Author
Listed:
- Alexandros Maziotis
- Maria Molinos‐Senante
Abstract
Benchmarking the sustainability of water utilities (WUs) in the provision of water and sanitation services is essential for addressing global sustainability goals. This study proposes a water utility sustainability index (WUSI), which was estimated for a sample of 29 WUs in Chile. To evaluate the impact of weighting methodologies on sustainability assessments, two approaches were applied: the benefit of doubt (BoD) method and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The results indicate that the average WUSI score under the BoD method was 0.987, with 55.17% of WUs achieving the maximum score of 1.0, whereas the AHP approach yielded a lower mean score of 0.551, with the highest‐performing WU reaching 0.737. This difference arises from the fact that the weights assigned to the indicators comprising the WUSI under the BoD approach are endogenously optimized to maximize the composite index for each WU, leading to the suppression of poor‐performing indicators. In addition, the BoD method exhibited lower variance (SD = 0.035) compared to AHP (SD = 0.095), suggesting a tendency to overestimate sustainability. The ranking of WUs also varied significantly depending on the weighting methodology used. The study revealed that utility size and geographical location influence sustainability outcomes. The significant discrepancies in WUSI scores based on the weighting methodology highlight the need for regulators to adopt a hybrid approach, combining objective, data‐driven methods with expert and stakeholder input to ensure more balanced and contextually relevant sustainability assessments.
Suggested Citation
Alexandros Maziotis & Maria Molinos‐Senante, 2025.
"Evaluating the Sustainability of Water and Sanitation Services: A Comparative Analysis of Methodological Approaches,"
Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(5), pages 7038-7052, October.
Handle:
RePEc:wly:sustdv:v:33:y:2025:i:5:p:7038-7052
DOI: 10.1002/sd.3511
Download full text from publisher
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:wly:sustdv:v:33:y:2025:i:5:p:7038-7052. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1719 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.