a system [3]. If the science of rural water infrastructure development is to improve, the sector must advance the predictive modeling of infrastructure decisions that recognizes this interaction among stakeholders and the life-cycle aspects that affect the formal decision process To develop this predictive capability, a life-cycle approach is needed that is based on first having a thorough understanding of the environmental and cost impacts, and combining this with the considerations at each life-cycle stage of the decision process using many of the factors listed in. The results are intended to help the reader understand the challenges and benefits of using a life-cycle approach to examine a context that has yet to benefit from such a tool
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
