Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 455e465

www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Factors influencing wastewater management performance:

Case study of housing estates in suburban Bangkok, Thailand
Sarunya Sujaritpong*, Vilas Nitivattananon1
Urban Environmental Management Field of Study, School of Environment, Resources and Development,
Asian Institute of Technology, P.O. Box 4, Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand
Received 18 October 2006; received in revised form 3 November 2007; accepted 30 November 2007
Available online 30 January 2008

Abstract

As population densities have risen and settlements become increasingly crowded, wastewater effluent volumes have, not unexpectedly, also
risen. The adverse impacts of effluent from housing estates (HEs) in suburban areas of Thailand, served by local wastewater management
(WWM) systems, are of particular concern. Because of this problem, which reflects the poor performance of WWM systems, it has become
increasingly important that the pivotal factors that hinder WWM improvements be identified and effective solutions be proposed and imple-
mented. The goal of the research described in this paper was to determine the critical factors influencing WWM performance at HEs in suburban
Bangkok, using multiple regression analysis. Three significant factors encompassing financial, social, institutional and general aspects were
identified for each type of WWM system (community centralized and onsite). For the community centralized system, the key factors were house
price, type of organization managing the HE, and the attitudes of the organization. For onsite systems, the three factors were total number of
house units, direct experience with water pollution and percentage of occupied houses. These findings reflect the importance of having a WWM
that employs an integrated approach rather than focusing on specific aspects in isolation from other factors. WWM performance could be im-
proved if significant factors indicating high priority concerns were to be identified and properly applied. Addressing the priority concerns could,
consequently, contribute to the development of appropriate environmental management measures, plans, and policies related to HE WWM.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Environmental management; Multiple regression analysis; Performance indicator; Suburban area; Wastewater management

1. Introduction the entire Bangkok Metropolitan Area (Kazmi and Furumai,

Rapid expansion of small urban centers and a high rate of
growth in suburban developments are common phenomena in
large cities of developing countries. Although most basic
facilities have been moderately developed to accommodate res-
idents, the expansion of conventional sewer systems to serve
suburban areas has occurred at a very slow pace, or not at
all, due to the high cost of wastewater services (Bakir, 2001).
Through 2001, the capacity of municipal wastewater treatment
facilities could only meet the needs of approximately 30% of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ66 (0)2 5246368; fax: þ66 (0)2 5246380.
E-mail addresses: sujaritpong@yahoo.com (S. Sujaritpong), vilasn@ait.
ac.th (V. Nitivattananon).
1
Tel: þ66 (0)2 5245601, 5245777; fax: þ66 (0)2 5246380.
2005). Given the significant shortfalls of the major wastewater
treatment system, individual onsite and small-scale, commu-
nity centralized wastewater management (WWM) systems
have become preferable alternatives (Parkinson and Kevin,
2003). Other than their appropriateness in terms of economy
of scale, these systems also provide extra benefits which sup-
port sustainable WWM, such as reducing water input, reducing
risks to humans and the environment and increasing reuse op-
portunities (Bakir, 2001).
Successful application of localized WWMs will require
several management aspects to be addressed. The World
Health Organization (2000) compiled a guide to a broad
classification of key concerns, including user opinions and
satisfaction, community/household management issues, level
of service, financial performance, materials, personnel,

0301-4797/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.11.006
456 S. Sujaritpong, V. Nitivattananon / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 455e465
equipment and work order control. Ineffective WWM may re-
sult from a deficiency in one particular aspect or a combina-
tion of issues. At this point, the performance assessment can
be used to provide baseline management status, and imple-
mented to identify areas in need of improvement (Mbuligwe,
2004).
The serious problems with existing WWM in suburban
areas have been recognized in recent years. In Southeast
Asia, for example, where onsite systems have been widely
used, a large number of poorly functioning systems are lo-
cated in areas with highly impermeable soils or high ground-
water levels. Treatment plants may also be crippled by a lack
of periodic desludging, or all three of these problems can oc-
cur at a single facility (Ludwig et al., 2005). Domestic waste-
water volumes can be massive in the suburban areas of the
Bangkok Metropolitan Region (BMR),2 where housing es-
tates (HEs) are the main type of urban dwellings (GHB,
2005). Protection of the environment and public health from
this discharge requires effective localized WWM. A review
of official records of complaints from surrounding communi-
ties, as well as previous studies (Auesuwanna, 2000; Sattaya-
pan, 2001), indicated that significant environmental impact
has, or will, occur, suggesting that existing WWM is
ineffective.
It is clear from the existing problems that there is a need to
identify the factors that influence WWM performance. Under-
standing these significant factors will be crucial in determining
effective solutions to improve WWM. While the technical and
financial aspects of WWM have often been seen as priority
concerns (Wilderer and Schreff, 2000; Gray and Booker,
2003; Sarikaya et al., 2003), other concerns, such as social
or institutional aspects, have not been considered as serious
and have often been disregarded. However, given that integra-
tion of these latter aspects with technical and financial factors
is necessary for successful management, this paper will cover
all of these issues. The Nonthaburi province of BMR is an HE
hotspot with over half of all projects being situated in subur-
ban areas. The present study was conducted in Nonthaburi
province as a case study.
This paper begins with an explanation of the study concept
and methodology, followed by a broad view of HE conditions
and general characteristics of WWM in the study area. The
core section of this paper presents study findings, from identi-
fication of the influential factors through multiple regression
analysis. This section also explains and discusses the results
gathered from performance assessment and the analysis of
institutional issues, specifically in a Thailand context. The de-
velopment of environmental management measures (EMMs),
in accordance with the findings, is completed as a means of
providing a systematic guide for addressing the problem of in-
creasing amounts of domestic water pollution in suburban
areas.
2
Bangkok Metropolitan Region (BMR) consists of Bangkok and six sur-
rounding provinces, namely Nonthaburi, Pathumthani, Nakornpathom, Samut-
prakarn, and Samutsakorn.
2. Approach and methodology
2.1. Approach
This paper primarily addresses community WWM in subur-
ban areas. Numerous factors affect WWM performance
(Fig. 1), and consequently an assessment of WWM perfor-
mance must also examine several variables. Characteristics,
potentiality and capacity of involved stakeholders, which are
referred to as ‘institutional aspects’, affect not only these influ-
encing factors but also the degrees of success for measures
aimed at enhancing WWM.
A given set of indicators was used to assess WWM perfor-
mance. A set of hypothesized factors was categorized into
general, social, financial and institutional groups. Only some
of them have been found to be key elements that significantly
affect community WWM, and these are the ones that should be
given premier consideration when applying any measures to
modify the existing system. Identification of key influential
factors is very important since effort must be applied to those
areas that will result in the greatest WWM improvement, for
maximum effective use of available resources. Only through
that process can environmental degradation, due to unsustain-
able WWM, be prevented or mitigated.
2.2. Methodology
In Nonthaburi province, HEs established from 1992 to 2003
were located primarily in two suburban districts (Bangbuatong
and Bangyai), where a high rate of real estate development has
occurred. The estates in this study were classified into two
main groups by type of wastewater system: onsite and commu-
nity centralized. The sample size was determined and HEs
were selected on the basis of the feasibility according to mul-
tiple regression analysis, an analytical technique that can be
applied to find out influencing factors when the reliability of
model is a major concern (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1983). Par-
ticular HEs were also selected based on how representative
they were of the wider HE population. In the case of the onsite
system, 30 samples were randomly selected from the total
population of 142. All 33 HEs in the community centralized
system were included.
Using information obtained from a review of the relevant
literature, WWM performance was assessed through a set of
select indicators in key management areas (WHO, 2000; Bal-
kema et al., 2002; Al-Sa’ed and Mubarak, 2006). For onsite
systems, four performance indicators were selected, while 10
indicators were used to assess community centralized systems
(Sujaritpong, 2006). The performance results (both continuous
and discrete data) were transformed to a standard scale, with
a score between 0 and 1 being assigned for each factor. A
higher score represents better performance. The manner in
which scores were assigned varied, depending upon the type
of system and indicator (Tables 1 and 2). For some indicators,
score assignment was strictly binary (essentially, ‘yes’ or
‘no’), while others were graded on three, four or five-level
scales. The major source of data was a questionnaire
 S. Sujaritpong, V. Nitivattananon / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 455e465 457

Characteristics/potentiality/capacity of stakeholders

General factors Social factors Economic factors Institutional factors

Appropriate Influencing factors

measures

Community WMM in suburban area

Performance assessment
WWM • User opinions and satisfaction
performance • Community/household
management
• Level of service
• Financial performance
• Materials and equipment
• Personnel
• Work order control

Fig. 1. Overall study approach.

completed by representatives of the HE organization. Field ob-
servations and various records were also used.
A number of hypothetical factors were identified according
to social, financial and institutional aspects. Factors were des-
ignated as ‘general’ when they could not be grouped into any
of the three specific categories. Key informant consultation
was the primary technique, with a goal to screen only high, po-
tentially influential factors. Key informants, including devel-
opers, government officers, academics and wastewater
facility suppliers and service providers, were asked to select
only one factor from each of the four groups as, in their
own mind, the most influential factor. Those that were not
ranked as a top influential factor by any respondents were
eliminated at this stage. Consequently, a questionnaire survey
was designed to be inclusive of all of the selected factors that
were likely to be important to at least some individuals, result-
ing in relevant data that could be used for multiple regression
analysis.
Multiple regression analysis was utilized to determine
which factors exert the greatest influence on WWM perfor-
mance, as well as their cross-relationships, by assigning sur-
vey data as independent variables and performance
assessment results as dependent variables. In this case, overall
performance results, created by summing the assessment re-
sults of every management aspect, were used as dependent
variables. Since each aspect may affect overall performance
at different levels, ‘‘weighing’’ trials were employed to exam-
ine the relative importance (thus, ‘‘weight’’) of individual as-
pects and overall performance. The trials were based on three
alternatives, the first being a simple assumption of giving
equal importance to the assessment results through each per-
formance indicator. The second one was based on giving equal
value to the management aspects that produced high values of
the adjusted coefficient of determination (adjusted R2) and
model utility (F-test). This method can produce a valid and re-
liable model. Weighing for the third alternative was conducted
by considering the logic of WWM concepts and practices.
3. Description of HEs and WWM in the study area
3.1. HE conditions
By the definition included in the 2000 Land Subdivision
Act (LSA),3 which classified HEs by the number of house
units and total area, all HE samples with onsite systems
were grouped as small and medium sized, while most with
community centralized systems were grouped as large. The
minimum number of units for samples with an onsite system
was 40, while the maximum was 500, with occupancy at
43e100%. For HE samples with a community centralized sys-
tem, the number of units ranged from 182 to 4436. The occu-
pancy rate was between 50 and 98%.
Public utilities management is the main responsibility of
the developers when a housing project is still under construc-
tion. When a project nears completion, an HE association is
organized to take over the responsibility of public utilities
management. In this study, five forms of HE organizations
were identified: developer, informal HE association, developer
accompanied by an informal HE association, HE legal person-
nel, and cooperatives. However, no organization was found in
3
Small size ¼ 99 plots or <0.03 km2; medium size ¼ 100e499 plots or
0.03e0.16 km2; large size > 500 plots or >0.16 km2.
458 S. Sujaritpong, V. Nitivattananon / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 455e465

Table 1
Performance assessment indicators and criteria for housing estates with community centralized WWM systems
Indicators Assessment criteria
User opinions and satisfaction Complaints from neighboring communities 0.00 ¼ Occurred <1 year without any correction
0.25 ¼ Occurred <1 year with correction
0.50 ¼ Occurred >1 year without any correction
0.75 ¼ Occurred >1 year with correction
1.0 ¼ No complaint

Community management Operational practices 0.0 ¼ No operation

0.5 ¼ Inconsistent
1.0 ¼ Complete operation
Maintenance practices 0.0 ¼ No desludging
0.5 ¼ Incorrect desludging
1.0 ¼ Correct desludging

Level of service Effluent qualitya 0.0 ¼ Abnormal

0.5 ¼ Suspect
1.0 ¼ Normal
Effluent reuse 0 ¼ No reuse
1 ¼ Reuse

Financial status Ratios of revenue and expenditure 0.00 ¼ No collection tariff

0.33 ¼ Revenue covers <50% of expenditure
0.66 ¼ Revenue covers >50% of expenditure
1.00 ¼ Revenue covers 100% of expenditure

Materials and equipment Quality and function of machinery 0.0 ¼ Complete dysfunction
0.5 ¼ Some mechanical device dysfunction
1.0 ¼ Complete machine function

Personnel Technician/staff availability and training 0.00 ¼ No technician/staff

0.33 ¼ No technician but some staff
0.66 ¼ With technician but untrained
1.00 ¼ Trained staff/technician and/or consultant

Work order control Availability of WWM documentation 0.00 ¼ No document

0.25 ¼ 1 Type of document without plant manual
0.50 ¼ 1 Type of document with plant manual
0.75 ¼ 2 Types of documents
1.00 ¼ >3 Types of documents with plant manual
Monitoring program 0.00 ¼ No monitoring
0.33 ¼ Routine plant checks without effluent checks
0.66 ¼ No routine plant checks but with effluent checks
1.00 ¼ Routine plant checks and effluent checks
a
Assessed by an inspection of the physical appearance of the effluent and/or consideration of available laboratory results.

some estates because of the failure of the association after
ownership was transferred at project completion.
3.2. Characteristics of WWM
Public WWM services within Nonthaburi province are able
to service only part of the largest municipality. At present,
there are three municipalities served by public sewer systems,
but without wastewater treatment facilities (PCD, 2001). Thus
wastewater collected by the sewer system, or imported from
outside municipal areas, may undergo some form of pretreat-
ment by onsite WWM systems, but is then discharged directly
into public canals and eventually drained into rivers.
The provision for HE WWM and effluent standards is
specified by the LSA and National Environmental Quality
Act (NEQA) of 1992. According to the LSA, the wastewater
from a land subdivision project has to be treated either by on-
site or community centralized treatment systems, or both, and
its effluent has to meet the standards enforced by NEQA. Also
according to NEQA, an environmental impact assessment
(EIA) is required for large land subdivision projects. However,
the effectiveness of mitigation and preventive measures,
relevant to the impact from wastewater, has been very poor.
Only 50% of estates in the province adhered to the measures
specified in the approved EIA report, and none of them have
undergone the required effluent quality inspection (ONEP,
1999).
 S. Sujaritpong, V. Nitivattananon / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 455e465 459

Table 2 a security guard. Staff training and effluent monitoring pro-

Performance assessment indicators and criteria for housing estates with onsite grams were set up in some estates, mostly managed by the de-
WWM system
veloper. There are two forms of fee collection, either uniform
Indicators Assessment criteria or varied rate, according to land size. Although most HE sam-
User opinions User satisfaction Strongly disagree to ples in the study were able to generate sufficient income to pay
and satisfaction strongly agree for general public utilities, only half of them allocated it for
(4 degree scale)
WWM costs.
Household Maintenance 0 ¼ Incorrect practice
management practices 1 ¼ Correct practice 4. Results and discussion

Personnel Operation & 0 ¼ Never received training 4.1. WWM performance

maintenance 1 ¼ Have received training
(O & M) training
Mean values, representing the central tendencies derived
Overall user Average scale from every
from a performance assessment of all HE samples in each
knowledge knowledge aspect
of O & M (continuous scale) management aspect, were used to represent performance level.
They were categorized into three levels: poor (score 0.00e
 Knowledge of 0 ¼ Don’t know
type of WWTS 1 ¼ Know
0.33), medium (0.34e0.66), and high (0.67e1.00).
For the community centralized systems, most values fell
 Knowledge of 0 ¼ Don’t know
within the poor or medium range, except for complaints
system maintenance 1 ¼ Know
from neighboring communities, which exceeded 0.66 and
 Knowledge of 0.00 ¼ Don’t know thus was in the high range (Fig. 2). Management aspects clas-
operational practices 0.25 ¼ 1 Answer correct
0.50 ¼ 2 Answers correct
sified as poor were maintenance practice, the monitoring sys-
0.75 ¼ 3 Answers correct tem, availability of WWM documentation, management of
1.00 ¼ Complete revenue and expenditure, and effluent reuse. Issues rated as
 Knowledge of 0.00 ¼ Don’t know medium were operational practice, quality and function of ma-
impacts originating 0.33 ¼ 1 Answer correct chinery, technician/staff availability and training, and effluent
from incorrect 0.66 ¼ 2 Answers correct quality. These findings seem to suggest that most organiza-
maintenance 1.00 ¼ Complete tions pay more attention to urgent and critical aspects, such
as complaints from surrounding communities or operational
practices (including machinery), rather than complicated as-
An onsite system is the typical basic sanitation method for pects, that may be perceived as trivial, such as the availability
every household in Thailand, as regulated by the Building of WWM documentation.
Control Act of 1979. Not only do small and medium sized
HEs have to use this system, but large estates are also required A
to implement it as a pretreatment system upstream of any fur- 0.99
ther treatment by community centralized wastewater treatment J B
plants. The technology used for onsite systems in almost all 0.66
HE samples was a septic, anaerobic filter treatment (SAT)
tank (package treatment tank). Operation of the SAT tank is 0.33
I C
automatic and very simple. It only requires users to follow
a few precautions, including no flushing of non-biodegradable
0
materials and no pouring of agents that could harm microor-
ganisms into the tank. Periodic pumping of the septic system
H D
is a necessary maintenance practice.
The community centralized system is usually implemented
on large estates because the quality of discharge from onsite
systems does not meet the standard. The main treatment equip- G E
ment identified in this study was fixed film aeration, available
as a commercial package plant. Since the community central- F
ized system is an HE utility, it is the responsibility of the com-
A Neighboring communities F Ratios of revenue and expenditure
munity organization. The main operational and maintenance complaints G Quality and function of machinery
activities are aerator control and desludging. While public util- B Operation practice H Technician/staff availability and
ities are managed by the developer, technicians such as electri- C Maintenance practice training
D Effluent quality I Availability of WWM documentation
cians, mechanics and civil foremen were assigned to monitor
E Effluent reuse J Monitoring program
and conduct routine maintenance on the system. In the case
of an HE association, the staff member assigned to monitor Fig. 2. Mean values of performance results for housing estates with community
the system may be an HE association committee member or centralized systems.
460 S. Sujaritpong, V. Nitivattananon / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 455e465

A
problems. In addition, residents do not necessarily perceive
0.99 pollution as a real problem, since normal effluent flows take
it downgradient, away from its point of origin. As a result, res-
idents are largely satisfied with the WWM system. With regard
0.66
to overall user knowledge of O & M, the performance result
was rated as medium. As far as knowledge of the details in
0.33 each of the four different performance aspects, it was discov-
ered that although most of the respondents knew their own
D 0 B
wastewater treatment system well (mean score ¼ 0.63), their
knowledge of O & M in an onsite system was poor (mean
score for knowledge of system maintenance ¼ 0.03; opera-
tional practice ¼ 0.30). This suggests that residents typically
gained knowledge from their own daily experience, rather
than through training, which is mostly incomplete and would
explain the lack of knowledge of systems’ operations.

C
A User satisfaction C O&M training
B O&M activities D Overall user knowledge
of WWTS type.
Fig. 3. Mean values of performance results for housing estates with onsite
systems.
Data from 30 HE samples from onsite systems show that
the performance results for operation and maintenance
(‘O & M’) practices and training were classified as poor
(Fig. 3). Resident satisfaction results fell into the medium
level. These results suggest that although poor operational
practices and training tend to have negative consequences
for residents, they may not result in serious water pollution
4.2. Factors influencing HE WWM performance
Table 3 provides the details of the 12 factors within the four
groups that were selected for multiple regression analysis. In
accordance with the characteristics of each wastewater man-
agement system, 10 potential factors for the community cen-
tralized system, and seven for the onsite system, were
considered valid. In order to identify factors that may influ-
ence performance, the general forms of two multiple regres-
sion models for the community centralized and the onsite
systems are presented below as Eqs. (1) and (2), where
E( pc) is WWM performance for estates with a community
centralized system and E( po) is for those with onsite systems.
Variable terms used in both equations are defined in Table 3.

Table 3
Potential factors and application in multiple regression analysis
Factor group Potential factors and symbols Application in multiple regression model
b
General Percentage of occupied houses (R-OCCUPY) Percentage of occupied houses
Total house units (UNIT)b Number of total house units
Occupying period (P-OCCUPY)b Number of years that the majority of residents
have occupied HE
House trading (TRADING)a Dummy variable
(1 ¼ HE is still traded and 0 ¼ otherwise)
Financial House price (PRICE)b Dummy variable
PRICE1 (1 ¼ THB 0.8e1.5 m and 0 ¼ otherwise)
PRICE2 (1 ¼ THB 1.5e3 m and 0 ¼ otherwise)
PRICE3 (1 ¼ more than THB 3 m and 0 ¼ otherwise)
Social Level of direct experience in water pollution (EXP)b Five levels: never (0), very low and no effect (0.25), low (0.50),
medium (0.75) and high (1.00).
Concern about water pollution of resident/HE Dummy variable
organization (R/O-CONCERN)b (1 ¼ WWM was a concern as a first environmental issues; 0 ¼ otherwise)
Attitudes of HE organization/residents to various Composite rating in terms of continuous score within range of 0e1
aspects of WWM (PARTICIPATE)a
Participation level of resident/HE committee regarding Five levels: strong negative (0), negative (0.25), neutral (0.50),
various HE activities (R/O-ATTITUDE)b positive (0.75) and strong positive (1.00)
Institutional Type of organization managing HE (ORG)a Dummy variable
ORG1 (1 ¼ HE association; 0 ¼ otherwise)
ORG2 (1 ¼ developer; 0 ¼ otherwise)
a
Community centralized system.
b
Community centralized and onsite systems.
 S. Sujaritpong, V. Nitivattananon / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 455e465 461

Eðpc Þ ¼ b0 þ b1 ðPRICE1Þ þ b2 ðPRICE2Þ þ b3 ðPRICE3Þ a high adjusted R2 (representing a high correlation between de-
pendent and independent variables) and significant response as
þ b4 ðR-OCCUPYÞ þ b5 ðEXPÞ þ b6 ðO-CONCERNÞ
determined using an F-test (measuring the reliability of the
þ b7 ðPARTICIPATEÞ þ b8 ðORG1Þ þ b9 ðORG2Þ model), and also excluding the least possible number of fac-
þ b10 ðO-ATTITUDEÞ þ b11 ðP-OCCUPYÞ tors, was selected for further use. At this step, the overall per-
formance level was the average score of all management
þ b12 ðUNITÞ þ b13 ðTRADINGÞ ð1Þ aspects (called Alternative 1). In Step 2, the overall perfor-
mance results from three weighing alternatives were entered
for selection of the model. They were compared to investigate
Eðpo Þ ¼ b0 þ b1 ðPRICE1Þ þ b2 ðPRICE2Þ þ b3 ðPRICE3Þ the weighing variation impact on significant factor identifica-
þ b4 ðR-OCCUPYÞ þ b5 ðEXPÞ þ b6 ðR-CONCERNÞ tion before drawing conclusions as to which factors should be
þ b7 ðR-ATTITUDEÞ þ b8 ðP-OCCUPYÞ considered the most significant.
þ b9 ðUNITÞ ð2Þ
4.2.1. Community centralized system
According to the methodology for weighing trials, there were Table 5 presents the Model CA-1, consisting of nine factors
three alternatives for both systems (Table 4). For the third al- (not including level of direct experience in water pollution), as
ternative to the community centralized system, the assigned the most suitable model due to its strong correlation of overall
weight was based on giving priority to effluent quality and WWM performance with several factors. The parsimonious
complaints from neighboring communities. However, com- model presented higher significance levels in most factors
plaints were regarded as being of lower importance (30%) than the completed model. Further, overall performance re-
than effluent quality (50%) because, in some instances, al- sults of the three weighted alternatives to the selected model
though HE discharge was poorly treated, there was no commu- suggest that models generated using results from Alternatives
nity nearby, and thus no residents to complain. For the third 1 and 2 did not differ much, while Model CA-3 generated
alternative to the onsite system, if low environmental degrada- from Alternative 3 provided slightly distinct results, with
tion was the goal, resident satisfaction was placed as the low- a higher adjusted R2 value and a lower number of significant
est priority because the majority of HE residents were satisfied factors.
with their WWM despite poor effluent quality. Thus, double Changing the weight of each management aspect based on
weighing was applied to high priority management aspects. the few assumptions in this study did not have any demonstra-
In order to identify the significant factors that influence ble effect on model characteristics, even in extreme cases like
WWM performance, a two-step approach in multiple regres-
sion analysis was conducted. In Step 1, completed regression
and parsimonious models were examined and compared to Table 5
Regression analysis results for housing estates with a community centralized
identify the most representative model. The model with
system
Variables Model CAa-1b t-Value Model CA-3c t-Value
Table 4
Standard Standard
Weighing trial for WWM performance
coefficient coefficient
Management aspect Alternative Alternative Alternative
PRICE1 0.151 1.150 0.171 1.377
1 (%) 2 (%) 3 (%)
PRICE2 0.031 0.256 0.016 0.142
Community centralized system PRICE3 0.389*** 3.019 0.360*** 2.956
Operational activities 10 20 2.5 R-OCCUPY 0.155 1.458 0.066 0.655
Maintenance activities 10 0 2.5 EXP e e e e
Monitoring program 10 20 2.5 O-CONCERN 0.129 1.134 0.070 0.646
Quality and function 10 20 2.5 PARTICIPATE 0.180 0.976 0.101 0.577
of machinery ORG1 0.588** 2.430 0.250 1.094
Availability of 10 20 2.5 ORG2 0.069 0.411 0.193 1.223
WWM documentation O-ATTITUDE 0.535*** 3.734 0.585** 4.318
Technician/staff 10 0 2.5 P-OCCUPY 0.241 1.843 0.072 0.585
availability and training UNIT 0.242 1.655 0.032 0.232
Effluent reuse 10 0 2.5 TRADING 0.207 1.168 0.132 0.788
Ratio of revenue and expenditure 10 0 2.5
Effluent quality 10 20 50 Adjusted R2 0.724 0.753
F-test 8.003*** 9.151***
Complaints from 10 0 30
neighboring communities **Significant at a ¼ 0.05.
***Significant at a ¼ 0.01.
Onsite system a
Model C means model of community centralized WWM.
O & M practices 25 0 28.5 b
Model CA-1 is generated by using the overall performance result from
O & M training 25 33.3 28.5
Alternative 1 (in Table 4).
User satisfaction 25 33.3 14.5 c
Model CA-3 is generated by using the overall performance result from
Overall user knowledge of O & M 25 33.3 28.5
Alternative 3 (in Table 4).
462 S. Sujaritpong, V. Nitivattananon / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 455e465

Alternative 3 where a rather high weight was given to one as- Table 6
pect. Given this response, it can be presumed that there is a rel- Regression analysis results for housing estates with onsite systems
atively close association between individual management Variables Model OaA-1b t-Value Model OA-2c t-Value
aspects and the set of factors evaluated in this study, so that Standard Standard
emphasizing any one aspect over another is not critical to coefficient coefficient
the whole outcome. However, assigning a very high weight PRICE1 e e e e
to a particular management aspect that appears to have little PRICE2 e e e e
correlation with a set of factors can affect the overall relation- PRICE3 e e e e
R-CONCERN e e e e
ship between WWM performance and those factors. P-OCCUPY e e e e
Model CA-1 is preferred for drawing conclusions from the R-OCCUPY 0.436** 2.502 0.486*** 2.957
significant influential factors because (1) it places importance EXP 0.225 1.385 0.370** 2.417
on every aspect of management performance, (2) it shows R-ATTITUDE 0.253 0.166 0.191 1.144
a strong relationship (adj. R2 ¼ 0.72) between a set of selected UNIT 0.411** 2.366 0.375** 2.290
factors and WWM performance, and (3) several significant Adjusted R2 0.262 0.344
( p  0.05), valid factors are included. When an alpha level F-test 3.577*** 4.809***
of at least 0.05 is used as the significance benchmark, three **Significant at a ¼ 0.05.
significant factors are indicated in the regression analysis, in- ***Significant at a ¼ 0.01.
a
Model O means model of onsite WWM.
cluding two qualitative factors (house price and type of orga- b
Model OA-1 is generated by using the overall performance result from
nization managing HE) and one quantitative factor (attitudes Alternative 1 (in Table 4).
of the HE organization to various aspects of WWM). c
Model OA-2 is generated by using the overall performance result from
House price is a significant factor, although the relationship Alternative 2 (in Table 4).
with WWM performance is somewhat inconsistent. Higher-
priced housing is correlated with better WWM performance. with WWM performance were omitted, resulting in (1) an in-
More expensive estates can collect more revenue for public crease in the adjusted R2 to 0.344, (2) a change in significant
utilities funds. If the fund is large enough such that part of level from 0.05 to 0.01 for ‘percentage of occupied houses’,
the money can be budgeted for O & M expenses, results and (3) addition of another significant factor, namely ‘level
will be better. of direct experience in water pollution’, at p < 0.05.
With respect to the type of organization managing the pub- The adjusted R2 values obtained from the models for the
lic facilities, a negative correlation was found between HE onsite system were not high compared with the community
association and WWM performance. Given their potential in centralized system. A set of potential factors is correlated
terms of quality and quantity of technicians and financial sta- moderately with WWM performance based on information ob-
tus, it is not surprising that developers can manage wastewater tained in this study. Although removing a poorly performing
systems better than HE associations. An HE managed by an indicator could somewhat improve the apparent correlation,
association, depending only on the experience of responsible the correlation remained relatively weak due to the limited
staff without additional training, likely leads to poor manage- number of indicators. Thus, the level of correlation can prob-
ment performance. Another important social factor that is ably be improved by identifying and adding more indicators in
a persistent concern, relative to environmental management, order to obtain a more accurate assessment of performance. It
is the attitude that people have toward environmental prob- is possible that this study did not take into account certain fac-
lems. The results of the regression analysis, which showed tors that may play a substantive role in determining onsite per-
a positive correlation between this factor and WWM perfor- formance. Some of those potential factors include homeowner
mance, confirm that the attitudes of the organization toward education level, members per household, accessibility to sept-
various aspects of wastewater treatment can indeed enhance age pumping services and toilet use. Embracing these factors
overall performance. could improve the correlation analyses.
Since Model OA-2 provided the highest possible level of
4.2.2. Onsite system correlation between onsite system performance and a number
The regression analysis results for samples from the onsite of significant factors, additional discussion of this model is
system in this study are presented in Table 6. Compared with warranted. In this model there are three significant quantitative
a completed model, the parsimonious model (Model OA-1) factors: the percentage of occupied houses, the level of direct
consisting of four factors (without PRICE, R-CONCERN experience in water pollution and the number of total house
and P-OCCUPY variables), was the better model since the ad- units. Percentage of occupied houses correlated positively
justed R2 improved by roughly 43%. In addition, the accuracy with WWM performance. Conversely, the other two factors
in determining WWM performance from information based on were inversely related to performance. A higher percentage
a given set of factors also showed statistically significant im- of occupied houses means more revenue that can be spent
provement (a ¼ 0.05). The trial exercise of the selected model on public facility management, including WWM systems.
with three weighing alternatives distinguished the results of Moreover, development companies that operate upon an ethi-
Alternative 2 from results of the other alternatives. In Model cal and responsible foundation, providing good quality units,
OA-2, O & M practice aspects that did not correlate well a properly functioning sanitation system, well-maintained
 S. Sujaritpong, V. Nitivattananon / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 455e465
grounds and agreeable after-sales service, will be more likely
to see a higher rate of occupancy in their estates. Hence, pro-
visions that encourage and ensure good sanitation and waste-
water practices should facilitate progress toward adequate
and effective WWM by improving the desirability and occu-
pancy, and ultimately the revenue, of HEs.
Interestingly, performance appears to worsen as the degree
of direct experience in water pollution rises. While this would
seem to counterintuitive, an explanation exists. In general, per-
formance from onsite WWM is usually at its worst when the
system has been in use for a long period of time, especially
when sludge pumping has been ignored. For estates con-
structed some time ago, certain effluent parameters may ex-
ceed the recommended quality standards, and residents may
perceive the lower quality through detection of unpleasant
odors and poor water color. Nonetheless, the reason residents
ignore sound WWM is that it is of little immediate concern to
them. This is in sharp contrast to new HEs with onsite WWTS
still functioning efficiently. At these locations, residents are
never exposed to polluted water.
There is an inverse relationship between number of house
units and WWM performance. This relationship is understand-
able since not only would the number of houses tend to rise as
the HE ages, but increased wastewater discharge into an aging
treatment system would, no doubt, lead to capacity exceed-
ance and poor overall performance. It is possible that the num-
ber of house units does not influence WWM performance in
newly established housing estates because the system still
functions very well and is able to handle all of the wastewater
entering it.
4.3. Institutional issues
Institutional constraints were identified through interviews
and discussions with key stakeholders. Following are summa-
ries, taken from the interviews, of the pertinent institutional
problems and issues relating to HE WWM.
4.3.1. Inadequate monitoring and enforcement
Self-monitoring has already been in place for certain orga-
nizations, especially large HEs requiring EIA. But due to the
lack of direct legal consequences and clear responsibility
among authorities, HE organizations often neglect implemen-
tation of the required monitoring programs.
4.3.2. Fragmentation among authorities
This occurs within a given level of government as well as
between the hierarchical ‘‘chain of command.’’ At the same
level, inadequate cooperation among different units occurred,
which causes confusion and near paralysis since many parties
have to take responsibility for different aspects, even though
the ultimate goal is the same. For example, one unit may be
responsible for providing construction permits, while another
unit has to follow-up on the potential impacts after the permit
has been granted. Fragmentation between different levels of
government is particularly evident in the inadequate assistance
among central and local governments.
463
4.3.3. Inadequate capabilities of responsible agencies
It was discovered that a lack of technical knowledge
associated with WWM is common in most related agencies.
Because of the introduction in recent years of a decentraliza-
tion policy, aimed at empowering and transferring authority
from the central to the local level, local government authorities
(LGAs) are forced to take on several tasks and responsibilities,
for which they may have had inadequate training and/or lack
critical knowledge. In this transitional period, training and
capacity building are critically needed.
4.3.4. Lack of interest in WWM from LGAs and
HE residents
Because many aspects of the environmental impacts associ-
ated with poor WWM and degraded water quality in suburban
areas are not explicitly apparent, LGAs and HE residents often
pay little attention. Meanwhile those environmental issues
with readily observable consequences, such as solid waste
management, water supply provisions and flood prevention,
receive more attention from LGAs and HE residents. If resi-
dents do not show interest in WWM and do not vocalize their
concerns to local authorities, inadequate budgeting is likely.
4.3.5. Inadequate budgets for HE management
In the case of HE associations, a limited budget is often
spent on activities that are more ‘‘visible’’ and perceived as
having substantial impacts on the quality of life, such as
safety, security and cleanness. Likewise, in some instances
there are sufficient funds to manage public utilities, but none
are allocated to WWM, because the effects of ignoring treat-
ment problems are often more apparent for people outside of
the HE than for internal HE residents.
4.3.6. Lack of organization to take responsibility for
HE public facilities management
The main constraints in setting up an HE association stem
from three main causes. The first is that residents lack a sense
of belonging to the community, a common characteristic of
people living in an urban environment. The second is the com-
plicated process of establishing an association, especially for
large estates, since it involves a lot of people. Finally, because
working for an HE association is a voluntary job with no finan-
cial incentive, overall participation among residents is low.
4.4. Measures for enhancing HE WWM
In this section, three main kinds of EMM are considered e
regulatory, economic and moral persuasive measures (Field
and Field, 2002), as a response to the findings previously de-
scribed within three different dimensions (poor management
aspects, key influencing factors and institutional issues). There
are several potential measures, which can address at least two
dimensions for each type of EMM, such as effluent standards,
tax incentives and an awareness campaign. More information
about such potential measures, including measure objectives,
possible actions, defined target group and the expected results,
is provided in Table 7.
464 S. Sujaritpong, V. Nitivattananon / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 455e465

Table 7 4.4.2. Tax incentives

Potential actions for responding to different dimensions e influencing factors, Tax incentives can improve WWM performance by (1) re-
performance aspects and institutional issues
ducing O & M costs, particularly for lower-priced HEs, by
Potential actions Response to Community Onsite persuading developers to implement effective, inexpensive O
centralized system
system
& M technology, (2) inducing the developer to initiate and
construct an effluent reuse system, and (3) encouraging private
Effluent standard Total house units 1
(regulatory measure) Percentage of 1
contractors to invest in desludging services.
occupied houses With the encouragement of a tax incentive, developers are
Reuse 2 more likely to make strategic choices that will result in long-
Inadequate monitoring 3 term O & M benefits for residents. For the tax incentive to be
and enforcement program efficient, a tax reduction has to be attractively designed to, at
Tax incentive House price 1 a minimum, compensate developers for an initial higher mon-
(economic measure) Reuse 2 etary commitment that will result in an alternative O & M sys-
O & M practices 2
tem with lower long-term costs. Incentives can be imposed
Awareness campaign Attitudes of HE 1 through business, property or value-added taxes, which devel-
(moral suasive measure) organization opers have to pay to the authorities.
Type of organization 1
managing HE
A tax incentive with a similar concept can also be applied
Direct experience 1 to improve the performance of effluent reuse management.
in water pollution The incentive has to be designed properly in order to motivate
Reuse 2 developers to install a simple reuse system. But a tax incentive
O & M practices 2 measure alone may not be sufficient, as there is limited regu-
Lack of interest in WWM 3
of LGA and HE resident
lation of water reuse in developing countries. Water reuse,
however, can be encouraged and strengthened by a combina-
1: Key influencing factor; 2: poor performance aspect; 3: institutional issue.
tion of measures. For example, effluent discharge fees can
be levied based on quantity, which may have the duel impact
4.4.1. Effluent standards of reducing discharge volume and encouraging reuse
Although effluent standards are implemented to control wa- programs.
ter pollution generated from real estate sources, they may be
ineffective. In order to overcome shortcomings in the current 4.4.3. Awareness campaign
standards, the necessary measures are: (1) set both qualitative An awareness campaign should be conducted in order to
and quantitative land subdivision effluent standards, (2) communicate with, and mobilize, residents. For an HE with
enhance the monitoring program for HEs requiring EIA, the community centralized WWM, an awareness campaign
through enforcement of penalties, and (3) develop a monitoring would promote the benefits of (1) improved WWM as a whole
program and performance assessment for HEs with onsite and, specifically, effluent reuse, and (2) establish an HE asso-
WWM. ciation not only for successful WWM but also for the general
Specifying qualitative and quantitative effluent standards improvement of many aspects of everyday life for the resi-
can, in the long term, produce strong incentives for developers dents. The target groups of this measure are both the developer
or suppliers to search for technical and managerial alternatives and HE organization. There are many ways of encouraging
to reduce the discharge volume and, where feasible, recycle people through awareness campaigns, for example, initiating
the water. Standards should vary according to HE size, in order a demonstration project using actual situations and experi-
to prevent the release of large load volumes from large estates. ences. This can stimulate a wider interest in the benefits of
A link between land subdivision/construction permit good WWM, rewarding good practices and stimulating peo-
programs and monitoring impact mitigation measures may ples’ sense of duty. Another system that may be effective is no-
enhance the efficiency of the monitoring program for HEs re- tifying the public about the presence of pollution sources
quiring EIA. In that way, developers who have not followed through, say, a color-coded rating system, similar to an inno-
mitigation measures or submitted EIA monitoring reports for vative program used in Indonesia to control water pollution
prior projects would have permission for future projects from the industrial sector (Asikin, 1999).
suspended. In the case of situations where ownership is trans- For the onsite system, a campaign should communicate, to
ferred to an HE association, other forms of enforcement can all system users, the adverse impacts of improper O & M
be considered, such as closing the effluent drainage gate practices on local water sources and community health.
installed at the discharge point, or limiting water supply. The campaign could be executed directly through distributing
A monitoring program for the onsite system should also be brochures and leaflets with simple O & M practice
implemented to ensure that domestic wastewater is handled guidelines. LGAs should take the initiative in launching an
properly. Since a common monitoring program geared toward awareness campaign like this. Another approach that LGAs
effluent quality is not well suited to individual households, in- could be involved in, would be to go through developers,
spection of onsite treatment devices and desludging practice who could advise homeowners on how to properly look after
controls are proposed as alternative or additional measures. their system, and also make direct contact with new
 S. Sujaritpong, V. Nitivattananon / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 455e465
homeowners before, or soon after, they have occupied
a dwelling.
5. Conclusions and recommendations
In this study, multiple regression analysis was used to
identify key factors that influence housing estate WWM per-
formance. The factors that were assessed encompass general,
social, financial and institutional aspects. The study results
suggest that, in the context of suburban communities in
Thailand, performance improvement can be expected if the
factors (house price, type of organization managing the
HE, attitudes of the organization for community centralized
systems and total house units, direct experience in water pol-
lution and water treatment and percentage of occupied
houses for onsite systems) are considered with earnest. The
correlation between a set of factors and overall WWM per-
formance results, as measured by the coefficient of determi-
nation (R2), was found to be rather high for HEs with
community centralized WWM, but only medium for HEs
with an onsite system. The difference in correlation values
may be artifactual as a result of the disparity in the number
and range of management aspects affecting indicators be-
tween the two systems.
Half of the performance aspects assessed in this study were
classified as poor. There are several institutional factors that
act as barriers to improvement in community WWM, includ-
ing inadequate monitoring and enforcement, fragmentation
and poor communication among authorities, inadequate capac-
ity of responsible agencies, lack of interest in WWM from
LGAs and HE residents, lack of organization for monitoring
and maintenance of public facilities and insufficient funds
for WWM in HE management. In order to address the findings
of this study, three potential EMMs e effluent standards, tax
incentives and awareness campaigns e were selected as hav-
ing a high potential for improving performance.
In spite of the fact that most developing countries tend to
use decentralized WWM systems in suburban areas, there is
a lack of initiative in terms of management at the commu-
nity/household level. Therefore, more research is required to
cope with not only technical but also social and institutional
concerns, in order to achieve sustainable environmental sanita-
tion solutions. The significant factors that were identified in
this study, and the methodology used to identify them, may
be of use in similar situations, particularly suburban areas,
where domestic water pollution problems dictate the need
for assessment and development of more effective policies
and management strategies. Although conducted in the context
of HE WWM in Thailand, the present study could have
broader applications, providing insights to both practical and
research challenges. The systematic approach used in this
study, involving performance assessment, identification of sig-
nificant, influential factors and application of management
measures, is expected to be valid and beneficial for concerned
465
agencies not only in the WWM sector but also, with adjust-
ments for localized conditions and perspectives, to overall en-
vironmental management.
References
Al-Sa’ed, R., Mubarak, S., 2006. Sustainability assessment of onsite sanitation
facilities in Ramallah-Albireh district with emphasis on technical, socio-
cultural and financial aspects. Management of Environmental Quality:
An International Journal 17 (2), 140e156.
Asikin, D.G., 1999. Policy Paper: Urban Domestic Wastewater Management
in Jakarta. http://hq.unhabitat.org/cdrom/water/HTML/Policy%20paper_
dudi.htm (accessed 10.06.2005).
Auesuwanna, P., 2000. Wastewater Management and Factors Influencing
Wastewater Management of Housing Estate Projects Requiring EIA in
Bangkok Metropolitan Region. Master’s thesis, Mahidol University, Bang-
kok, Thailand (in Thai).
Bakir, H.A., 2001. Sustainable wastewater management for small communities
in the Middle East and North Africa. Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment 61 (4), 319e328.
Balkema, A., Preisig, H.A., Otterpohl, R., Lambert, F.J.D., 2002. Indicators for
the sustainability assessment of wastewater treatment system. Urban Water
4 (2), 153e161.
Field, B.C., Field, M.K., 2002. Environmental Economics: an Introduction,
third ed. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, New York, USA.
Government Housing Bank (GHB), 2005. State-of -the-Art-Housing Bank
Journal 11 (40), 63e64 (in Thai).
Gray, S., Booker, N., 2003. Wastewater services for small communities. Water
Science and Technology 47 (7e8), 65e71.
Kazmi, A., Furumai, H., 2005. Sustainable urban wastewater management and
reuse in Asia. International Review for Environmental Strategies 5 (2),
425e448 (Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, IGES).
Ludwig, H.F., Fennerty, H., Sow, K.L., Mohit, K., 2005. Textbook of Appro-
priate Sewerage Technology for Developing Countries. South Asian Pub-
lishers Pvt LTD, New Delhi, India.
Mbuligwe, E.S., 2004. Assessment of performance of solid waste management
contractors: a simple techno-social model and its application. Waste Man-
agement 24 (7), 739e749.
Office of Environmental Policy and Planning of Thailand (ONEP), 1999. Mon-
itoring the Implementation of Environmental Mitigation Measures of Land
Subdivision Project in Nonthaburi Province. Project Final Report (in Thai).
Parkinson, J., Kevin, T., 2003. Decentralized wastewater management in peri-
urban areas in low-income countries. Environment and Urbanization 15
(1), 75e89.
Pollution Control Department (PCD), 2001. Overall Operation Monitoring and
Evaluation Project in Five Pollution Restricted Zones (Pattaya, Nonthaburi,
Pathumthani, Samutprakarn and Nakornprathom). Project Final Report.
Sattayapan, A., 2001. Guidelines for Wastewater Management in Housing
Subdivision in Bangkok. Master’s thesis, Chulalongkorn University, Bang-
kok (in Thai). ISBN 974-03-1009-5.
Sarikaya, H.Z., Sevimli, M.F., Koyuncu, I., Yuksel, E., 2003. Joint operation of
small wastewater treatment plants in southern Turkey. Water Science and
Technology 48 (11e12), 69e76.
Sujaritpong, S., 2006. Factors Influencing the Wastewater Management Perfor-
mance of Sub-urban Housing Estates in Nonthaburi Province, Thailand.
Master’s thesis, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok.
Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S., 1983. Using Multivariate Analysis, second ed.
Harper Collins, New York.
Wilderer, P.A., Schreff, D., 2000. Decentralized and centralized wastewater
management: a challenge for technology developers. Water Science and
Technology 41 (1), 1e8.
World Health Organization (WHO), 2000. Tools for assessing the O&M status
of water supply and sanitation in developing countries.