A note to share that this paper is now open access - so freely available to download at   doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127135

Thanks for your interest! Please let me know your email and I will send the paper (you can write to me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.).

Dear friend

Pl. mail me your paper so I can appreciate it better and promote our common cause.

Warm regards
Kondala Rao G

Thanks for your interest Romu, I have emailed you the paper.

Thanks for your interest Prasanta, I have emailed you the paper.

Thanks for your reflections and suggestions Heiner, I much appreciate reading your thoughts. 

On your final point regarding the limitations of working with market prices, I agree and hope that the key message in the study was clear - ie that these kind of cost analysis should not be about 'whether' to invest in resource-oriented sanitation, but instead about how to do so in the most efficient and equitable ways. This proposes a different goal from common cost assessments, and aligns with your suggestion about driving decisions with eg. % reuse rather than with reference to costs. In other words, I agree with prioritising reuse in the goal and decision making framework, and still think within this it is important to also consider costs to ensure viability and equitable distribution of costs and benefits.

Interesting article on life cycle costing of the FSM and circular economy. Could you share the full paper to me (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)Thanks. 

Dear Naomi,

This looks an interesting paper. Kindly share with me the full document on my email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Thanks

Thanks for your paper!

To me as a farmer very interesting. A few remarks I want to share (so you can see I read the paper )

Pelletizing the Co- Compost. My first reaction was: why this additional energy input? But then you mentioned the reason, the higher price and demand for the product. These are the cultural and mental barriers I always forget.  It is about the same with the swiss product "Aurin" from the VUNA guys. The costly processed product is far from being competitive fertilizer. But it is a product well educated "green customers" put on their roses or even their veggies in the garden and don't care about the price.

Adding mineral rock phosphate. The whole composting process, as I can judge it from the distance, is combined with fairly high loss of nitrogen and not phosphate. So to me, to get the right balance to fertilize plants, it would be essential to add nitrogen. The only reason to add phosphate could be very poor soils with a common very low phosphate level. But as you mentioned, it always depends on if you see it as a fertilizer or a soil conditioner. Adding nitrogen und doing some field test could convince more farmers to use the compost because of the much higher yields.

Calculations in general. I understand now, after reading your paper, your costing boundaries and so my former question is a bit obsolet. But.....we ran into our ecological desaster because  we were calculating all the time. The disposal of waste was cheaper than the reuse, the pollution of the water bodies cheaper than fine working wastewater treatment plants.
There is a little mindshift now and I'm happy I read the word circularity (or circular economy) so often in your paper. But still we calculate with "market prices". Adjusted market prices, okay. But a wise guy (forgot who) said: it is impossible to fix a broken system with the same tools which lead to the breakdown.
I think we need in addition to the monetary calculations you made further paradigm for our decisions where to go. One could be the degree of reuse, or fulfillment of the goals of the circular economy. See i.e. : www.construcia.com .
Every percentage would count. No matter if we monetarize or not.

Thanks again, I learned a lot.

Heiner 

Thanks Heiner, happy to hear you find the study interesting (I'll email you the paper). In this case we didn't monetise externalities on either the costs or benefits side, instead focusing on financial flows. Other studies have done so for different locations, and further analysis to look at the health and environmental benefits of safe FSM would be valuable. It would also be good to explore GHGs incurred or avoided due to the particular model of FSM used. 

Thanks Naomi,

the studies our societies need...... thanks for it.

A short question and if there is something about my question in the study I would be glad if you send me a pdf...

Are there any calculations about the costs if we do not care about sanitation and reuse? I think of the medical/health costs by a lack of hygiene and the pollution of the water bodies with untreated excreta or sludge calculates in dollars?

Thanks very much,

heiner (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)

Thanks Cheng! It would be great to have a discussion about our work. I will email you