IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i21p11884-d666109.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Non-Sewered Sanitation Systems’ Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Balancing Sustainable Development Goal Tradeoffs to End Open Defecation

Author

Listed:
  • Kelsey Shaw

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC V8P 5C2, Canada)

  • Christopher Kennedy

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC V8P 5C2, Canada)

  • Caetano C. Dorea

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC V8P 5C2, Canada)

Abstract

Discharge of excreta into the environment and the use of decentralized sanitation technologies, such as septic tanks, pit latrines and ecological sanitation variants (i.e., container-based sanitation), contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions but have remained poorly quantified. The purpose of this analysis was to investigate the impacts that meeting Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6.2 (i.e., ending open defecation by 2030) would have on SDG 13 (i.e., combatting climate impacts). The current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change GHG estimation methodology was used as the basis for calculations in this analysis, augmented with improved emission factors from collected data sets for all types of on-site sanitation infrastructure. Specifically, this assessment focused on the three different service levels of sanitation (i.e., improved, unimproved and no service) as defined by UNICEF and WHO as they pertain to three Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. This analysis considered the 100-year global warming potential values in carbon dioxide equivalents of methane and nitrous oxide that can be emitted for each scenario and decentralized sanitation technology. Ultimately, six scenarios were developed for various combinations of pathways and sanitation technologies. There was significant variability between the scenarios, with results ranging from 68 Tg CO 2 eq/year to 7 TgCO 2 eq/year. The main contributors of GHG emissions in each scenario were demonstrated to be septic tank systems and pit latrines, although in scenarios that utilized improved emission factors (EFs) these emissions were significantly reduced compared with those using only standard IPCC EFs. This analysis demonstrated that using improved EFs reduced estimated GHG emissions within each SSP scenario by 53% on average. The results indicate that achieving SDG sanitation targets will ultimately increase GHG emissions from the current state but with a relatively small impact on total anthropogenic emissions. There is a need for the continued improvement and collection of field-based emission estimations to refine coarse scale emissions models as well as a better characterization of relevant biodegradation mechanisms in popular forms of on-site sanitation systems. An increase in the understanding of sanitation and climate change linkages among stakeholders will ultimately lead to a better inclusion of sanitation, and other basic human rights, in climate action goals.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelsey Shaw & Christopher Kennedy & Caetano C. Dorea, 2021. "Non-Sewered Sanitation Systems’ Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Balancing Sustainable Development Goal Tradeoffs to End Open Defecation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-16, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:21:p:11884-:d:666109
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/21/11884/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/21/11884/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shervin Hashemi, 2020. "Sanitation Sustainability Index: A Pilot Approach to Develop a Community-Based Indicator for Evaluating Sustainability of Sanitation Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-12, August.
    2. Henry Venema & Ibrahim Rehman, 2007. "Decentralized renewable energy and the climate change mitigation-adaptation nexus," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 875-900, June.
    3. Elke Pirgmaier & Julia K. Steinberger, 2019. "Roots, Riots, and Radical Change—A Road Less Travelled for Ecological Economics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Raimund Bleischwitz & Catalina Spataru & Stacy D. VanDeveer & Michael Obersteiner & Ester Voet & Corey Johnson & Philip Andrews-Speed & Tim Boersma & Holger Hoff & Detlef P. Vuuren, 2018. "Resource nexus perspectives towards the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(12), pages 737-743, December.
    5. Detlef Vuuren & Elmar Kriegler & Brian O’Neill & Kristie Ebi & Keywan Riahi & Timothy Carter & Jae Edmonds & Stephane Hallegatte & Tom Kram & Ritu Mathur & Harald Winkler, 2014. "A new scenario framework for Climate Change Research: scenario matrix architecture," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 373-386, February.
    6. Brian O’Neill & Elmar Kriegler & Keywan Riahi & Kristie Ebi & Stephane Hallegatte & Timothy Carter & Ritu Mathur & Detlef Vuuren, 2014. "A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 387-400, February.
    7. Daniel W. O’Neill & Andrew L. Fanning & William F. Lamb & Julia K. Steinberger, 2018. "A good life for all within planetary boundaries," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(2), pages 88-95, February.
    8. B.C. O'Neill & T Carter & Kl Ebi & J. Edmonds & Stéphane Hallegatte & E. Kemp-Benedict & E. Kriegler & L. Mearns & R. Moss & K. Riahi & B. van Ruijven & D. van Vuuren, 2012. "Meeting Report of the Workshop on The Nature and Use of New Socioeconomic Pathways for Climate Change Research," Working Papers hal-00801931, HAL.
    9. Martín Alejandro Iribarnegaray & María Laura Gatto D’Andrea & María Soledad Rodriguez-Alvarez & María Eugenia Hernández & Christian Brannstrom & Lucas Seghezzo, 2015. "From Indicators to Policies: Open Sustainability Assessment in the Water and Sanitation Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-21, October.
    10. United Nations UN, 2015. "Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," Working Papers id:7559, eSocialSciences.
    11. Elmar Kriegler & Jae Edmonds & Stéphane Hallegatte & Kristie Ebi & Tom Kram & Keywan Riahi & Harald Winkler & Detlef Vuuren, 2014. "A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared climate policy assumptions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 401-414, February.
    12. Donata Dubber & Laurence Gill, 2014. "Application of On-Site Wastewater Treatment in Ireland and Perspectives on Its Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-20, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. He, Jianjian & Yang, Yi & Liao, Zhongju & Xu, Anqi & Fang, Kai, 2022. "Linking SDG 7 to assess the renewable energy footprint of nations by 2030," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).
    2. Skea, Jim & van Diemen, Renée & Portugal-Pereira, Joana & Khourdajie, Alaa Al, 2021. "Outlooks, explorations and normative scenarios: Approaches to global energy futures compared," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    3. Hans van Meijl & Petr Havlik & Hermann Lotze-Campen & Elke Stehfest & Peter Witzke & Ignacio Perez Dominguez & Benjamin Bodirsky & Michiel van Dijk & Jonathan Doelman & Thomas Fellmann & Florian Humpe, 2017. "Challenges of Global Agriculture in a Climate Change Context by 2050 (AgCLIM50)," JRC Research Reports JRC106835, Joint Research Centre.
    4. van der Mensbrugghe, Dominique & Jeffrey C. Peters, 2020. "Volume Preserving CES and CET Formulations," GTAP Working Papers 6160, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
    5. Tomer Fishman & Niko Heeren & Stefan Pauliuk & Peter Berrill & Qingshi Tu & Paul Wolfram & Edgar G. Hertwich, 2021. "A comprehensive set of global scenarios of housing, mobility, and material efficiency for material cycles and energy systems modeling," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(2), pages 305-320, April.
    6. Trotter, Ian Michael & Féres, José Gustavo & Bolkesjø, Torjus Folsland & de Hollanda, Lavínia Rocha, 2015. "Simulating Brazilian Electricity Demand Under Climate Change Scenarios," Working Papers in Applied Economics 208689, Universidade Federal de Vicosa, Departamento de Economia Rural.
    7. Vanessa J. Schweizer, 2020. "Reflections on cross-impact balances, a systematic method constructing global socio-technical scenarios for climate change research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(4), pages 1705-1722, October.
    8. Schulhof, Vera & van Vuuren, Detlef & Kirchherr, Julian, 2022. "The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI): What Will it Look Like in the Future?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    9. Zuzana Smeets Kristkova & Michiel van Dijk & Hans van Meijl, 2015. "Long-term projections of global food security with R&D-driven technological progress," EcoMod2015 8601, EcoMod.
    10. Lamperti, Francesco & Bosetti, Valentina & Roventini, Andrea & Tavoni, Massimo & Treibich, Tania, 2021. "Three green financial policies to address climate risks," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    11. Solberg, Birger & Moiseyev, Alex & Hansen, Jon Øvrum & Horn, Svein Jarle & Øverland, Margareth, 2021. "Wood for food: Economic impacts of sustainable use of forest biomass for salmon feed production in Norway," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    12. Lanzi, Elisa & Dellink, Rob & Chateau, Jean, 2018. "The sectoral and regional economic consequences of outdoor air pollution to 2060," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 89-113.
    13. F. Castro-Llanos & G. Hyman & J. Rubiano & J. Ramirez-Villegas & H. Achicanoy, 2019. "Climate change favors rice production at higher elevations in Colombia," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 24(8), pages 1401-1430, December.
    14. Speers, Ann E. & Besedin, Elena Y. & Palardy, James E. & Moore, Chris, 2016. "Impacts of climate change and ocean acidification on coral reef fisheries: An integrated ecological–economic model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 33-43.
    15. Kalkuhl, Matthias & Wenz, Leonie, 2020. "The impact of climate conditions on economic production. Evidence from a global panel of regions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    16. McManamay, Ryan A. & DeRolph, Christopher R. & Surendran-Nair, Sujithkumar & Allen-Dumas, Melissa, 2019. "Spatially explicit land-energy-water future scenarios for cities: Guiding infrastructure transitions for urban sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 880-900.
    17. Richard Taylor & Ruth Butterfield & Tiago Capela Lourenço & Adis Dzebo & Henrik Carlsen & Richard J. T. Klein, 2020. "Surveying perceptions and practices of high-end climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 161(1), pages 65-87, July.
    18. Roberto Roson & Richard Damania, 2016. "Simulating the Macroeconomic Impact of Future Water Scarcity: an Assessment of Alternative Scenarios," IEFE Working Papers 84, IEFE, Center for Research on Energy and Environmental Economics and Policy, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    19. Frauke Meyer & Hawal Shamon & Stefan Vögele, 2022. "Dynamics and Heterogeneity of Environmental Attitude, Willingness and Behavior in Germany from 1993 to 2021," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-22, December.
    20. Phetheet, Jirapat & Hill, Mary C. & Barron, Robert W. & Gray, Benjamin J. & Wu, Hongyu & Amanor-Boadu, Vincent & Heger, Wade & Kisekka, Isaya & Golden, Bill & Rossi, Matthew W., 2021. "Relating agriculture, energy, and water decisions to farm incomes and climate projections using two freeware programs, FEWCalc and DSSAT," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:21:p:11884-:d:666109. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.