text:
There is a dearth of reliable cost data for urban sanitation. In the absence of high-quality global data, the full cost of sustainable implementation of urban sanitation remains uncertain. This paper proposes an approach for developing bespoke parametric cost estimation models for easy and reliable estimation of the costs of alternative sanitation technologies in a range of geographical contexts. A key requirement for the development of these models is the establishment of a large database of empirical information on the current costs of sanitation systems. Such a database does not currently exist. Two foundational tools are proposed. Firstly, a standard metric for reporting the costs of urban sanitation systems, total annualised cost per household. Secondly, a standardised approach to the collection of empirical cost data, the Novel Ball-Park Reporting Approach (NBPRA). Data from the NBPRA are presented for 87 individual sanitation components from 25 cities in 10 countries. Broad cost ranges for different archetypal systems have been estimated; these currently have high levels of uncertainty. Further work is proposed to collect additional data, build up the global database, and develop parametric cost estimation models with higher reliability.

• A bespoke parametric cost estimation approach is proposed for reliable estimation of urban sanitation costs.

• A standard metric for reporting the costs of urban sanitation systems; total annualised cost per household (TACH) is presented.

• Broad cost ranges for different archetypal systems have been estimated, based on 87 individual sanitation components from 25 cities in 10 countries.

More than 1 million people per day must gain and maintain access to safely managed sanitation to meet the sanitation target of the sustainable development goals (Mara & Evans 2018). A significant majority of this ‘new’ sanitation investment will be made in urban or urbanising areas. While standalone household and community sanitation services will continue to be important in rural areas (in both rich and poor countries) in denser urban areas, toilets that provide sanitation at home must be planned and operated as part of a professionalised service – which transports excreta either through pipes or road-based networks for management away from the home.

A key challenge for SDG 6.2 arises from the dearth of reliable and comparable benchmark estimates of the unit costs of these ‘networked’ services (Daudey 2017). Compared to other infrastructure services, costing in sanitation is characterised by ambiguity concerning both terminology and costing standards. Other sectors tend to employ familiar, readily understood, summary indicators for the global comparison of costs (Merrow 2011; Ansar et al. 2014; Locatelli et al. 2017). For example, the concept of the cost per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of energy is well established (De Roo & Parsons 2011; Geissmann & Ponta 2017; Lai & McCulloch 2017) and its utility in comparing the costs of services can be easily understood even by a layperson. By contrast, there is no agreed metric for comparison of the costs of sanitation delivery (Daudey 2017).

This paper reports early findings from the Cost and Climate for Urban Sanitation (CACTUS) project which aims to fill some of this gap. We introduce a proposed standard cost metric for urban sanitation, Total Annualised Cost per Household (TACH) and per Capita (TACC), and propose a strategy for developing a parametric method that would enable the estimation of TACH/TACC for new sanitation systems around the world. We also describe a Novel Ball-Park Reporting Approach (NPBRA) which is aiding in the establishment of a global database of empirical benchmark costs as a basis for this future parametric cost estimation tool. Indicative early results from the global database of NPBRA data are presented.

In a recent systematic review, Daudey (2017) observes a dearth of reliable studies reporting clearly on the full costs associated with the delivery of sanitation services worldwide. While there has been notable and important work done on estimating benefit–cost ratios in sanitation, see for example, Whittington et al. (2012), Hutton 2013 & Cronin et al. (2014), these rely on a very small number of empirical data and limited modelling to derive the cost estimates on which they are based.

One approach to estimating the cost of services is to use the price as a proxy. Unfortunately, price is a poor proxy for the cost of a sustainable sanitation service for two reasons. Firstly, many sanitation systems are incomplete or badly operated often due to financial, institutional, and societal failures (Evans 1995; Ika et al. 2012; International Water Association 2014). Secondly, since sanitation is a public good, willingness to pay is often lower than the economic value of full-service delivery (Ruiters & Matji 2017). For this latter reason, sanitation systems are often supported by public subsidies, either formally through regulated fees or ‘informally’ through systematic underinvestment in maintenance (Evans et al. 2009; Perard 2018).

The best-known sanitation costing studies are from the World Health Organization (Hutton & Bartram 2008), the IRC WASHCost Initiative (McIntyre et al. 2014), and the World Bank Economics of Sanitation Initiative, or ESI. These all emphasise the importance of reporting the full lifecycle cost of sanitation systems, including costs incurred to design, operate, and maintain them (Fonseca et al. 2011; McIntyre et al. 2014). Lifecycle costing implicitly assumes a full-costing approach (Burr & Fonseca 2011; Evans & Mara 2011; Daudey 2017), including the direct cost of generating the sanitation service and overheads. In reality, there is a significant ambiguity around the methods used to generate unit cost estimates and particularly the extent to which operations and maintenance costs are reflected in many costing studies (Daudey 2017).

Hutton & Bartram (2008) and World Health Organization (2012) deploy an approach known as ball-park estimation. Ball-park estimation is commonly used in infrastructure planning for conceptualisation or pre-feasibility studies (Mislick & Nussbaum 2015) where some level of uncertainty is acceptable; construction projects typically accommodate an uncertainty at this point of around 30% (AACE 2019). Estimations are usually based on the statistical manipulation of historical data in private databases (e.g. the internal information systems of Engineering Procurement Construction – EPC companies) or academic literature (OECD 2007; Loutatidou et al. 2014; Hughes et al. 2015).

Ball-park estimates from a number of locations both reported by governments and cited in the literature, particularly the ESI, form the basis for the indicative unit costs estimates in the WHO benefit–cost analysis (Hutton & Haller 2004; Hutton & Bartram 2008; World Health Organization 2012). The economics of sanitation initiative has collected cost estimates based on reporting by government agencies, and household surveys, for a number of countries, see for example, Hutton et al. (2014). WASHCost also aimed to generate ball-park cost estimates based on empirical data collection rather than relying on literature. WASHCost reported costs data from water and sanitation projects in rural and peri-urban/small town areas in the state of Andhra Pradesh (India), Burkina Faso, Ghana, and Mozambique. Lifecycle cost estimates were developed for seven types of latrine (Burr & Fonseca 2012).

While WASHCost highlighted the need for standard costing approaches and has played an important role in increasing focus on the significant operational costs of sanitation, there is little evidence that the approach has been used to generate up to date benchmark cost estimates for urban sanitation. Neither is WASHCost referenced in the wider infrastructure finance literature; this may be because it uses non-standard cost categories, for example, the term Capital Maintenance Expenditure (CapManEx) which is neither a common accounting term (Roman et al. 2012) nor employed in other infrastructure sectors (De Schepper et al. 2015; Gatti 2018). The economics of sanitation initiative did generate useful overall cost estimates for some technologies in urban areas (as well as in rural areas) which provide a strong starting point for the current work.

An alternative to ball-park estimation, analytical estimation works on the basis of a known or estimated amount of inputs (material, labour, equipment) with known unit costs; the full costs can then be obtained by multiplying one by the other. The CLARA project (Müllegger et al. 2014; Ketema & Langergraber 2016) is an example of this approach building up theoretical costs from first principles based on standard bills of quantities (Müllegger et al. 2014).

CLARA used empirical data from Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kenya, Morocco, and South Africa to develop a simplified analytical costing tool (Müllegger et al. 2014; Ketema & Langergraber 2016). The tool can be used to generate cost estimates for sanitation based on local conditions and the Net Present Value of the investment (Ketema et al. 2015). The World Bank has used a similar approach in its faecal sludge management (FSM) diagnostic tools (Ross et al. 2016).

Analytical estimation works when sufficiently detailed information is available for both quantities and unitary prices of all factors of production (Mislick & Nussbaum 2015), including capital (e.g. land and buildings, and equipment) and labour (Kim et al. 2004; Barakchi et al. 2017). However, the project management literature emphasises the extent to which analytic estimation can be unreliable particularly for large engineering projects. A number of phenomena tend to lead to over-optimistic estimations (Locatelli 2018). These include optimism bias (Flyvbjerg 2008), strategic misinterpretation (Flyvbjerg 2008), corruption (Locatelli et al. 2017), selection biases and winner course phenomenon (Eliasson & Fosgerau 2013), and distortions in tendering (Love et al. 2016, 2019). For this reason, some scholars suggest using ball-park estimation for large and complex infrastructure projects, even when detailed analytic data are available (Flyvbjerg 2008; Merrow 2011).

An alternative approach is parametric cost estimation (also known as factorial or semi-analytic) costing. This approach recognises that there are critical drivers (parameters) that determine the cost of a service or infrastructure in a given context. The traditional approach to developing parametric cost estimation is to interrogate a large dataset of empirical cost data, employing heuristic formulas to determine the relationship between various parameters and cost values (Mislick & Nussbaum 2015; OECD 2007). In sanitation, some attempts at parametric cost estimation have been made to estimate the nominal costs of different sanitation technologies (Sinnatamby et al. 1986; Mara 1996; Mara & Guimarães 1999; Evans & Mara 2011; Eggimann et al. 2016a, 2015; Crocker et al. 2017; Loetscher & Keller 2018).

Parameters that primarily affect the costs of sanitation systems have been proposed and evaluated by several scholars; these include population densities, size and degree of centralisation (Eggimann et al. 2015, 2016b; Eggimann 2016), economies of scale (Hernández-Chover et al. 2018), institutional and managerial context (Ika & Donnelly 2017), and other contextual factors such as the technology, labour cost, population density, and topography (Whittington et al. 2012; Daudey 2017). Unfortunately, there has been no systematic attempt to evaluate the relationship between these parameters and cost based on empirical data at the required scale. The results remain specific to isolated contexts or are based on models which have not been empirically validated.

There remain, therefore, significant areas of further research in the arena of sanitation costing, including the need for (Daudey 2017; Eggimann et al. 2017):

• Further empirical research to generate a larger database from which both ball-park and parametric estimates could be derived;

• Improvements in the consistency of reporting of cost estimations;

• Further research to assess the full-lifecycle cost of sanitation services, and the differentiation between alternative sanitation technologies, stages of the sanitation value chain and geographical areas; and

• More clarity and transparency concerning the sources of empirical data used in current costing approaches [….]

Responding to the call for greater consistency and for generalisable information about the cost of sanitation, we propose a plausible metric which is comparable across geographies and technologies and also understandable both to professionals in the WASH sector and to municipal managers who make decisions regarding sanitation investments. A useful corollary is the concept of costs per kWh of energy which is comprehensible both to governments, who may have to finance the initial capital investment, and households, who ultimately pay the bills.

For urban sanitation, we propose two cost indicators to express the cost of any sanitation system: TACH and total annualised cost per capita (TACC). TACH/TACC takes into account full lifecycle costs which are annualised and expressed on a per-household or per-user basis.

The key question in any infrastructure investment is the total level of financial liability that the planned investment is likely to generate compared to total sources of income (which are limited to tariffs, tax revenue, and transfers from central government or development partners). The liability associated with the proposed investment includes both the costs of capital (the investment, plus the financing costs if any) plus the operational costs over the full lifetime of the project, the lifecycle cost reported by Fonseca et al. (2011). Operational costs for some systems are often excluded from a discussion of the relative costs of different systems – possibly since they are assumed to be covered by households (fees charged by operators who empty onsite pit latrines and tanks are an example). However, we argue that information on the full-cost liability is essential to enable municipal decision-makers to incorporate sanitation investments into municipal budgeting. Full-cost information facilitates the development of plans to sustainably cover all the costs that are associated with the planned investment; in the absence of this full cost information, operational costs are often underestimated or omitted, with resultant underfunding and system failure.

However, the total lifecycle cost is effectively meaningless at the local government level, where budgets are managed on an annual basis. For this reason, it makes the most sense to convert this to an annual liability, covering debt service for capital investment plus the annual operational costs and periodic maintenance requirements.

To enable comparison across various scales of systems, the total number of people directly using the service is used as the denominator. The choice of household or capita for the denominator is challenging – each has merit. Per capita costs are perhaps most useful when looking at national level macro-economic performance, or when comparing expenditure on sanitation against that on say the police force, but some local governments rely on property tax for their revenue, and water and sewerage utilities bill on a household basis. For many decision-makers therefore using the household as a denominator makes the most sense.

In selecting an approach to use in estimating the TACH or TACC for any given system in a given place, there is a trade-off between precision, reliability, and level of detail on the one hand, and availability of data and resources on the other. The focus here is on supporting local decision-makers to make credible plans quickly and cheaply, selecting the best technical options in a given context (Mitlin 2015). This requires costing data that are reliable, comparable, and easy to make locally relevant (Kalbermatten et al. 1982). We rejected analytic estimation on the basis that it has very high information requirement, and consequently high cost, yet remains prone to bias (Flyvbjerg et al. 2018; Love et al. 2019).

Instead, the proposed approach to cost estimation in the CACTUS project is to develop a parametric estimation tool that could generate plausible cost estimates for a range of sanitation technologies and systems in any given context based on the known values of these key parameters.

From earlier reviews, several key contextual parameters have been identified as candidates in determining the relative cost of different sanitation systems. These are scale (size of city and size of the sanitation system); population density; topography; and geographical location (as a proxy for relative costs of inputs such as labour, materials, fuel) (Whittington et al. 2012; Eggimann et al. 2015, 2016b; Eggimann 2016; Daudey 2017; Ika & Donnelly 2017; Hernández-Chover et al. 2018).

Having identified a set of candidate parameters for cost estimation purposes, the next task is to assemble a reliable database which could be used to develop the heuristics needed for the estimation approach to work. As already mentioned, data are scarce. Consequently, an important element of our work is the collection of new data on which to base our estimations.

Some specific challenges arise, however, in the collection and organisation of urban sanitation cost data. Urban sanitation services are provided by a compound of capital-intensive infrastructure, operational management, and ongoing interventions, including capacity building, advocacy, and other promotional activities all of which happen along the sanitation ‘value chain’. With the exception of fully operational sewered networks, very few urban sanitation chains are operated by a single operator ‘end to end’, and many sanitation systems are not fully functional. Cost data reported by operators are often therefore only a partial representation of the real costs of delivery of safely managed sanitation. To address these challenges, we set out to build a database of cost information that could be used to estimate the full costs of service delivery for the entire value chain. To achieve this, we developed an NBPRA for sanitation.

The NBPRA facilitates the collection and collation of data in a consistent format from operators who are delivering ongoing sanitation services. Cases are selected from a broad range of contexts (covering a wide range of parameters) and a range of different sanitation technologies and approaches.

The approach is standardised and based on four main pillars, namely (1) technological homogeneity, (2) acceptable service, (3) basic costing assumption, and (4) the reference business model. Cost data are then normalised to comparable currency equivalent values, annualised, and divided by the household/people served, so they can be reported as TACH/TACC.

### Technological homogeneity

The NBPRA is exclusively concerned with a subset of ‘safely managed’ sanitation as defined by the Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply, Sanitation, and Hygiene (JMP), namely systems which guarantee that households use ‘an improved type of sanitation facility that is not shared with other households and the excreta …. [is] transported and treated off-site.’ (UNICEF & WHO 2019). In reality, many systems that use appropriate technologies are incomplete, for example, faecal sludge which is transported but then dumped in the environment (Peal et al. 2020). The NBPRA is designed to accommodate empirical data collected from projects and programs that only deliver partial services (toilets connected to septic tanks, for example, or an emptying service). Cost estimates generated for these partial sanitation systems can be added together to generate cost estimates for complete sanitation systems. To enable this summing, partial service types need to be clustered into meaningful technology categories which are internally consistent, externally comparable in technological terms, and amenable to interpretation by both sanitation experts and the wider community of decision-makers.

The NBPRA, therefore, uses a set of standard ‘components’ definitions, each of which maps to a single ‘element’ of the sanitation value chain (containment, emptying, transport, treatment, etc.). The ‘components’ were selected to reflect the most common technological approaches to deliver networked (urban) sanitation. Components are based on Tilley et al. (2014) but have been bundled somewhat to reduce complexity and facilitate a meaningful comparison on a cost basis. We use general terminology, recognising that specific local terms are often used but that these often have different meanings in different locations (for example, despite the existence of a globally recognised technical definition, the terms ‘septic tank’ and ‘pit latrine’ often have a different precise connotation in different places and we therefore avoid their use here).

For wastewater systems, we assume that the main technological driver of the cost relates to the nature of the sewer network specifically;

• Conventional versus simplified networks;

• Combined versus separate networks;

• Pumped versus gravity-dependent networks.

Combining these options leaves a set of eight component types for emptying and transport in wastewater based systems (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

Components of a sanitation system for use in CACTUS cost estimation, distinguishing between systems that predominantly rely on pipes to transport excreta in the form of wastewater, and all other systems which are often loosely categorised as faecal sludge management (FSM)-based systems.

Figure 1

Components of a sanitation system for use in CACTUS cost estimation, distinguishing between systems that predominantly rely on pipes to transport excreta in the form of wastewater, and all other systems which are often loosely categorised as faecal sludge management (FSM)-based systems.

Close modal

For systems which rely on pits or tanks (often referred to as ‘onsite’ or FSM systems) and container-based systems, we differentiate four main types of component at the containment (household) end of the sanitation value chain (sealed tank with an infiltration structure, sealed tank without an infiltration structure, infiltrating pit, and container for container-based systems). Moving excreta from these systems can either take place in two steps (emptying plus transport) or in a single operation (typically where a single truck is used to empty the tank and transport the contents away to treatment). In either case, we make a distinction between manual powered systems and externally powered systems (Figure 1).

For treatment, we have distinguished between aerated and anaerobic systems for both wastewater and faecal sludge, and in the case of wastewater, we further distinguish between passive and powered aeration. A summary of the 27 final component types is shown in Figure 1.

### Acceptable service

Many otherwise ‘appropriate’ sanitation systems fail due to underfunding, for example, sewer systems that leak due to low maintenance (Peal et al. 2020). These funding gaps can be identified and filled, when sufficient empirical data are available, through modelling, to give a clear idea of the full costs of the system if it were to be properly operated and maintained.

Clearly, there are variations in the ‘level of service’ provided by different sanitation systems – private, shared, community, and public toilets offer a wide range of levels of amenity to users (Evans et al. 2017); different treatment options will perform differently in terms of efficiency (Choudhury & Saha 2017; Lutterbeck et al. 2017), environmental impact, embodied energy waste recovery (Cornejo et al. 2013), resilience (Luh et al. 2017), and sustainability (Zurbrügg et al. 2014).

These aspects of the sanitation system performance are important. However, rather than internalising them resulting in greater complexity and less transparency, the NBPRA explicitly excludes them. The aim is to generate reliable comprehensive cost estimates for systems that deliver ‘safely managed sanitation’ to which decision-makers may choose to add other performance criteria when making real-world technology selections.

### Basic costing assumption

The NBPRA is a full-costing approach (Arnaboldi et al. 2014), generating cost data which can subsequently be used for capital budgeting. and focused on the financial cost (Roman et al. 2012; Arnaboldi et al. 2014). Data are reported in terms of the ‘industrial cost’, i.e. the full cost of sanitation service consisting of both the direct and indirect cost of building and operating sanitation infrastructure, plus administrative charges, the cost of financing, and taxation.

The costs associated with any component are categorised using a standard proforma to facilitate both data collection (acting as a checklist for enumerators), data verification, and modelling of incomplete data (for example, where an operator cannot or will not report the cost of land, or where taxes and fees are not paid). Cost categories used within the NBPRA are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Standard CACTUS framework for reporting costs of urban sanitation

Cost voiceExamples
Capital costs – CAPEX
Land Land purchase
Infrastructure and building equipment Buildings, fixed plant purchase
Equipment Plant and vehicle purchase
Staff development Vaccinations, one off training
Major and extraordinary repairs
Other CAPEX
Financing
Taxes
Operational costs – OPEX
Land Land rental
Infrastructure and building equipment Leasing costs for buildings and fixed plant
Equipment Leasing costs, operational costs
Staffing Salaries, pensions, health insurance
Consumables
• -

Utilities

• -

Fuel

• -

Chemicals

• -

Services

• -

Other

Services includes: Consulting/advisory, Legal, Insurance, Regular Maintenance, other
Other OPEX
Financing
Taxes
Cost voiceExamples
Capital costs – CAPEX
Land Land purchase
Infrastructure and building equipment Buildings, fixed plant purchase
Equipment Plant and vehicle purchase
Staff development Vaccinations, one off training
Major and extraordinary repairs
Other CAPEX
Financing
Taxes
Operational costs – OPEX
Land Land rental
Infrastructure and building equipment Leasing costs for buildings and fixed plant
Equipment Leasing costs, operational costs
Staffing Salaries, pensions, health insurance
Consumables
• -

Utilities

• -

Fuel

• -

Chemicals

• -

Services

• -

Other

Services includes: Consulting/advisory, Legal, Insurance, Regular Maintenance, other
Other OPEX
Financing
Taxes

Sanitation services can be provided via a wide range of business models with varying degrees of centralisation, and aggregation along the value chain. Because of this complexity, there is a challenge in reporting on the basis of a standardised unit of analysis consistent in regard to (1) number and types of transactions, (2) ownership structure, and (3) organisational structure (Williamson 1979, 1981). Variations in these characteristics introduce distortions in the reporting of empirical data jeopardising their reliability and the ability to create a consistent sample of cost benchmarks.

To overcome this challenge, the NBPRA assumes:

• 1.

There is a ‘virtual’ organisation responsible for operating the entire sanitation system herein called the unique operator;

• 2.

The unique operator owns all the sanitation infrastructure. The operator finances the sanitation infrastructure and borrows all or part of the capital on the financial market at market value;

• 3.

The unique operator buys (at market value) all the factors of production that are necessary to generate sanitation services across the entire sanitation value chain;

• 4.

The unique operator hires and manages all necessary labour (direct and indirect) for generating the sanitation services across the entire sanitation value chain.

These principles introduce an archetypical business model that never materialises in real life but enables the cost data that are collected to be used to generate costs for a range of complete sanitation systems which are applicable irrespective of the actual business model context.

A key outcome of this approach is that revenue streams and transfers between operators of different elements of the sanitation system (for example, payment by a truck operator when dumping at a treatment plant) are excluded. They are exogenous to the actual costs of implementing the safely managed sanitation service and do not correspond to any industrial activity for the generation of the sanitation service.

As an example, taking a typical FSM system based on sealed tanks at household level, the following ‘industrial’ costs are included:

• 1.

The cost of the sanitation infrastructure which includes the household toilet and the associated substructure (in this case a sealed tank), emptying and conveyance equipment (e.g. vacuum tank), transfer station (if any), and a treatment plant. These include the cost of financing infrastructure (e.g. the interests and fees paid to financial institutions for the construction and operation of sanitation infrastructure). This cost is part of the CAPEX;

• 2.

The direct cost of operating the sanitation infrastructure, including the input supplies (e.g. fuel for the vacuum truck), consumables and wages (e.g. the labour required to clean and maintain the toilet, emptying the containment technologies, drive the vacuum truck, and discharge and treat the faecal sludge). This cost is part of the OPEX;

• 3.

The cost of indirect facilities (e.g. office space, parking lot, etc.) and equipment (e.g. phones, computers) employed by the unique operator to run the sanitation system. This cost is part of the CAPEX;

• 4.

The indirect cost of running the sanitation system, including annual expense on marketing and administration, licenses, public concession for the sanitation service, etc. This cost is part of the OPEX.

### Normalisation process

In CACTUS, empirical data are collected from a wide variety of locations, for sanitation systems that have varying life expectancy and technical characteristics. To facilitate the parametric cost estimation in the future, these costs are converted to a standard reporting year and currency and annualised, to generate a comparable annual cost liability in each case.

Currency conversion generates costs in terms of International $2018 (Int$ 2018), based on the Consumer Price Index using Purchasing Power Parity (Rao 2001; Lakner et al. 2018). Conversion factors are based on the World Bank Database (World Bank 2020).

Annualisation is applied in line with Stewart et al. (1995). The cost is expressed as the Equivalent Annual Cost (EAC) of owning, operating, and maintaining the sanitation system (or sub-system) over its entire lifecycle. In other words, it is the annual expenditure needed to cover the servicing of capital debt required to construct and maintain the system plus the annual operational budget.

The EAC is calculated, as shown in Equation (1).
(1)
where:
• COSTt = are the costs incurred during the lifecycle (i.e. T) associated with the data point considered.

• T = represents the longest lifecycle associated with the data point considered, and it is calculated in years. T corresponds to the longest lifetime of the infrastructures associated with the data point;

• kr = real interest rate, which is calculated using the following formula (Equation (2))
(2)
where
• kn = nominal interest rate, assumed 5% as the social discount rate.

• s = annual inflation in the country considered.

In calculating the EAC, most capital expenditures are considered as one-off expenses at time zero, except major and extraordinary repairs, which are considered cyclical with a period longer than one year. Operational expenditures are always expressed on an annual basis and are assumed fixed during the period T.

### Generation of TACH and TACC estimates

TACH/TACC is calculated by dividing the EAC by the estimated number of households or people served. To aid interpretation, EAC can be calculated for CAPEX and OPEX jointly or separately. This may be useful where capital liability is carried by a different government entity than operational liability for example. The reporting unit is International $(2018) per household per year, or per person per year. The NBPRA has been tested in 25 cities in 10 countries, collecting data on 87 individual sanitation components. A summary of the data collected and processed to date is shown in Table 2. Table 2 Cost per household for sanitation components based on empirical and secondary data sources ElementComponentTotal annualised cost per household (TACH) (Int$ 2018)
Annualised CAPEX per household (Int$2018) Annual OPEX per household (Int$ 2018)
nMedianMeanMinMaxnMedianMeanMinMaxnMedianMeanMinMax
Wastewater Containment Direct 362 362 362 362 94 103 34 233 130 130 130 130
Emptying and transport Pipes – conventional, separate, with pumping 195 395 107 832 164 296 60 668 61 99 31 195
Pipes – conventional, separate, no pumping – No data 704 704 704 704 – No data
Pipes – conventional, combined, with pumping 287 294 93 515 265 263 75 473 37 31 17 42
Pipes – conventional, combined, no pumping – No data – No data – No data
Pipes – simplified, separate, with pumping – – –
Pipes – simplified, separate, no pumping – – –
Pipes – simplified, combined, with pumping – – –
Pipes – simplified, combined, no pumping – – –
Treatment Passive aerobic waste water 28 53 11 148 8 64 282 10 21 80
Machine-powered aerobic waste water 15 134 159 58 315 15 99 106 21 239 15 54 54 131
Anaerobic waste water – No data – No data – No data
Faecal Sludge Management (FSM) Containment Sealed tank (with infiltration structure) – No data – No data – No data
Sealed tank (without infiltration structure) 87 84 67 97 39 52 165 28 34 26 49
Infiltrating pit 63 95 30 223 63 95 30 223 4a 0
Container 115 115 106 123 47 47 34 61 67 67 62 72
Emptying Manual (no specialised equipment) 82 82 48 116 2b 4 78 78 48 107
Human-powered with specialised equipment 25 25 23 27 0 25 25 22 27
Machine powered – No data – No data – No data
Emptying and transport Wheels – human-powered 136 136 109 163 2 134 134 108 160
Wheels – machine-powered 11 28 29 83 11 5 32 13 13 19 51
Wheels – human- and/or machine-powered with transfer station 83 83 83 83 1 82 82 82 82
Transport Wheels – human-powered (transport only) – No data – No data – No data
Wheels – machine-powered (transport only) 26 26 26 26 8 17 17 17 17
Wheels – human- and/or machine-powered with transfer station (transport only) 1 1 1
Treatment Aerobic FSM 17 36 103 5 25 9 23 94
Anaerobic FSM 44 47 11 87 21 31 69 17 16 23
ElementComponentTotal annualised cost per household (TACH) (Int$2018) Annualised CAPEX per household (Int$ 2018)
Annual OPEX per household (Int$2018) nMedianMeanMinMaxnMedianMeanMinMaxnMedianMeanMinMax Wastewater Containment Direct 362 362 362 362 94 103 34 233 130 130 130 130 Emptying and transport Pipes – conventional, separate, with pumping 195 395 107 832 164 296 60 668 61 99 31 195 Pipes – conventional, separate, no pumping – No data 704 704 704 704 – No data Pipes – conventional, combined, with pumping 287 294 93 515 265 263 75 473 37 31 17 42 Pipes – conventional, combined, no pumping – No data – No data – No data Pipes – simplified, separate, with pumping – – – Pipes – simplified, separate, no pumping – – – Pipes – simplified, combined, with pumping – – – Pipes – simplified, combined, no pumping – – – Treatment Passive aerobic waste water 28 53 11 148 8 64 282 10 21 80 Machine-powered aerobic waste water 15 134 159 58 315 15 99 106 21 239 15 54 54 131 Anaerobic waste water – No data – No data – No data Faecal Sludge Management (FSM) Containment Sealed tank (with infiltration structure) – No data – No data – No data Sealed tank (without infiltration structure) 87 84 67 97 39 52 165 28 34 26 49 Infiltrating pit 63 95 30 223 63 95 30 223 4a 0 Container 115 115 106 123 47 47 34 61 67 67 62 72 Emptying Manual (no specialised equipment) 82 82 48 116 2b 4 78 78 48 107 Human-powered with specialised equipment 25 25 23 27 0 25 25 22 27 Machine powered – No data – No data – No data Emptying and transport Wheels – human-powered 136 136 109 163 2 134 134 108 160 Wheels – machine-powered 11 28 29 83 11 5 32 13 13 19 51 Wheels – human- and/or machine-powered with transfer station 83 83 83 83 1 82 82 82 82 Transport Wheels – human-powered (transport only) – No data – No data – No data Wheels – machine-powered (transport only) 26 26 26 26 8 17 17 17 17 Wheels – human- and/or machine-powered with transfer station (transport only) 1 1 1 Treatment Aerobic FSM 17 36 103 5 25 9 23 94 Anaerobic FSM 44 47 11 87 21 31 69 17 16 23 aFor all data points for ‘infiltrating pits’, OPEX is reported or assumed to be zero. bOne data point of ‘manual (no specialised equipment)’ is reported to be zero. ### What the preliminary results mean Typical cost liabilities of full sanitation systems of a particular type can be assessed from CACTUS data by summing indicative costs of a set of relevant components (to account for containment, emptying, transport, and treatment). To demonstrate how these can be constructed, examples of estimated cost ranges for synthetic sanitation systems are shown in Table 3. Median data are preferred to means due to the heavy skewing that can result from a single outlying data point. Further break downs of the data are possible – for example, in Table 3, we also show selected data for onsite systems in Africa. Estimates of TACH for complete systems have high levels of uncertainty at this stage in the process due to the small sample sizes and clustering of case studies. The data come from 25 cities, representing only a small sample of the conditions under which urban sanitation systems are implemented. Table 3 Synthesised cost range estimates from the CACTUS database, for example, archetypal sanitation systems with no parameterisation Archetypal sanitation systemTotal annualised cost per household by system element and for whole system (Int$ 2018)
Median (Minimum–maximum)
ContainmentEmptyingTransportTreatmentWhole System
Container-based sanitation, with mechanised emptying and transfer stations, with composting (aerobic treatment) Container
n = 2
Wheels – human and/or machine powered with transfer stationa
n = 1
Aerobic FSM
n = 5

115 (106–123) 83 (83–83) 17 (0–103) 215 (189–309)
Onsite ‘septic’ tanks, mechanised emptying and transport with anaerobic treatment Sealed tank without infiltration structure
n = 3
Wheels – machine powered
n = 11
Anaerobic FSM
n = 3

87 (67–97) 28 (3–83) 44 (11–87) 159 (81–267)
Onsite ‘septic’ tanks, mechanised emptying and transport with anaerobic treatment (Africa only) Sealed tank without infiltration structure
n = 3
Wheels – machine powered
n = 3
Anaerobic FSMa
n = 1

87 (67–97) 30 (28–83) 11 (11–11) 128 (106–191)
Sewerage, conventional, combined, pumped, with activated sludge treatment Directa
n = 1
Pipes – conventional, combined, with pumping
n = 7
Machine-powered aerobic waste water
n = 15

362 (362–362) 287 (93–515) 134 (58–315) 783 (513–1,192)
Archetypal sanitation systemTotal annualised cost per household by system element and for whole system (Int\$ 2018)
Median (Minimum–maximum)
ContainmentEmptyingTransportTreatmentWhole System
Container-based sanitation, with mechanised emptying and transfer stations, with composting (aerobic treatment) Container
n = 2
Wheels – human and/or machine powered with transfer stationa
n = 1
Aerobic FSM
n = 5

115 (106–123) 83 (83–83) 17 (0–103) 215 (189–309)
Onsite ‘septic’ tanks, mechanised emptying and transport with anaerobic treatment Sealed tank without infiltration structure
n = 3
Wheels – machine powered
n = 11
Anaerobic FSM
n = 3

87 (67–97) 28 (3–83) 44 (11–87) 159 (81–267)
Onsite ‘septic’ tanks, mechanised emptying and transport with anaerobic treatment (Africa only) Sealed tank without infiltration structure
n = 3
Wheels – machine powered
n = 3
Anaerobic FSMa
n = 1

87 (67–97) 30 (28–83) 11 (11–11) 128 (106–191)
Sewerage, conventional, combined, pumped, with activated sludge treatment Directa
n = 1
Pipes – conventional, combined, with pumping
n = 7
Machine-powered aerobic waste water
n = 15

362 (362–362) 287 (93–515) 134 (58–315) 783 (513–1,192)

an = 1 data have very high uncertainty and cannot be cross checked.

As might be expected, TACH for the sewerage system shown in Table 3 is significantly higher than TACH for container-based or onsite sanitation systems. However, in Figure 2, we present the data sorted by country, and showing both total costs and CAPEX/OPEX cost breakdown, all annualised on a per household basis. While sewered sanitation systems are often said to be ‘more expensive’ than FSM-based systems, a closer inspection of the data suggest that the situation may be more complex. For example, the operational liabilities of sewers may sometimes be lower than those for road-based transportation of faecal sludge under some conditions (see Figure 2(b)). Returning to Table 2, it is also possible to see that TACH for container-based systems is dominated by operational costs whereas onsite systems and sewers have a much higher CAPEX dependency. In all these cases, care is necessary because of the aforementioned clustering of data points.

Figure 2

(a) Total annualised cost per household for sanitation components based on empirical and secondary data in the CACTUS database (n = 71). (b) Annualised CAPEX per household for sanitation components based on empirical and secondary data in the CACTUS database (n = 83). (c) Annual OPEX per household for sanitation components based on empirical and secondary data in the CACTUS database (n = 75).

Figure 2

(a) Total annualised cost per household for sanitation components based on empirical and secondary data in the CACTUS database (n = 71). (b) Annualised CAPEX per household for sanitation components based on empirical and secondary data in the CACTUS database (n = 83). (c) Annual OPEX per household for sanitation components based on empirical and secondary data in the CACTUS database (n = 75).

Close modal

### Candidate cost drivers for parametric estimation

Figure 2 shows that for some systems, TACH clusters by country (see, for example, that the data for mechanised aerobic treatment of wastewater are higher in the China cases than in the other three countries for which data points are reported). A much larger dataset will be required to properly understand the combination of factors which drive differing cost performance in each case. While the geographical location is likely to be one driver (as it will determine for example the relative costs of materials, fuel, and labour) other factors, including the scale of the system, population density, and topography are also highly likely to drive costs variation. A significant increase in the data held in the CACTUS database is needed in order to fully interrogate the cost drivers.

### Reflections on data collection

Figure 2 shows wide cost ranges for many of the components for which data have been collected. The NBPRA approach has proved robust at driving the collection of reasonably complete empirical data on costs, although many operators are unable to fully report on their cost liabilities. For older systems, there is often a lack of data on capital costs, and for newer systems, a lack of data on operational costs. In addition, many operators are not aware of certain implicit subsidies (for example, non-payment of electricity bills issued by national energy-generating organisations). However, the standardised data collection approach has shown promise in helping to drive up the quality of data that is collected. In addition, as the dataset grows, it would become possible to correct for omitted data (for example, by understanding typical cost distributions for particular systems under particular conditions). This type of correction may result in more accurate, clustered estimates of TACH for particular contexts.

Compared to other infrastructure sectors, there is a dearth of reliable, internationally comparable cost data for urban sanitation. Sanitation scholars have used both ball-park and analytical cost estimation approaches, and there have been some localised or specific efforts to generate models for parametric estimation. In the absence of reliable global data, the full costs of sustainable implementation or urban sanitation are being systematically underestimated (Flyvbjerg 2008).

This research considers the lessons learned in other sectors in addressing similar costing challenges and proposes a strategy for developing bespoke parametric cost estimation models to favour easy and reliable cost estimation, for alternative sanitation technologies, in a range of contexts. Two key requirements of such an approach are the development of standard costing metrics and the development of a large and coherent empirical dataset of sanitation technology cost estimates selected from a range of geographical context and sanitation technologies.

The main contribution to knowledge to date comprises the proposition of the TACH – TACH – and per capita – TACC, costing metrics, which are foundational to CACTUS. The preliminary data collection, based on a standardised approach known as NBPRA, has generated an empirical data set which is larger than any that we have so far been able to find but not yet large enough to form the basis of a reliable global parametric approach to cost estimation.

Further work is proposed to increase the data contained in the CACTUS database and start to develop heuristics to understand how key cost drivers interact to determine the relative costs of different sanitation systems in a range of contexts. The CACTUS database is intended to become a public repository for empirical sanitation cost data which will facilitate future planning.

This paper would not have been possible without the exceptional support of Anna Sevillano Evans (annasevillano98@gmail.com) in development tables and figures, and Ruthie Rosenberg (ruthie.rosenberg@saner.gy) in classifying alternative sanitation components.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

AACE
2019
Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied in Engineering, Procurement and Construction for the Process Industries (International Recommended Practice No. No. 18R-97)
.
Ansar
A.
Flyvbjerg
B.
Budzier
A.
Lunn
D.
2014
Should we build more large dams? The actual costs of hydropower megaproject development
.
Energy Policy
69
,
43
56
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.069
.
Arnaboldi
M.
Azzone
G.
Giorgino
M.
2014
Performance Measurement and Management for Engineers
.
.
Barakchi
M.
Torp
O.
Belay
A. M.
2017
Cost estimation methods for transport infrastructure: a systematic literature review
. In
Procedia Engineering, Creative Construction Conference 2017, CCC 2017
,
19–22 June 2017
,
Primosten, Croatia
. Vol.
196
, pp.
270
277
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.199.
Burr
P.
Fonseca
C.
2011
Applying the Life-Cycle Costs Approach to Sanitation
.
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
,
The Hague
,
Netherlands
.
WASH COST Briefing Note 3
.
Burr
P.
Fonseca
C.
2012
Applying the Life-Cycle Costs Approach to Water: Costs and Service Levels in Andhra Pradesh (India), Burkina Faso, Ghana and Mozambique
.
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
,
La Haye
.
Choudhury
S.
Saha
A. K.
2017
Prediction of operation efficiency of water treatment plant with the help of multi-criteria decision-making
.
Water Conservation Science and Engineering
1
12
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41101-017-0034-2
.
Cornejo
P. K.
Zhang
Q.
Mihelcic
J. R.
2013
Quantifying benefits of resource recovery from sanitation provision in a developing world setting
.
Journal of Environmental Management
131
,
7
15
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.09.043
.
Crocker
J.
Saywell
D.
Shields
K. F.
Kolsky
P.
Bartram
J.
2017
The true costs of participatory sanitation: evidence from community-led total sanitation studies in Ghana and Ethiopia
.
Science of the Total Environment
601–602
,
1075
1083
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.279
.
Cronin
A. A.
Ohikata
M.
Kumar
M.
2014
Social and economic cost-benefit analysis of sanitation in Odisha State, India
.
Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development
4
,
521
531
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2014.150
.
Daudey
L.
2017
The cost of urban sanitation solutions: a literature review
.
Journal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development
.
washdev2017058. https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2017.058.
De Roo
G.
Parsons
J. E.
2011
A methodology for calculating the levelized cost of electricity in nuclear power systems with fuel recycling
.
Energy Economics
33
,
826
839
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2011.01.008
.
De Schepper
S.
Haezendonck
E.
Dooms
M.
2015
Understanding pre-contractual transaction costs for public–private partnership infrastructure projects
.
International Journal of Project Management
33
,
932
946
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.10.015
.
Eggimann
S.
2016
The Optimal Degree of Centralisation for Wastewater Infrastructures. A Model-Based Geospatial Economic Analysis
(Doctoral Thesis)
.
ETH Zurich
.
https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-010811248
Eggimann
S.
Truffer
B.
Maurer
M.
2015
To connect or not to connect? Modelling the optimal degree of centralisation for wastewater infrastructures
.
Water Research
84
,
218
231
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.07.004
.
Eggimann
S.
Truffer
B.
Maurer
M.
2016a
The cost of hybrid waste water systems: a systematic framework for specifying minimum cost-connection rates
.
Water Research
103
,
472
484
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.07.062
.
Eggimann
S.
Truffer
B.
Maurer
M.
2016b
Economies of density for on-site waste water treatment
.
Water Research
101
,
476
489
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.06.011
.
Eggimann
S.
Mutzner
L.
Wani
O.
Schneider
M. Y.
Spuhler
D.
Moy de Vitry
M.
Beutler
P.
Maurer
M.
2017
The potential of knowing more: a review of data-driven urban water management
.
Environmental Science & Technology
51
,
2538
2553
.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04267
.
Eliasson
J.
Fosgerau
M.
2013
Cost overruns and demand shortfalls – deception or selection?
Transportation Research Part B: Methodological
57
,
105
113
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2013.09.005
.
Evans
B.
1995
Institutional Incentives and the Provision of Urban Sanitation: Can the Community Increase the Chances of Success?
Evans
B.
Mara
D. D.
2011
Sanitation & Water Supply in Low-Income Countries
.
Bookboon
.
Evans
B.
Voorden
C.
Peal
A.
2009
Public Funding for Sanitation, the Many Faces of Sanitation Subsidies, Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council
.
Oxford Publications
,
London
.
Evans
B.
Hueso
A.
Johnston
R.
Norman
G.
Pérez
E.
Slaymaker
T.
Trémolet
S.
2017
Limited services? The role of shared sanitation in the 2030 agenda for sustainable development
.
Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development
7
,
349
351
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2017.023
.
Flyvbjerg
B.
2008
Curbing optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation in planning: reference class forecasting in practice
.
European Planning Studies
16
,
3
21
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310701747936
.
Flyvbjerg
B.
Ansar
A.
Budzier
A.
Buhl
S.
Cantarelli
C.
Garbuio
M.
Glenting
C.
Holm
M. S.
Lovallo
D.
Lunn
D.
Molin
E.
Rønnest
A.
Stewart
A.
van Wee
B.
2018
Five things you should know about cost overrun
.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice
118
,
174
190
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.07.013
.
Fonseca
C.
Dubé
A.
Verhoeven
J.
2011
Cost-based Decision Support Tools for Water and Sanitation
.
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
,
The Hague
,
The Netherlands
.
Gatti
S.
2018
Project Finance in Theory and Practice: Designing, Structuring, and Financing Private and Public Projects
, 3rd edn.
Geissmann
T.
Ponta
O.
2017
A probabilistic approach to the computation of the levelized cost of electricity
.
Energy
124
,
372
381
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.078
.
Hernández-Chover
V.
Bellver-Domingo
Á.
Hernández-Sancho
F.
2018
Efficiency of wastewater treatment facilities: the influence of scale economies
.
Journal of Environmental Management
228
,
77
84
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.014
.
Hughes
W.
Champion
R.
Murdoch
J.
2015
Construction Contracts: Law and Management
, 5th edn.
Routledge
,
Abingdon
.
Hutton
G.
2013
Global costs and benefits of reaching universal coverage of sanitation and drinking-water supply
.
Journal of Water and Health
11
,
1
12
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2012.105
.
Hutton
G.
Bartram
J.
2008
Regional and Global Costs of Attaining the Water Supply and Sanitation Target (Target 10) of the Millennium Development Goals
.
World Health Organization
,
Geneva
.
Hutton
G.
Haller
L.
2004
Evaluation of the Costs and Benefits of Water and Sanitation Improvements at the Global Level
.
World Health Organization
,
Geneva
.
Hutton
G.
Rodriguez
U.-P.
Winara
A.
Anh
N. V.
Phyrum
K.
Chuan
L.
Blackett
I.
Weitz
A.
2014
Economic efficiency of sanitation interventions in Southeast Asia
.
Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development
4
,
23
36
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2013.158
.
Ika
L. A.
Donnelly
J.
2017
Success conditions for international development capacity building projects
.
International Journal of Project Management
35
,
44
63
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.10.005
.
Ika
L. A.
Diallo
A.
Thuillier
D.
2012
Critical success factors for World Bank projects: an empirical investigation
.
International Journal of Project Management
30
,
105
116
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.03.005
.
International Water Association
2014
Human Resource Capacity Gaps Study [WWW Document]
.
International Water Association
. .
Kalbermatten
J. M.
Julius
D. S.
Gunnerson
C. G.
Mara
D. D.
1982
Appropriate Sanitation Alternatives: A Planning and Design Manual, World Bank Studies in Water Supply and Sanitation
.
Published for the World Bank [by] the Johns Hopkins University Press
,
Baltimore
.
Ketema
A. A.
Langergraber
G.
2016
Statistical validation of the CLARA simplified planning tool
.
Water Science and Technology: Water Supply
16
,
193
201
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2015.125
.
Ketema
A. A.
Lechner
M.
Tilahun
S. A.
Langergraber
G.
2015
Development of cost functions for water supply and sanitation technologies: case study of Bahir Dar and Arba Minch, Ethiopia
.
Journal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development
5
,
502
511
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2015.067
.
Kim
G.-H.
An
S.-H.
Kang
K.-I.
2004
Comparison of construction cost estimating models based on regression analysis, neural networks, and case-based reasoning
.
Building and Environment
39
,
1235
1242
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.02.013
.
Lai
C. S.
McCulloch
M. D.
2017
Levelized cost of electricity for solar photovoltaic and electrical energy storage
.
Applied Energy
190
,
191
203
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.153
.
Lakner
C.
Mahler
D. G.
Nguyen
M. C.
Azevedo
J. P.
Chen
S.
Jolliffe
D.
Prydz
E. B.
Sangraula
P.
2018
Consumer Price Indices Used in Global Poverty Measurement
.
Global Poverty Monitoring Technical Note
.
Locatelli
G.
2018
Why are Megaprojects, Including Nuclear Power Plants, Delivered Overbudget and Late? Reasons and Remedies
.
Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems (CANES), Massachusetts Institute of Technology
.
Locatelli
G.
Mariani
G.
Sainati
T.
Greco
M.
2017
Corruption in public projects and megaprojects: there is an elephant in the room!
International Journal of Project Management
35
,
252
268
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.09.010
.
Loetscher
T.
Keller
J.
2018
Estimating the Financial Costs of Sanitation Systems
.
Loutatidou
S.
Chalermthai
B.
Marpu
P. R.
Arafat
H. A.
2014
Capital cost estimation of RO plants: GCC countries versus southern Europe
.
Desalination
347
,
103
111
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.05.033
.
Love
P. E. D.
Ahiaga-Dagbui
D. D.
Irani
Z.
2016
Cost overruns in transportation infrastructure projects: sowing the seeds for a probabilistic theory of causation
.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice
92
,
184
194
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.08.007
.
Love
P. E. D.
Sing
M. C. P.
Ika
L. A.
Newton
S.
2019
The cost performance of transportation projects: the fallacy of the Planning Fallacy account
.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice
122
,
1
20
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.02.004
.
Luh
J.
Royster
S.
Sebastian
D.
Ojomo
E.
Bartram
J.
2017
Expert assessment of the resilience of drinking water and sanitation systems to climate-related hazards
.
Science of The Total Environment
592
,
334
344
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.084
.
Lutterbeck
C. A.
Kist
L. T.
Lopez
D. R.
Zerwes
F. V.
Ê. L
.
2017
Life cycle assessment of integrated wastewater treatment systems with constructed wetlands in rural areas
.
Journal of Cleaner Production
148
,
527
536
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.024
.
Mara
D.
1996
Low-Cost Sewerage
.
John Wiley
.
Mara
D.
Evans
B.
2018
The sanitation and hygiene targets of the sustainable development goals: scope and challenges
.
Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development
8
,
1
16
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2017.048
.
Mara
D. D.
Guimarães
A. S. P.
1999
Simplified sewerage: potential applicability in industrialized countries
.
Urban Water
1
,
257
259
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1462-0758(99)00015-1
.
McIntyre
P.
Casella
D.
Fonseca
C.
Burr
P.
2014
Priceless!: Uncovering the Real Costs of Water and Sanitation
.
IRC
.
Merrow
E. W.
2011
Industrial Megaprojects: Concepts, Strategies, and Practices for Success
, 1 edn.
John Wiley & Sons
,
Hoboke, NJ
.
Mislick
G. K.
Nussbaum
D. A.
2015
Cost Estimation: Methods and Tools
.
John Wiley & Sons
.
Mitlin
D.
2015
Will urban sanitation ‘leave no one behind’?
Environment and Urbanization
27
,
365
370
.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247815604527
.
Müllegger
E.
Langergraber
G.
Lechner
M.
2014
Issue 19 -The CLARA Project
.
Sustainable Sanitation Practice
.
OECD
2007
Cost estimating guidelines for generation iv nuclear energy systems
. In
The Economic Modeling Working Group Of the Generation IV International Forum
.
Peal
A.
Evans
B.
Ahilan
S.
Ban
R.
Blackett
I.
Hawkins
P.
Schoebitz
L.
Scott
R.
Sleigh
A.
Strande
L.
Veses Roda
O.
2020
.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.00001
.
Perard
E.
2018
Economic and financial aspects of the sanitation challenge: a practitioner approach
.
Utilities Policy
52
,
22
26
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2018.03.007
.
Rao
D. P.
2001
Integration of CPI and PPP: Methodological Issues, Feasibility and Recommendations
.
Joint World Bank–OECD Seminar on PPPs
.
Roman
W.
Weil
J. F.
Schipper
K.
2012
Financial Accounting: An Introduction to Concepts, Methods and Uses
, 14th edn.
Cengage Learning
.
Ross
I.
Scott
R.
Mujica
A.
White
Z.
Smith
M.
2016
Fecal Sludge Management: Diagnostics for Service Delivery in Urban Areas – Tools and Guidelines (Water and Sanitation Program Technical Paper), Water and Sanitation Program (WSP)
.
World Bank Group
,
Washington, DC
.
Ruiters
C.
Matji
M. P.
2017
Funding and financing for wastewater and sanitation infrastructure in South Africa: pricing, tariffs and operational efficiency
. In
Infrastructure Investments: Politics, Barriers and Economic Consequences
. pp.
183
215
.
Sinnatamby
G. S.
Mara
D. D.
McGarry
M. G.
1986
Shallow systems offer hope to slums
.
World Water
9
,
39
41
.
Stewart
R. D.
Wyskida
R. M.
Johannes
J. D.
1995
Cost Estimator's Reference Manual
.
John Wiley & Sons
,
New York
.
Tilley
E.
Ulrich
L.
Lüthi
C.
Reymond
P.
Schertenleib
R.
Zurbrügg
C.
2014
Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies
, 2nd edn.
Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag)
,
Dübendorf
.
UNICEF, WHO
2019
Progress on Household Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene 2000–2017: Special Focus on Inequalities
.
World Health Organization
.
Whittington
D.
Jeuland
M.
Barker
K.
Yuen
Y.
2012
Setting priorities, targeting subsidies among water, sanitation, and preventive health interventions in developing countries
.
World Development
40
,
1546
1568
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.03.004
.
Williamson
O. E.
1979
Transaction-cost economics: the governance of contractual relations
.
The Journal of Law and Economics
22
,
233
261
.
https://doi.org/10.1086/466942
.
Williamson
O. E.
1981
The economics of organization: the transaction cost approach
.
American Journal of Sociology
87
,
548
577
.
https://doi.org/10.1086/227496
.
World Bank
2020
Data Bank Webisete
.
World Health Organization
2012
Global Costs and Benefits of Drinking-Water Supply and Sanitation Interventions to Reach the MDG Target and Universal Coverage (No. WHO/HSE/WSH/12.01)
.
World Health Organization
.
Zurbrügg
C.
Caniato
M.
Vaccari
M.
2014
How assessment methods can support solid waste management in developing countries – a critical review
.
Sustainability
6
,
545
570
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su6020545
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).


text:
It is currently 24 Feb 2018, 20:01

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Advanced GMAT Quant from Manhattan GMAT

Author Message
Founder
Joined: 04 Dec 2002
Posts: 16510
Location: United States (WA)
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42

### Show Tags

24 May 2011, 23:02
15
KUDOS
Expert's post
6
This post was
BOOKMARKED

Finally I have one of the first copies of the Advanced GMAT Quant book in my hands (after pre-ordering it back in October 2010)! I have spent the evening going through it in quite a bit of detail and here are my thoughts:

I got 49 on my quant but at first, I was not very comfortable with questions but as I got to know the book, it is actually very manageable. (and not so intimidating). I am giving it 5 stars for the effort and content; there are weaknesses, but they may not be relevant to you. The book is deisnged for someone who has already covered the 5 MGMAT Math books and/or is scoring above Q44 (70th percentile). That's actually the qualifications outlined on the second page of the book and I strongly agree - do not attempt this book/questions before you have become comfortable with math basics and are at a good level.

Book Overview

The book consists of 9 chapters:
0. Introduction (they even start numbering chapters at zero)[3g, 0e]
1. Problem Solving Principles [4g, 5e]
2. Problem Solving Strategies & Tactics [12g, 14e]
3. Data Sufficiency Principles - this is a very helpful section as DS resources are few and in between [6, 9e]
4. Data Sufficiency Strategy & Tactics [16g, 15e]
5. Pattern Questions (these are progressions/etc)[8g, 15e]
6. Common Terms & Quadratic Templates [5g, 28e]
7. Visul Solutions (Geometry, Statistics, Tables, Charts, etc) [14g, 10e]
8. Hybrid Problems [4g, 10e]
9. Workout Sets (150 GMAT-style questions)

[3g, 0e] stands for 3 GMAT-like questions and 0 exercises
Total GMAT-style questions: 150 in the sets + 72 in the examples
Total exercises: 106

Pros

- Very innovative approach to DS questions (emphasizes consistent approach and involves rephrasing)
- Designed as a class, teaching you through different questions
- Many new (advanced and innovative) strategies for PS and DS
- I like that the PS and DS sections are addressed separately as it is important to distinguish them even though they may cover the same material
- Step by step review of questions in the book as you move along
- Super-detailed explanations
- 150 GMAT-like questions in the back (uncommon for MGMAT since they most often utilize the questions in the OG)

Cons

- Many question types are mixed together (I found it a bit distracting since I am a single-tasker but it may work for you)
- Guessing strategies (this never works for me). I appreciate another, more advanced approach, but I never seem to be able to use them. I just choose to guess and move on
- Some chapters such as #6 are very short (could we have split others perhaps?)
- Some questions are perhaps too hard? (such as the first three that are clearly there to give you a "reality check")
- No listing of additional OG questions to practice with (would be good to revisit them even if they were covered in the other 5 guides)
- In the chapters, the fractions are written in short hand (1/3) - kind of surprising
- No cheat sheets for things to be memorize (I believe one should know squares, primes, etc)

I guess if you are wondering whether it will face the fate of [[ASIN:1419553429 Kaplan GMAT 800]], I would say not quite. Unlike that book, here you will find a number of strategies structured very well in a flow of a book rather than a collection of hard questions.

My Suggestions

- Read explanations to every question. Even if you got a question right, it does not mean, yo solved it correctly (that is you used the correct approach or found all the shortcusts). You will be surpised sometimes and will pick helpful tips even from explanations of questions you got right
- Follow the actual strategies (DUH). You bougth the book because of them. Yes, there are questions, but the value is in the strategies. Don't just take the fish - go for the fishing pole
- IF you are not comfortable with something and the book does not cover it, don't just glance over it and move on - research and investigate. Get the book or someone to explain to you the missing components
- Memorize the common math elements such as primes, squares up till 20. E.g. what is 15*15? or square root of 3 is approximately how much? 2 to the power of 5 is?

This is it so far. I will edit the review as I continue to discover new elements in this book.
Let me know if any questions about the book.
_________________

Founder of GMAT Club

Just starting out with GMAT? Start here... or use our Daily Study Plan

Co-author of the GMAT Club tests

Last edited by bb on 25 May 2011, 22:25, edited 2 times in total.
 Kaplan GMAT Prep Discount Codes Math Revolution Discount Codes Veritas Prep GMAT Discount Codes
Manager
Status: Preparing for GMAT !!!
Joined: 09 Apr 2010
Posts: 124

### Show Tags

25 May 2011, 02:29
Thanks bb, for the detailed review on this book.
_________________

If you like my post, consider giving me Kudos !!

Manager
Joined: 16 Mar 2011
Posts: 167

### Show Tags

25 May 2011, 07:20
Super review, I wish I could start on it but my basic math is still very fragile.. Im not sure what my current level is.. I'll take a mock test to find out.. Hopefully I can start soon with that
Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Posts: 147
Concentration: Strategy, Other

### Show Tags

25 May 2011, 09:05
Thanks for the review bb.

2 questions -

1) Do you think it is necessary to have completed the previous Manhattan GMAT quant books before we pick this one up? Are some strategies revisited or referenced? The reason I ask is because I have never read the other Manhattan GMAT books. I am retaking the GMAT in July and I am currently scoring in the 44-46 range. I am working towards a Q49 or Q50. I just finished revisiting all the basics in Total GMAT Math and I am going to move on to the Extreme Challenge Set by Jeff Sackmann.
2) How do you compare the 150 questions and the explanations in Advanced GMAT quant to the 100 questions in the Extreme Challenge Set?
Current Student
Joined: 08 Jan 2009
Posts: 321
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V46

### Show Tags

25 May 2011, 16:30
Posted this in another thread, but might be worth repeating. Excerpt available here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/56085434/Manh ... nt-excerpt
Founder
Joined: 04 Dec 2002
Posts: 16510
Location: United States (WA)
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42

### Show Tags

25 May 2011, 21:57
ra011y wrote:
Thanks for the review bb.

2 questions -

1) Do you think it is necessary to have completed the previous Manhattan GMAT quant books before we pick this one up? Are some strategies revisited or referenced? The reason I ask is because I have never read the other Manhattan GMAT books. I am retaking the GMAT in July and I am currently scoring in the 44-46 range. I am working towards a Q49 or Q50. I just finished revisiting all the basics in Total GMAT Math and I am going to move on to the Extreme Challenge Set by Jeff Sackmann.

It is OK. As long as you are scoring at 44+ range, you should be fine. I think the book is very helpful for the advanced use. I am not 100% clear as to how holistic it is but will definitely help at $15 level. I liked it quite a bit (but this was based on 2-3 hours going through it). I have not covered every question at this point. Quote: 2) How do you compare the 150 questions and the explanations in Advanced GMAT quant to the 100 questions in the Extreme Challenge Set? Let me ask this to the MGMAT team and see if they have a good answer. _________________ Founder of GMAT Club Just starting out with GMAT? Start here... or use our Daily Study Plan Co-author of the GMAT Club tests Manager Status: Preparing myself to break the sound( 700 )-barrier! Affiliations: IFC - Business Edge, Bangladesh Enterprise Institute Joined: 15 Feb 2011 Posts: 206 Re: Advanced GMAT Quant from Manhattan GMAT [#permalink] ### Show Tags 26 May 2011, 06:18 Hey bb, A really helpful review, indeed! Before I order this book, I just want to know if this book will be something worthy side-by-side the GMATClub.com's Math Tests? Thanks in advance! Manager Joined: 28 Feb 2011 Posts: 92 Location: Brazil GMAT 1: 710 Q46 V42 WE: Management Consulting (Consulting) Re: Advanced GMAT Quant from Manhattan GMAT [#permalink] ### Show Tags 26 May 2011, 06:36 Great review! My experience with Manhattan is that theyre great with question solving strategies and with explaining concepts, but produce sample questions which vary in quality and organization. This book seems to hold up with what Ive seen. Founder Joined: 04 Dec 2002 Posts: 16510 Location: United States (WA) GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42 Re: Advanced GMAT Quant from Manhattan GMAT [#permalink] ### Show Tags 26 May 2011, 07:59 2 This post received KUDOS Expert's post Schawjibb wrote: Hey bb, A really helpful review, indeed! Before I order this book, I just want to know if this book will be something worthy side-by-side the GMATClub.com's Math Tests? Thanks in advance! I have not covered every question yet, so can't speak very intelligently from that perspective. On the surface, the book is very good, esp the explanations but the question count is about $$\frac{1}{4}$$ of the GMAT Club test content and then you have the questions in the book vs. actual test timed experience. They are two slightly different things. _________________ Founder of GMAT Club Just starting out with GMAT? Start here... or use our Daily Study Plan Co-author of the GMAT Club tests Senior Manager Joined: 11 Apr 2011 Posts: 263 Re: Advanced GMAT Quant from Manhattan GMAT [#permalink] ### Show Tags 26 May 2011, 16:03 Hey bb, thanks for the review! I am going to purchase this book from Amazon, can you just verify that I am buying the right book because I thought it was coming out on the 31st but apparently its already out on Amazon :S. Anyway, here is the link _________________ Powerscore CR Bible Full Chapter Notes | Easily Extend Vocabulary List with Google Dictionary Please kudo me if you found my post useful. Thanks!!! Founder Joined: 04 Dec 2002 Posts: 16510 Location: United States (WA) GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42 Re: Advanced GMAT Quant from Manhattan GMAT [#permalink] ### Show Tags 26 May 2011, 16:04 Yes, looks right (interesting to see Amazon CA) P.S. The book was released early _________________ Founder of GMAT Club Just starting out with GMAT? Start here... or use our Daily Study Plan Co-author of the GMAT Club tests Senior Manager Joined: 11 Apr 2011 Posts: 263 Re: Advanced GMAT Quant from Manhattan GMAT [#permalink] ### Show Tags 26 May 2011, 16:07 Thanks!! About to purchase it :D _________________ Powerscore CR Bible Full Chapter Notes | Easily Extend Vocabulary List with Google Dictionary Please kudo me if you found my post useful. Thanks!!! Intern Joined: 18 May 2011 Posts: 18 Re: Advanced GMAT Quant from Manhattan GMAT [#permalink] ### Show Tags 26 May 2011, 16:55 Thanks bb for your review.I am thinking of purchasing the book Manager Status: Preparing myself to break the sound( 700 )-barrier! Affiliations: IFC - Business Edge, Bangladesh Enterprise Institute Joined: 15 Feb 2011 Posts: 206 Re: Advanced GMAT Quant from Manhattan GMAT [#permalink] ### Show Tags 26 May 2011, 19:57 bb wrote: I have not covered every question yet, so can't speak very intelligently from that perspective. On the surface, the book is very good, esp the explanations but the question count is about $$\frac{1}{4}$$ of the GMAT Club test content and then you have the questions in the book vs. actual test timed experience. They are two slightly different things. Thanks, bb. You are awesome! Intern Joined: 03 Jun 2010 Posts: 22 Re: Advanced GMAT Quant from Manhattan GMAT [#permalink] ### Show Tags 31 May 2011, 00:41 4 This post received KUDOS 2 This post was BOOKMARKED Hi all, I had posted a review on Amazon and bb asked me to post the same here , so here it is. Let me know if you have any additional questions regarding the content: Makes you a better fighter and a smarter fighter, but does not teach you how to fight Before I elaborate on the 'What the heck?' title of my review - skip to the 6th paragraph if you only want to read my review of the book as the first 5 paragraphs are me explaining, albeit in a more profound way, what you may already know about the GMAT; if you want to cut to the chase - it's a fantastic book but I deduct one star because it contains a few errors here and there. So about the subject of the review - One of the most appropriate analogies that I have heard regarding the GMAT is that 'prepare for the GMAT as you would prepare for a boxing match' - you know you are fighting a very accomplished opponent , you do not have a clue about what kind of punches that opponent will throw at you but ,if you truly want to beat that opponent, you can very well prepare well enough to be able to anticipate what type of punches that opponent will throw at you and counter those punches when they do come. I am a GMAT retaker - a quick summary of what my standing was prior to my taking the GMAT the last time: 1) I could easily solve at least 95% of all Official Guide (OG) problems 2) On the 2 GMAT Prep tests, I scored a 710 and a 730 respectively 3) Aside from the OG, I practiced over a 1000 questions from pretty much every well known resource out there Yet, I bombed the actual GMAT when I took it Don't let my example frighten you - the exam is very beatable (25,000+ people score in excess of 700 each year right?). Aside from the primary mistake, which I am going to elaborate on in this review , I also didn't sleep much before the exam and , on top of that, drove over an hour through traffic infested San Francisco, thereby already stressing out my mind before even sitting down for the test. So yeah, for starters, get some sleep and book your test date early so you don't have to drive 50 miles to nearest test center that has a slot available at your preferred date/time. In my case, the results documented in Point # 2 were an anomaly (I still believe that the GMAT prep tests are the most accurate indicator of how you will perform on the actual test), but points 1 and 3 , if not carried out correctly, represent classic mistakes that test takers make over the course of their practice. The mistake I speak off is believing that 'the harder you work, the better will be your results'. Now don't get me wrong, I am not recommending you ignore that very true principle (far from it), rather, I am recommending that, in the case of the GMAT, you slightly modify that statement to 'the smarter you work, the better will be your results' - this is where 'Advanced GMAT Quant' comes in. As 2 of the more famous people in the GMAT world (BB and Eric) have pointed out in the reviews before mine, 'Advanced GMAT Quant' is for you if you fall in to ALL of the below categories: - You are consistently scoring in at least the 70th percentile but are finding it hard to crack into the 90th percentile (aka you already a good fighter). - You have gone over all 5 of the Manhattan Quant supplements INCLUDING the advanced sections and are comfortable with the material taught in those guides - You realize that it is better to have more than 1 strategy in your repertoire to solve each question type - You are prepared to forget(only for the GMAT of course)everything your teacher taught you about solving questions the mechanical way or , as Manhattan puts it - 'a quick and dirty method that is not theoretically elegant'. I know a host of GMAT takers who studied no more than 2 weeks and scored 700+ and also know a host of test takers who studied many months and did not go past 650. What differentiates the 2 is that the former group of people , put simply, just got 'it'. By 'It' i mean that, those test takers understood that the GMAT operates on a fixed template and there is only so much manipulation the GMAC can do, meaning that if you understand how the GMAT works, i.e. you are prudent about the common traps (damn you inequalities!), know how to filter out the right information and basically understand what is being tested, you are very likely to succeed on this test. Of course there is the small matter of actually knowing all the topics and their concepts but that part is self explanatory and , moreover, is not the purpose of this book; this book teaches you how to master the 3 examples I just listed out regarding the GMAT template. So if you are picking up this book without knowing properties such as '3 consecutive integers are always divisible by 3' or the '1-x probability theory', you will find this book extremely challenging as the writing style of this book is such that, it assumes you know pretty much all the general theories that are covered in the manhattan quant guides. As this book correctly points out, the more complex problems do not necessarily require advanced computing , rather, the test makers just twist around the information making it very challenging to understand the problem at first glance (remember the test makers understand that all problems should be solved within 2 minutes and a majority of GMAT test takers may have had minimal to no exposure to 'advanced math') What this book does teach you are concepts such as 'how to eliminate answer choices just by looking at the information provided and comparing that to the answer choices. A simple example is that 'if the question asks 'If Y is a positive integer, what is the value of (-y)(y) and there are 3 positive answer choices and 2 negative answer choices, after going through this book, you will not be scared to eliminate all the positive answer choices before even beginning to solve the problem as you know that whatever the answer, it has to be negative. I think Eric and BB did a fine job of listing out the Pro's of this book so I will focus on some of the weaker points of this book: 1) Errors - The only reason why I deducted 1 star. Having diligently studied 40% of the book, (will edit my review should my opinion change after fully completing the book) there are some errors that are downright dangerous and provide the incorrect information. A few that stand out are: Pg: 83 #7 - IS M not equal to 0 , is m^3 > m^2 - An experienced test taker such as myself can understand that, Manhattan meant to say 'IF M not equal to 0' but it may confuse other test takers on what the question is asking for. Pg 86 #3 - Wrong answer choice is circled - This is redeemed by the fact that the answer explanation shows 'D' to be the correct answer but it broke my heart for a second when I saw the answer to that seriously complex problem that I solve was circled as 'A' Pg 106 Try-it #4-9 - This one is downright dangerous - it's a data sufficiency question that shows (1) to be a^2 = b^2 but , when you see the explanation, the correct information was a = b^2. 2) Be careful as some of the strategies used in this book may subconsciously make you unlearn the direct safe approach that should always be used as the first line of attack. The book does highlight the safe approaches but embracing the plan B 'dirty' approaches may unsettle your understanding of the fundamentals if you consistently keep practicing the plan B approaches. So far, I have not found any of these errors to be 'deal breakers' because the answer explanations make you realize the original mistakes but , initially, those errors can be frustrating. To summarize, this is a fantastic book for those of you who are comfortable with the concepts for all Quant topics tested on the GMAT but are having trouble applying these concepts to the more challenging problems. After diligently studying this book, you will be less fearful of employing tactics such as 'eliminating answer choices before even beginning to solve the problem, using approaches that your math teacher would have given you a 0 for if you tried those tactics in high school, able to recognize patterns allowing you to dissect the question to get to the relevant information (gmat template)etc. There are some errors but , so far, none of them are detrimental enough to over ride what is otherwise a fantastic, unique book that , mostly successfully, tries to get you to understand how to crack the 'GMAT code' Senior Manager Joined: 11 Apr 2011 Posts: 263 Re: Advanced GMAT Quant from Manhattan GMAT [#permalink] ### Show Tags 31 May 2011, 06:02 This is a thorough explanation! Thank you! My book arrived yesterday but I don't plan on touching it until I go through the other 5 MGMAT Math Guides! I am scoring around 43 for Quant so I think this book should help me out. _________________ Powerscore CR Bible Full Chapter Notes | Easily Extend Vocabulary List with Google Dictionary Please kudo me if you found my post useful. Thanks!!! Intern Joined: 15 May 2011 Posts: 40 WE 1: IT Consulting - 5 Years Re: Advanced GMAT Quant from Manhattan GMAT [#permalink] ### Show Tags 01 Jun 2011, 13:08 Nice post Ravish. Could you let us know approximately how much time it takes to cover the entire book? I will probably want to solve just about enough problems to get a handle over the key concepts introduced in the book. Hey BB, thanks for your review. I request your thoughts here too. I have just about 4 weeks left for my GMAT and I have started with the GMAT Club tests with a plan to take one test every day. I am learning a great deal from these tests and was wondering whether you think it worth the time to go over this book? I have reached a reasonable success rate on the OG12 problems and I do score consistently above 45 on the MGMAT Quant section, but I still struggle with timing on the 700-800 level. Intern Joined: 03 Jun 2010 Posts: 22 Re: Advanced GMAT Quant from Manhattan GMAT [#permalink] ### Show Tags 01 Jun 2011, 15:22 2 This post received KUDOS AriBenCanaan wrote: Nice post Ravish. Could you let us know approximately how much time it takes to cover the entire book? I will probably want to solve just about enough problems to get a handle over the key concepts introduced in the book. Hey BB, thanks for your review. I request your thoughts here too. I have just about 4 weeks left for my GMAT and I have started with the GMAT Club tests with a plan to take one test every day. I am learning a great deal from these tests and was wondering whether you think it worth the time to go over this book? I have reached a reasonable success rate on the OG12 problems and I do score consistently above 45 on the MGMAT Quant section, but I still struggle with timing on the 700-800 level. I expect to be fully done with the book by this Weekend (received it on Friday and skipped one day of studying) so I think one can complete the theoretical section of this book (each chapter and it's respective questions) in about a week. I can't comment yet on the workout sets as I am yet to begin those but , I would say that it would take another 4-5 days to complete those plus repeat practice so '2 weeks' tops assuming at least 2 hours per day of diligent studying. Regarding whether or not this book is for you, it depends on whether a majority of the answers that you get wrong during practice are due to your not remembering a concept or due to your falling for a trap/ not able to dissect the question correctly etc. , if it's the former, then the Manhattan guides are your go to source; if you seem to have trouble with the latter, then this is the book for you. I just completed the question set in the data sufficiency strategy section and they are fantastic. Not only are they grouped together based on the type of error one can make i.e. not plugging in smart numbers / carrying on information in statement 1 to statement 2 etc. but a considerable number of the answer explanations show both , the path of solving that makes you fall for the trap as well as the correct way that the question should have been solved. If the 150+ questions in the workout set are of a similar quality, I would say that this book is worth it for the question sets alone. Intern Joined: 15 May 2011 Posts: 40 WE 1: IT Consulting - 5 Years Re: Advanced GMAT Quant from Manhattan GMAT [#permalink] ### Show Tags 01 Jun 2011, 15:39 Thanks for the quick reply Ravish. I guess I'll go ahead and order the book while I ponder over how I am going to find the time to study it. I am hoping that even if I were to consume only about 50-60% of the book in the time I have remaining before the GMAT, it would be beneficial. Manager Joined: 20 Dec 2010 Posts: 240 Schools: UNC Duke Kellogg Re: Advanced GMAT Quant from Manhattan GMAT [#permalink] ### Show Tags 16 Jun 2011, 18:11 Based on the reviews here and the ones on Amazon...I ordered this book from Amazon. Its also not that expensive...in fact seems like a great deal! Re: Advanced GMAT Quant from Manhattan GMAT [#permalink] 16 Jun 2011, 18:11 Go to page 1 2 3 4 Next [ 71 posts ] Display posts from previous: Sort by # Advanced GMAT Quant from Manhattan GMAT  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics Moderator: HKD1710  HOT DEALS FOR FEBRUARY Math Revolution -$69/mo Type Coupon Code: HOTDEAL2 Economist GMAT - Free Free 1-week trial + Free Test examPAL - $75 off all packages Valentine's special. Valid until Feb. 15 Kaplan Courses - Save$475 $225 Discount +$250 Bonus Target Test Prep - Save $800$50 Discount + $750 Bonus [GMAT ClubTests and Premium MBA Bundle] EMPOWERgmat -$99/mo GMAT Club tests included 2nd month GMAT Club Tests - Free Included with every course purchaseof \$149 or more - Full List is here

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.

format: plain


text:
Tag Info

0

Because we usually deal with continuous functions in physics. For instance, we know that internal energy of a body is continuous. I.e. if a body has internal energy of $U_1$ and $U_2$ in two different states and $U_2\gt U_1$ then certainly there are infinite states between 1 and 2 so that internal energy of the body is between $U_1$ and $U_2$. In other words,...

2

We don't always need calculus to obtain a general form: static problems (a weight sitting stationary on a table, for instance) often don't require calculus. Calculus is therefore typically necessary where change occurs. Let's say a physical, observable quantity $u$ (distance, pressure or whatnot) changes in function of an observable parameter $t$ (time, ...

1

We usually know the expression or "formula" for a small part, and this formula takes different values across parts, so one easy way to solve the problem, if this is the case, is by adding together all the mini formulas which is what an integral does. For instance you want to calculate the area inside a circle of radius R. How do you start? Well, if you ...

2

The displacement is equal to the area under a velocity time graph so in your example the change in displacement $dx$ in a time $dt$ is equal to $v\; dt$ with $v=\frac 3 x$ So $dx = v\; dt = \frac 3 x \; dt \Rightarrow x\; dx= 3\; dt$ and then you do the integration.

0

$\Delta x =v_{average}\times t$ In uniform acceleration $v_{average}$ becomes $\dfrac{v-v_{0}}{2}$ Hence; $\Delta x =\dfrac{v-v_{0}}{2}t=\dfrac{1}{2}\dfrac{v-v_{0}}{t}t^{2}=\dfrac{1}{2}at^{2}$

0

This is a trivial kinematic deduction. \begin{align}s(t_2) &=\int_{t_1}^{t_2}~v(t)~\mathrm dt +s(t_1)\\ &= \int_{t_1}^{t_2}~\left\{v(t_1)+\int_{t_1}^{t}~a(t')~\mathrm dt'\right\}\mathrm dt+ s(t_1) \;.\end{align} Integrating this, we would get $$s(t_2)~=~ s(t_1) + v(t_1)\{t_2-t_1\} + a(t_1)\frac{\{t_2-t_1\}^2}{2} + \dot a(t_1)\frac{\{t_2-t_1\}^3}{6}... 3 Indeed your first suggestion is wrong : \Delta x = v_o t + gt  Instead it should be  \Delta x = v_o t + gt^{2} (You can recheck it) Where you are wrong is here: According to your question v is the final velocity since (v=v_{0}+gt) So \Delta x\neq vt but instead it should be \Delta x =v_{average}\times t In uniform acceleration v_{average} ... 1 Let's take the first equation of motion which is : $$v=u+at$$ Integrate this equation to get: $$\int\frac{dx}{dt}dt=\int{u}dt+\int{at} dt$$ this gives: $$x=ut+\frac{1}{2}at^2+x_0$$ The integration constant can be done away by putting the proper limits on x.(Assuming the ... 0 I don't have a conceptual answer as to why it is that way. But mathematically, your first suggestion is wrong:  \Delta x = v_o t + gt . A unit analysis will show you why:$$ meters = \frac{meters}{seconds} seconds + \frac{meters}{seconds^2}seconds meters \not= meters + \frac{meters}{seconds}$$And we can see that the assumption is simply not true ... 1 There is no relation between the area being two-dimensional in your graph and what it means. For example, consider you make the x-axis as an indicator of the temperature, so what is the difference between x= 5 K and x = 8 K? of course it's  \Delta x = 3K . Now, isn't x a one-dimensional quantity? So the graph gains its meaning from you not from ... 0 I'm confused that area is a 2 dimensional concept and it may indicate distance or displacement , which are 1 dimensional quantities. You are right. Area is a 2 dimensional quantity but what you have missed out is that you didn't use dimensional analysis properly. The dimensions of velocity is [LT^{-1}]. So if you multiply velocity with time, you get the ... 0 If we consider the velocity-time graph area under the whole line is the distance. For example, Now look at the second part of the diagram (rectangular, dark blue)$$v=\frac{dx}{dt}\rightarrow\int{vdt}=\int{dx}\rightarrow x=vt$$But the first part (triangle), we should consider acceleration$$a=\frac{d^2x}{d^2t}=\frac{dv}{dt}\rightarrow\int{adt}=\int{dv}\...

1

The interpretation of the area under a curve, depending upon the curve, will vary. If it is a Velocity v. Time Graph, the area from a given time to another time, will be the distance traveled between those times. If it is an Acceleration v. Time Graph, the area from one time to another, will be the change in velocity of the object between those two times. ...

8

The dimensions of the integral are simply those of $f(x)dx$, so in this case they would be $m^2/s^3 \times m = m^3/s^3$.

13

It will be the latter case, $m^2/s^3m$ which is just $m^3/s^3$. Remember that the integral is the sum of all the products $f(x)\;\text{ times } \;dx$. $dx$ is a tiny piece of the path from $0$ to $x$, so it is in units of $m$ as well. Each of the products $f(x)dx$ have units $m^3/s^3$, and the sum of all these products keeps those units.

6

Whenever you see a function that looks like: $$y = \tfrac{1}{2}kx^2$$ there's a good chance it came from integrating the function: $$\frac{dy}{dx} = kx$$ For example your distance function comes from integrating the velocity $v = at$: $$y(t) = \int v\,dt = \int at\,dt = \tfrac{1}{2}at^2$$ The spring energy function comes from integrating the ...

1

You won't be able to find the potential because of the presence of drag and the forcing term. In other words, this is a non-conservative field and therefore it is impossible to define a potential. Luckily, though, you don't need that because you have an explicit expression of the acceleration and that's all you need to use the Verlet or velocity Verlet ...

Top 50 recent answers are included


text:
# BooleanGB : Table of Contents

• BooleanGB -- Groebner Bases for Ideals in Boolean Polynomial Quotient Ring
• gbBoolean(Ideal) -- Compute Groebner Basis for Ideals in Boolean Polynomial Quotient Ring