Assessing the Economic Feasibility of Integrated Waste to Use Systems for Uganda
PDF

Keywords

Integrated Sanitation Systems, Economic Feasibility Assessment, Net Present Value, Payback Period, Internal Rate of Return

How to Cite

1.
Agunyo MF, Kizza-Nkambwe S, Bacwayo KE. Assessing the Economic Feasibility of Integrated Waste to Use Systems for Uganda. Glob. Environ. Eng. [Internet]. 2021 Dec. 8 [cited 2023 Jan. 28];8:27-45. Available from: https://www.avantipublishers.com/index.php/tgevnie/article/view/1026

Abstract

Waste and sanitation Management is a major challenge in urban areas in Uganda where waste is composed of atleast 70% organic content and is basically collected and disposed of in landfills. While 90% of the sanitation facilities used are onsite systems often requiring additional treatment of sewage and faecal matter sewage yet faecal and sewage sludge treatment plants are few. The projected population increase is expected to further influence urbanization, increasing the need for basic waste and sanitation services. Integrated Waste to Use systems that consider combined management of organic waste streams i.e. biowaste, animal waste, sewage and faecal sludge, could be a viable solution for the urban areas. The systems which consist of a combination of anaerobic digestion, composting, incineration and solar drying technologies promote resource recovery in the form of biogas, briquettes and organic fertilizer. The economic feasibility of the Waste to Use systems was carried out and the results indicated that the feasibility of the systems was positively influenced by the inclusion of the anaerobic digestion process, which allowed for recovery of biogas and digestate as organic fertilizer. Furthermore, a combination of low system investment costs, increased revenues from resource recovery, consideration of equity capital of at least 30%, interest rate of at most 10% and fugitive emissions less than 7 % would positively influence the economic feasibility of the system alternatives.

https://doi.org/10.15377/2410-3624.2021.08.3
PDF

References

Bank, World. What A Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. Washington: World Bank, 2012.

Biogas, Fachverband. Biowaste to Biogas; Biogas Know How 1. s.l.: German Biogas Association, 2017.

NEMA. Annual Performance Report 2016/2017. Kampala: National Environment Management Authority(NEMA), 2017.

IFC and KCCA. Preliminary Information Memorandum, Kampala Waste PPP Project; Innovation shaping waste management in Uganda. Kampala: International Finance Corporation(IFC) and Kampala Capital City Authority(KCCA), 2020.

Sippel, Lilli. Africa's demographic challenges;How a young population can make development possible. Berlin: Berlin Institute for Population and Development, 2011. 978-3-9814679-0-1.

MoWE. Water and Environment Sector Performance Report 2017. Kampala: Ministry of Water and Environment(MoWE), Government of Uganda, 2017.

Ministry of Water and Environment;Water and Environment Sector Performance Report. Kampala: M, 2020.

Cleland, John and Machiyama, Kazuyo.The Challenges Posed by Demographic Change in sub-Saharan Africa;A Concise Overview. 2, s.l. Population and Development Review, 2017, Vol. 43. https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.170

KCCA, and IFC. Project Teaser:Kampala Waste Treatment and Disposal PPP. Kampala: Kampala Capital City Authority(KCCA) and International Finance Authority(IFA), 2017.

Independent, The. The Independent. [Online] 2020. [Cited: June 13, 2021.] https://www.independent.co.ug/mbale-city-chokes-on-uncollected-garbage-stench/.

Gumisiriza P, Kugonza S.Corruption and Solid Waste Management in Mbarara Municipality, Uganda. 2020, Journal of Environmental and Public Health, Vol. Volume 2020, pp. 2-9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4754780

Oates L, et al. Supporting decent livelihoods through sustainable service provision: Lessons on solid waste management from Kampala, Uganda. s.l.: UKaid, 2019.

GGGI. Kampala Municipal Solid Waste Value Chain Mapping. Kamapla: Global Green Growth Institute(GGGI), 2018.

Parkinson J, Lüthi C, Walther D. Sanitation 21: A planning Framework for Improving City-Wide Sanitation Services. s.l.: IWA, EAWAG, GIZ, SuSana, 2014.

Andersson K, et al. Sanitation Wastewater Management and Susutainability:From Waste Disposal to Resource Recovery. s.l.: United Nations Environment Programme and Stockholm Environment Institute., 2016.

WELL. Guidance manual on water supply and sanitation programmes. London: Water & Environmental Health at London and Lougborough, funded by DFID, 1998.

WSSCC and WHO, and. Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion:Programming Guidance. s.l.: Water Supply & Sanitation Collaborative Council:WSSCC, and World Health Organization, 2005.

EAWAG-SANDEC. Household-Centred Environmental Sanitation:Implementing the Bellagio Principles in Urban Environmental Sanitation: Provisional Guideline for Decision-Makers. Dübendorf: Eawag: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 2005. 3-906484-35-1.

Lüthi C, et al. Rethinking sustainable Sanitation for the Urban Environment. 2009.

UNICEF. Generating Energy with Biogas Latrines in Schools in Uganda. s.l.: United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, 2014.

Agunyo MF, et al.Exploring the Environmental Feasibility of Integrated Sanitation Systems for Uganda. 2018, Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems. https://doi.org/10.13044/j.sdewes.d6.0217

Agunyo MF, Bacwayo KE, Kizza-Nkambwe S. Assessment of the socio-cultural viability of integrated waste-to-energy systems for Uganda. 3, 2020, Int. J. Renewable Energy Technology, Vol. 11, pp. 272-294. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJRET.2020.112009

Parkes O, Lettieri P, Bogle DL. Life cycle assessment of integrated waste management systems for alternative legacy . s.l.: Waste management (New York, N.Y.), 2015, Vol. 40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.03.017

Chiu, Sam LH, et al. Life cycle assessment of waste treatment strategy for sewage sludge and food waste in Macau:Perspectives on environmental and energy production performance. 2, s.l.: Int J Life Cycle Assess (The International Journal of Life , 2016, Vol. 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-1008-2

TBC. Sanitation in the Circular Economy:Transformation to a commercially valuable, self-sustaining, biological system. s.l.: Toilet Board Coalition, 2016.

WSP. Economic Impacts of Sanitation in Southeast Asia:A four-country study conducted in Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam under the Economics of Sanitation Initiative (ESI). s.l.: Water and Sanitation Program, World Bank Group, 2008.

McIntyre P, et al. Priceless! Uncovering the real costs of water and sanitation. s.l.: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, 2014. 978-90-6687-082-6.

WSP. Lessons in Urban Sanitation Development:Indonesia Sanitation Sector Development Program 2006-2010. s.l.: Water and Sanitation Program, 2011.

Hutton G. Water and Sanitation Assessment Paper:Benefits and Costs of the Water Sanitation and Hygiene Targets for the Post-2015 Development . s.l.: World Bank, 2015.

Brent RJ. Applied Cost-Benefit_Analysis. s.l.: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2006. 978 1 84376 891 3.

Yiridoe EK, Gordon R, Brown BB. Nonmarket cobenefits and economic feasibility of on-farm biogas energy production. 3, s.l.: Energy Policy, 2009, Vol. 37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.11.018

Yin RK. Case study research:Design and methods. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2014. 978-1-4522-4256-9.

UCU. Uganda Christian University Strategic Plan 2012-2018. s.l.: Uganda Christian University, 2012.

Kanathigoda A. Faecal Sludge Manangement in Kampala and smaller urban areas. 2014.

Karellas S, Boukis I, Kontopoulos G. Development of an investment decision tool for biogas production from agricultural waste. s.l.: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2010, Vol. 14. 10.1016/j.rser.2009.12.002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.12.002

Antaleo A, Gennaro BD, Shah N. Assessment of optimal size of anaerobic co-digestion plants:An application to cattle farms in the province of Bari (Italy). P. s.l.: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2013, Vol. 20. 10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.068

Otoo M, Rao K, Taron A. Synthesis Report on Feasibility Assessment for the Implementation of RRR business models proposed for Lima. s.l.: Swiss Agency for Development and Corporation:SDC, 2015.

Ackerman F. Critique of cost-benefit analysis and alternative approaches to decision-making:A report to Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland. 2008.

Weimer DL. Cost Benefit Analysis and Public Policy. s.l.: Journal of Policy Analysis and Management Classics Series, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444307177

Hutton G, Haller L. Evaluation of the Costs and Benefits of Water and Sanitation Improvements at the Global. s.l.: World Health Organisation:WHO, 2004.

Hutton G, Haller L, Bartram J. Global cost-benefit analysis of water supply and sanitation interventions.. 4, s.l.: Journal of water and health, 2007, Vol. 5. 10.2166/wh.2007.009. https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2007.009

Deeks LK, et al. A new sludge-derived organo-mineral fertilizer gives similar crop yields as conventional fertilizers. s.l.: Agron. Sustain. Dev. (Agronomy for Sustainable Development), 2013, Vol. 33. 10.1007/s13593-013-0135-z. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0135-z

Kahiluoto H, et al. Phosphorus in manure and sewage sludge more recyclable than in soluble inorganic fertilizer.. 4, s.l.: Environ. Sci. Technol. (Environmental Science & Technology), 2015, Vol. 49. 10.1021/es503387y. https://doi.org/10.1021/es503387y

Drosg B, et al. Nutrient Recovery by Biogas Digestate Processing. s.l.: IEA Bioenergy, 2015.

Al Seadi T, et al. Biogas Handbook. Esbjerg: University of Southern Denmark Esbjerg, 2008. 978-87-992962-0-0.

Raheem A, et al.Opportunities and challenges in sustainable treatment and resource reuse of sewage sludge: A review. s.l.: Chemical Engineering Journal, 2018, Vol. 337. 10.1016/j.cej.2017.12.149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.12.149

Evans TD. Review of Current Knowledge: Sewage Sludge. s.l.: Foundation for Water Reseach , 2016.

Vögeli Y, et al. Anaerobic digestion of biowaste in developing countries. Dübendorf: s.n., 2014.

Walla C, Schneeberger W. The optimal size for biogas plants. 6, s.l.: Biomass and Bioenergy, 2008, Vol. 32. 10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.11.009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.11.009

FEA. Technical Guide on the Treatment and Recycling Techniques for Sludge from municipal Wastewater Treatment with references to Best Available Techniques (BAT). s.l.: Federal Environment Agency: (Umwelt Bundesamt), 2014.

GIZ. Biogas Technology Matrix. s.l.: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, 2016.

Jonerholm K, Lundborg H. Methane losses in the biogas system. 2012.

Jørgensen L, Kvist T. Methane emission from Danish biogas plants. 2015.

Walekhwa PN, Lars D, Mugisha J. Economic viability of biogas energy production from family-sized digesters in Uganda. s.l.: Biomass and Bioenergy, 2014, Vol. 70. 10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.03.008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.03.008

MoWE. Water and Environment Sector Performance Report. Kampala: Ministry of Water and Environment, 2020.

MoWE, Water and Environment Sector Performance Report. Kampala: 2020.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2021 Miria Frances Agunyo, Sarah Kizza-Nkambwe, Kukunda Elizabeth Bacwayo