Water Research 126 (2017) 216e231

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Water Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/watres

New era / new solutions: The role of alternative tariff structures in

water supply projects
F. Silva Pinto*, R. Cunha Marques
CESUR, CERIS, Instituto Superior T!
ecnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001, Lisboa, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Water utilities face different challenges that may force them to seek prioritized objectives. When doing
Received 19 April 2017 so, particular projects may have to be developed, being important to understand their impact on water
Received in revised form tariffs, and thus, on customers. Such consequences may bear an increased relevance in cases stressed
6 September 2017
with, e.g., resource scarcity, poverty, and the need for infrastructure investments. The resulting cost and
Accepted 10 September 2017
revenue variability demand a comprehensive study. If the rst may require a stochastic modeling (in
Available online 13 September 2017
major cost components) in order to consider its inherent uncertainty, the second needs to be modeled
following context-specic objectives set by the relevant stakeholders. The solutions achieved will likely
Keywords:
Tariff structures
promote distinct revenue sources, as well as diversied water tariff structures. A multi-objective opti-
Stochastic desalination cost mization model (i.e., a Framework for Suitable Prices) is built to deal with those diversied requirements
Multi-objective optimization (e.g., stochastic energy costs, affordability, cost recovery, or administrative simplicity). The model is
Sustainability solved through achievement scalarizing functions with several weighting coefcients for a reference
Water supply point, so as to provide a signicant perception of possible revenue options (and their impact) to the
decision makers. The proposed method is applied to a case study, Boa Vista Island in Cabo Verde, in
which the background characteristics, namely water sources availability (e.g., the adoption of desalina-
tion technologies), economic development and other contextual factors were considered. The key role of
tariff structure selection is displayed, instead of assuming it a priori, giving important insights regarding
project feasibility.
2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction approaches), or tariff structure adjustments (Pinto and Marques,

Water utilities around the world have been subject to different
but increasing challenges that dene the current framework (WHO
and UNICEF, 2014). The source may vary from environmental,
economic, social or political issues, possibly in the shape of resource
scarcity or infrastructure inadequacy. Therefore, when developing
solutions those specic constraints should be considered to weigh
each solution's cost, limitations and potential. The standpoint of
each utility is context specic, and thus, the goals to be pursued
may differ between cases. Pragmatically, utilities that face water
scarcity, or a high economic exclusion (in terms of affordability),
could focus their efforts on developing different types of initiatives.
Possibilities cover water restrictions (Cooper et al., 2011), special
social plans (Massoud et al., 2009; for analogous wastewater
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: frcsilvapinto@tecnico.ulisboa.pt (F.S. Pinto).
2015b).
The link between the costs incurred in those projects and how
they further translate into revenue requirements is, somehow, yet
to be properly achieved. A clear display of that stance is found
worldwide in the promotion of uncertain project assessments and
in the misapplication of tariff structures, as well as other sources
of revenue, bearing a possible undesired impact on customers.
Regarding project assessments, during the past decades,
extensive attempts were developed to estimate the cost of con-
struction and operation of diversied infrastructures (e.g., for
desalination plants, see the studies highlighted in Gude, 2016;
Pinto and Marques, 2017). Most of those studies range from
empirical estimations based on experts to more sophisticated
predictions. The relevance of those studies is uncontested, but due
to their deterministic nature, each cost variable is assumed to be
exact/precise, disregarding the inherent uncertainty. Indeed, if in
some cases, depending on the level of project denition, time
frame selected, among other characteristics, the energy costs (e.g.,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.09.023
0043-1354/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 F.S. Pinto, R.C. Marques / Water Research 126 (2017) 216e231
electricity price) and nance charges (e.g., interest and ination
rates) can be considered depending on their values at the time of
evaluation or assumed to be constant over the time set, in others
they should not. The previous statement has an increased rele-
vance when there are high capital and operating requirements
(i.e., costs), as well as uncertainties in the availability of affordable
energy and in the predictability of future nancial markets (Rigotti
and Shannon, 2005), perhaps, promoting statistical approaches.
The stochastic nature of such costs, and the expected benets (at
least the revenues from tariffs), demand a comprehensive quan-
tication of such uncertainties (Park et al., 2010).
The standpoint concerning the possible misapplication of
different sources of revenue, herein focused on water tariffs,
mainly refers to the promotion of policies applied successfully
elsewhere, but that rendered to be unt, harming the objectives
initially set (for further insights, see Angel-Urdinola and Wodon,
2012). Such an example is the wide adoption of Increasing Block
Tariffs (IBTs), sometimes even imposed/suggested through legis-
lation (e.g., Brazil and the Philippines). IBTs may bear some
strengths, but if the whole tariff design process is not duly
considered, the tariff structure inherent assumptions may not
apply, rendering the process awed (mainly in the denition of
structural decision variables as the number of blocks and their
volume, see Pinto and Marques, 2015a). Furthermore, there are
studies that formulate a noteworthy tariff modeling, as Hanemann
(1993); Grifn (2001); Nauges et al. (2015); however, the tools
developed therein dene the tariff structure a priori, constraining
the problem solutions.
Due to the above mentioned issues, the current paper develops a
multi-objective optimization (MOO) model to formulate the asso-
ciated revenues and to assess cost variability through a risk-based
analysis. Additionally, there is a focus in avoiding strict assump-
tions regarding the tariff structure (e.g. the number, volume and
price of potential blocks), modeling the objectives while letting
those variables free to take the form that best suits the water
utility context and objectives. The opportunity to consider, in a
proper framework, background factors and the willingness to
pursue diversied political economic goals is innovative and pro-
vides less arbitrariness in tariff setting.
This Framework for Suitable Prices (FSP) aims at nding, or
approach the set of efcient solutions, in order to propose a range of
possibilities to be considered. The use of a reference point method
is particularly suitable due to the projection made onto the Pareto
frontier through an achievement scalarizing function (Wierzbicki
et al., 2000). Hence, to guide the decision making process,
distinct weighting coefcient vectors were used for a given refer-
ence point to build a set of options. This method of projecting a
given reference point (also labeled as reservation or aspiration
points) that represents the objective, criteria or outcome values
desired by the decision maker (DM), onto the set of efcient solu-
tions, has been widely developed (Cabello et al., 2014; Dujardin
et al., 2015; Pinto et al., 2015).
In order to promote a proper discussion, the proposed method is
applied to a case study (i.e., Boa Vista Island in Cabo Verde), where a
status quo and additional scenarios were assessed. Due to
complexity and size constraints, the case study was adapted to
become, somehow, a minimal working example.
This document is structured as follows. Section 2 highlights the
main cost components and revenue streams that ought to be
considered, giving the rationale to the FSP model framed in Section
3. Section 4 highlights the empirical analysis, discussing the results
achieved and providing key policy implications. To conclude, nal
remarks are drawn.
217
2. Cost components and revenue streams
2.1. Cost components and costing methodologies
In the provision of water supply as an industrial production
process (Barak, 2012), it is necessary to identify and recover the
associated costs, and therefore there is a need to understand the
revenue requirements. The magnitude of these costs is utility
specic and depends signicantly on the hydrogeology, technology
used, and management practices; requiring at least the recovery of
recurring costs in order to keep operations running. However, if in
the short-run that may be acceptable, for the long-run it is not, and
a more holistic approach is required to have a glimpse at sustain-
ability. Additionally, there are varying opinions about who should
pay for what costs, and if so, which percentage is reasonable, and
how they might be paid (Cardone and Fonseca, 2003).
Theoretically, the sum of all operational and maintenance costs
(O&M), capital charges, opportunity costs and those related to ex-
ternalities constitute the full cost of supply. Still, it is important to
guarantee a thorough understanding on what it entails and how
they can be measured. Therefore, Table 1 highlights the general
principles and the current perspective of costs to be covered
(adapted from Rogers et al., 1998; Zetland and Gasson, 2013; Global
Water Intelligence, 2014). The estimation accuracy item relates to
the ability to which a specic cost component can be estimated,
and the degree of acceptance highlights if the estimation methods
are consensual among academics and practitioners (e.g., the capital
charges can be based on the historical repayment of investments or
also include the replacement of the capital stock, both are accurate,
but not so consensual in their application). Note that those features
are classied from the lowest (e e) to the highest () ability to be
fullled.
Therefore, even if the standard presumption is that total costs
should include only the nancial outlays (at best), when identifying
revenue requirements or even comparing with other investment
scenarios, the inclusion of nonaccounting costs should be also
promoted (nonaccounting opportunity costs, see Grifn, 2001;
perhaps externalities, see Scarpa et al., 2007).
Another problem relies on the difculty of cost estimations,
projections and forecasts. In general, there are particular charac-
teristics that have to be considered to justify their suitability. For
the case of estimates, depending on the degree of project denition,
different possibilities can be selected in accordance with: 1) end
usage of the estimate; 2) estimating methodology; 3) estimating
accuracy; and, 4) the effort required to produce such estimate
(Dysert, 2007). Following the AACE RP 17R-97 (Recommended
Practice for Cost Estimate Classication, AACE, 1997a), and AACE RP
18R-97 (similar to RP 17R-97 but with insights for process in-
dustries, AACE, 1997b), specic inputs are required to produce the
desired estimating quality at each phase of the estimation process.
See Fig. 1 for a short overview of such classication.
As observed in Fig. 1, the estimating methodology will fall into
deterministic categories depending on the level of project deni-
tion. However, for initial stages or in a forecasting perspective, the
values are occasionally considered as deterministic, varying
signicantly due to the assumptions made. To counter that pre-
dicament, sensitivity analyses are performed to assess the cost
variations associated with a predened change in those assump-
tions. However, for some variables, their representation through
probability distributions is relevant in order to yield cost pre-
dictions with a quantiable uncertainty, i.e., dening with a known
degree of condence, the value-at-risk (Lianyu and Tiong, 2005;
Kavvadias and Khamis, 2014).
218 F.S. Pinto, R.C. Marques / Water Research 126 (2017) 216e231

Table 1
Status quo of water supply costs (features classication: e e, e, , ).

Main cost Denition Estimation Degree of Adoption

components accuracy acceptance frequency

O&M The expenses associated with daily operation and maintenance of the system
Capital charges The expenses associated with capital investments (depreciation costs and associated e
interest)
Opportunity costs The value of foregone options, possible alternative uses (the non-accounting ones) e e ee
Externalities The costs (or benets) imposed due to the mutually interfering usage ee ee ee

Fig. 1. Cost estimate classication characteristics (adapted from AACE RP 17R-97 and RP 18R-97).

2.2. Revenues: the role of tariff structures
Water utilities must be able to pay for the expenses mentioned
in Section 2.1, as this is essential for the continuous provision of
services and adequate functioning of the utility.
There are numerous sources of revenues. In fact, according to
OECD (2010), the right combination of tariffs, taxes and transfers,
the so-called 3Ts, needs to be sought, as revenues from other
sources of nance will be repaid through them. Nonetheless, such
additional sources, as loans and bonds, must be explored due to
exibility benets. A comprehensive list, of possible revenue
sources, would include operating revenues from water services
(e.g., unmetered sales, metered sales, sales for resale/wholesale,
and re protection) as well as other operating revenues (as forfeited
discounts or rents from water property), not neglecting the
nonoperating revenues (AWWA, 2012; Raftelis, 2014). The latter
covers interest and dividend income, gains or losses from disposi-
tion of property, tax revenues, transfers and allowances related to
specic funds, contributions, grants or even development charges.
Regarding sources of revenue, there is no one size ts all model
to nancing, as the context (e.g., background factors) differs greatly
in a worldwide basis (Hoque and Wichelns, 2013). Pragmatically, in
some developing countries, utilities have to draw heavily on
transfers and philanthropy to cover capital costs as well as many
recurrent costs (e.g., in Banerjee et al., 2010, from 45 African water
utilities only 36% covered all O&M costs and 9% the capital charges).
Despite that fact, in some developed countries, utilities with
mature systems are able to raise all, or at least a signicant part, of
their revenues from customers through tariffs, earmarked taxes
and other charges (for further country experiences, see OECD,
2009).
Actually, due to the nature of water services, revenue sources are
important to support further community objectives besides cost
recovery. Thereon, there is a requirement to focus on water tariff
components to achieve improved pricing policies (Nauges and
Whittington, 2017; Pinto and Marques, 2016). In order to achieve
a tariff structure that is responsive to the philosophy and objectives
of both the utility and its community, all decision variables involved
in its modeling have to be assessed with care (Nauges et al., 2015).
Therefore, assuming that a tariff structure is essentially a function
of xed and variable components with possible adjustments, we
highlight in Table 2 the main decision variables that arise when
considering the most adopted structures. For an exhaustive char-
acterization of tariff structures, and their impact on customers, see
Aymerich et al. (2015); Pinto and Marques (2015b).
In Table 2, there are some adjustment proxies that should be
connected with specic cost components/categories depending on
the stress they create to the utility. Besides, to successfully
implement pricing policies, the value-in-use to different customers
ought to be assessed, or similarly, their willingness to pay (Rogers
et al., 1998).
3. Modeling a framework for suitable prices
The FSP model covers a set of strategic stages in order to set
suitable water tariffs. Those stages are somehow hierarchically
 F.S. Pinto, R.C. Marques / Water Research 126 (2017) 216e231 219

Table 2
Tariff structure design considerations and possible adjustments.

Tariff structure Fixed, at Uniform, single block, (UT) Increasing (decreasing), blocks Increasing rate, sliding scale
(IBT/DBT) (IRT)

Denition A xed fee per customer per A single rate per unit of volume The volumetric unitary charge The unitary volumetric price for
bill, that is, the charge does not is applied, therefore, it is a increases (decreases) stepwise all water consumption
change with the volume of single volumetric rate. as water usage increases, from increases as water usage
water use. block to block. increases.
Design features 1) The price (or level). 1) The price (or level) per unit of 1) The number of blocks; 2) the 1) and 2) are equal to IBTs/DBTs,
volume. volume associated with each and; 3) the price to be charged
block, and; 3) the price to be by ending total consumption on
charged for each block. that block.
Adjustment proxies
Customers Type (e.g.): Social, large families. + To differentiate based on customer characteristics, usually through proxies: Affordability - some wealth index;
property value. Equity - household (HH) size and number of dependents.
Possible Possible Possible, focus on price and Possible, focus on price and
volume variables volume variables
Time frame Type (e.g.): Seasonal, time of use, peak load. + Rates differ according to the time's frame demand/water availability, being usually adapted to peak
hours, days, week, seasons.
Only time frames longer than Possible Possible, focus on price Possible, focus on price
the billing periods
Spatial Type (e.g.): Urban/Suburban/rural, Municipal. + Users pay for the actual cost of supplying water to their region, or even their establishment.
Possible Possible Possible, focus on price Possible, focus on price

Note: If different types of structures are combined, the possibilities arise, but so does complexity.

linked and, depending on the problem under analysis, they may
require specic stakeholder participation. The FSP working ow-
chart is highlighted in Fig. 2.
In brief, once the initial setting is devised, scenarios are built for
comparison based on the associated cash-ows, and unless other-
wise stated, the analysis is made at nominal or current year prices,
so that relative price changes and price level changes are suitably
considered. Afterwards, for particular instances (as cost-benet
measurements) all values are deated to a selected year price
level (Jenkins, 1978). Then, depending on the information available,
the costs are distributed to customer classes. After those two steps,
the revenue requirements have to be assigned to sources of reve-
nue, in which the tariffs will be modeled according to specic ob-
jectives and constraints.
As identied in Fig. 2, there are some processes and links that
have a major impact on the whole process. First, it is the link be-
tween measuring elements/variables and composing specica-
tions of functional costs processes, as there lies the selection of
variables that will undergo stochastic modeling and the level of
analytical cost breakdown. Once selected, those variables will be
assessed according to their nature, to their historical magnitude
and frequency, as well as expert judgment, in order to t a distri-
bution function. Please note that depending on their use in the
model (as in projections), a correlation matrix may be required
(Park et al., 2010; Kavvadias and Khamis, 2014). Second, in the
scenario building process, different scenarios are built analogously
based on the problem boundaries initially set. Different possibilities
can be developed, either related to the project's nature (e.g., addi-
tional investments besides a baseline/business as usual/status quo
approach), or to data differentiation based on tted probability
distribution functions and respective uncertainty (for further in-
sights on scenario building, see Lus et al., 2016). The cost alloca-
tion stage assigns to each customer type their inherent costs,
allowing to impose revenue requirements and to link them to
possible revenue sources (e.g., tariffs).
As for the tariff design stage, it is where the MOO model is
developed. Due to its nature, the problem falls into the mixed-
integer linear programming classication. The general structure
relies on assigning charges (generally per time units), allowing for
exibility in the rate selection (the price to apply per volume units),
framing the water tariffs (i.e., the procedures and elements that
establish the customer's bill, as dened in OECD, 1999). Therefore,
we allow each volume and time unit to have its own unitary price,
revealing the inherent tariff structure by mapping those assign-
ments. This concept of structuring tariffs may lead to a signicant
burden due to the number of decision variables involved; however,
if we consider all the requirements that the tariff ought to have,
there will be certainly less freedom, and most importantly, less
arbitrariness in tariff setting. The mentioned requirements are
enforced through the ability to support and optimize a blend of
various utility objectives. Indeed, since water tariffs are a major
source of revenue, the following objectives should be assessed
(adapted from Pinto and Marques, 2016):
Economic efciency (allocative efciency);
Financial sustainability (cost recovery, and revenue stability);
Environmental concerns (sustainable use);
Social concerns (equity across users, and affordability);
Governance (clarity, and administrative simplicity).
Those objectives have to be modeled in accordance with infor-
mation available, not disregarding DM interaction (as highlighted
in Fig. 2). A formulation of this MOO problem specifying the sets,
indices, parameters, decision variables, constraints, and objective
functions considered, is outlined in Appendix A (concerning the
empirical analysis developed in Section 4).
However, since the FSP requires exibility due to information
availability, we will consider without loss of generality that a MOO
problem to be solved by the FSP can be dened by a set of objective
functions f1(x), f2(x), ,fn(x) with n " 2, assuming that they are to
be minimized. The respective decision variables are expressed by a
vector x x1 ; x2 ; ; xm , where x2X, X being the set of feasible
solutions. Moreover, we dene an objective vector
z z1 ; z2 ; ; zn with z2Z, considering a vector function
f : X/Z, with Z f(X) denoting the set of feasible points in the
objective (or criterion) space Rn Z4Rn . Thus, we can formulate
this problem as follows (Figueira et al., 2010):
min f x f1 ; f2 ; ; fn x
(1)
subject to: x2X:
Since this type of problem has generally several solutions, it is
critical to use particular techniques to get efcient solutions in a
suitable processing time. Hence, following the approach proposed
220 F.S. Pinto, R.C. Marques / Water Research 126 (2017) 216e231

Fig. 2. FSP owchart covering the main stages.

by Wierzbicki (1980), we use achievement scalarizing functions, as small number 0 < r1. The family concept usage relies on the
they are particularly appropriate to work with reference points. possibility to build several functions in line with a set of diversied
Each objective function, characterized from a complex expres- weighting coefcients and reference points. Therefore, an
sion to a single variable, has aspiration levels (i.e., desirable values), achievement problem can be stated as follows:
and the resulting objective vector is the reference point, which can
be dened either in the feasible or in the infeasible region of the # "
objective space. To minimize the maximum unwanted deviation to
min s z; z0 ; l; r (3)
the reference point, a L distance coupled with a L1-based term subject to: x2X:
allows to build a family of achievement functions whose solutions Since the weighting vectors can be normalized, we represent the
for the problem in eq. (1) are assured to be properly efcient, set of feasible normalized scaling coefcients vectors as follows:
outlined as follows:
( $ )
$ X
n
! " n ! "o n ! " $
X L l l1 ; l2 ; ; ln $ lk 1; lk > 0; k 1; 2; ; n
s z; z0 ; l; r max lk zk & z0k r lk zk & z0k ; $
k1
k1;2;;n
k1
(4)
(2)
0
For a specic reference point z , different Pareto optimal solu-
where s is a mapping from Z onto R, z0 z01 ; z02 ; ; z0n is a tions can be achieved for the problem previously dened in eq. (3)
reference point vector, l l1 ; l2 ; ; ln is a weighting co- by using different l vectors. Hence, we consider that depending on
efcients' vector (scaling coefcients), and r is an arbitrary positive the formulation used we can acquire different solutions for the
 F.S. Pinto, R.C. Marques / Water Research 126 (2017) 216e231 221

same aspiration point (or DM). For the FSP, we consider a reference perspective in 2016 US$ adjusted for private consumption pur-
point built by inducing, when meaningful, a small perturbation to chasing power parities, PPP, World Bank, 2016).
the optimal solution achieved through solving each objective
function separately. This way, we are able to get any of the non- 4.2. Model application
dominated points by covering the non-dominated region. The
calculation process is guided by an augmented weighted Cheby- In order to apply the FSP, we followed the main steps high-
shev scalarizing function, where we normalize the values, as sug- lighted in Fig. 2. After achieving a requisite understanding of the
gested in Miettinen and Ma kela
(2002), to give a similar amplitude Boa Vista's situation, we selected a few key stakeholders (DMs) to
to each objective function. As for the weighting coefcients, we gather the required information for the 2016e2025 time frame
acknowledge different l vectors considering eq. (4) to get a diver- (covering two periods of tariff structure stability). Such information
sied set of non-dominated points, able to be assessed by the DM. included operational and strategic data gathered through ex-
change of emails and interviews, allowing to address the subjec-
tivity needed. This focus group included a Planning Director, an
4. Empirical analysis and ndings
Engineer, a Developer, and a Municipal Ofcer, all somehow con-
nected with the utility.
4.1. Case study overview
As a result of such interaction and considering the master plans
developed for Boa Vista, we built four scenarios based on the
The case of water supply in Cabo Verde is one of the harshest
combination of two project nature and two data differentiation
around the world due to the scarcity of natural, capital, labour and
possibilities. The rst relies on a comparison of the proposed plans
technology resources. In order to deal with that situation, the state
(expansion of current and new smaller sized RO plants, in 2017 and
of Cabo Verde has adopted several innovative solutions, acknowl-
2022) and the viability of an RO plant (in 2017) on the Lacaca ~o
edging the practical challenges in doing so (Marlow et al., 2013).
tourism development zone (Fig. 3), where it would be possible to
Indeed, the country has undergone several initiatives to perform
combine the location (hereafter, collocation) with a power plant.
institutional reforms, empower the providers with qualied pro-
Expected benets of the collocation option are: ability to provide
fessionals and nancial resources to promote coverage expansion,
the required energy (limiting the impact on the local power grid);
rendering an effective and continuous access to water supply (EBES
other direct cost savings (e.g., for the interaction between both
and DHV, 2012). Those initiatives have been developed with rele-
plants intakes and disposal systems, see Voutchkov, 2011, for
vant external/foreign aid from different countries and international
others, see Kavvadias and Khamis, 2014); easier control of harmful
organizations that allow Cabo Verde to have a solid basis to face the
algal blooms (Caron et al., 2010); and, environmental impacts (also
challenges ahead (ORWA Department/SNFO, 2014). Some of the
promoted by using lower salinity feed water, Mun ~ oz and
results achieved are embodied in two National Strategic Plans: 1)
Ferna !ndez-Alba, 2008).
for integrated water resources management (PAGIRE); and, 2) for
As seen in Fig. 4, the key components found were ination, in-
Water and Sanitation (PLENAS). Those results are now also being
terest rates and electricity costs. They were modeled in order to
embodied into Municipal Master Plans, which render this type of
develop projections (for the case study time frame) considering
research an increased relevance.
possible statistical dependence between them. To generate those
The Boa Vista Island is located in the fareast position of the ar-
stochastic variables, past records (32 data points from 1984 to 2015)
chipelago, it has 620 km2 and the terrain is mainly at (Fig. 3).1
were used to t probability distributions and to compute correla-
Following ANAS (2016), the island had a 50% growth over 5 years
tion matrices (auto-correlation and cross-correlation), allowing to
reaching 14451 inhabitants, being 71.4% economically active (age
apply the Vector Autoregressive to Anything (VARTA) process
15e64), plus 4274 equivalent inhabitants due to tourism. The
(Biller and Nelson, 2003). The probability density functions are
annual average precipitation is 68 mm/year, being considered a dry
selected in accordance with their goodness of t (Kolmogor-
region (Peel et al., 2007). The PAGIRE states that the available sur-
oveSmirnov test) and feasibility of use in the VARTA process. Sta-
face water reaches 2.5 hm3/year and the total exploitable ground-
tistical dependence was found only for ination and interest rates
water source may be as low as 0.3 hm3 (during dry season). The
(analogously to Park et al., 2010). In Fig. 4(c) and past data points
same document species that the respective intake is estimated to
are included for comparison purposes, grey bars for ination and
be 0.12 hm3/year, though the actual volume is certainly higher due
interest rates, and a black line plotted for electricity. From 2016
to unaccounted intakes. Since those sources are mainly of brackish
onwards, it shows the projections of ination and interest rates
nature, the Boa Vista network has relied mainly on desalination
(blue bars). As for electricity prices, projections were generated
processes of both brackish and seawater under Reverse Osmosis
separately based on trends identied in IEA (2016) and EIA (2017)
(RO) plants with a joint capacity of 3750 m3/day, coupled with
for price variations in the electricity generation matrix: solar,
energy recovery systems.
wind, diesel and fuel oil 180/380 (3.5%). All possibilities are oulined
In terms of service coverage, following the multi-objective
by the grey shaded area, which includes the 2 trends considered
continuous survey 2014, 32.5% of the households were served by
(reference case and high oil prices). Please note that Fig. 4(c) con-
piped network, 1.2% from neighbors, 26.7% by water delivery trucks,
siders the planned electricity generation matrix, which is modied
39.1% by standpipes, and 0.6% from other sources (INE, 2015). The
for the collocation scenarios.
system is managed by the water and energy utility of Boa Vista
The investment plan (IP) for the time frame covers a dened
(AEB), an institutional public-private partnership. The institutional
portfolio which is kept for all scenarios when possible (as in water
framework also covers an economic regulator (ARE) responsible for
distribution). Furthermore, following the data highlighted in
setting tariffs, which nowadays is structured under a 3 block IRT
Bricen ~ o-Garmendia and Benitez (2011) and ICA (2016), infrastruc-
with block-changes at 6 and 10 m3 (see Fig. 3 for an historic
ture was considered to be subsidized 40% through grants (directly
deducted) and the remaining 60% through loans (added under
1
longterm credit). Concerning subsidization, there is a relevant
Fig. 3 draws information from the following sources (last accessed on 10/01/
2017): 1) http://les.turismo-em-cabo-verde.webnode.pt/; 2) www.are.cv/index.
distinction between the available possibilities, mainly covering
php?optioncom_content&taskview&id104&Itemid70; and, 3) WWF and access, consumption, and external subsidies to customers. A mix
Wetlands International (2007). was found in terms of subsidizing access and consumption.
222 F.S. Pinto, R.C. Marques / Water Research 126 (2017) 216e231
Fig. 3. Boa Vista protected areas and tariff historic perspective.
The different types of customers considered were established in
accordance with available information for the whole system,
allowing to dene consumption patterns. Note that, in general,
customers do not change consumption patterns very drastically,
and if they have a cheaper source nearby, they will continue to use
it for their main uses.
Therefore, as displayed in A, the main drivers set as objective
functions were unitary price (z1), simplicity (z2), average (z3) and
marginal (z4) price control, as well as affordability (z5). Regarding
the constraints imposed, minimum levels were set while allowing
for inter customer exibility (cross-subsidization). For particular
cost-benet measurements made in the post-processing stage, we
used a rate able to consider the nancial opportunity cost for dis-
counting. Table 3 highlights the parameters and assumptions used
to develop all scenarios, as well as the main MOO model features.
Main data sources, software used and input data are highlighted in
Appendix B (e.g., plant capacity, lifetime and availability).
During the whole process, the focus group was engaged and
provided relevant feedback. Initially, there was an interest in un-
derstanding and developing the operational link between costs of
supply, possible investments, unconstrained tariffs and customers.
Afterwards, as most members of the focus group were concerned
with the software used (B), we built a graphical user interface (GUI).
The feedback was positive as there was the possibility to easily
assess several optimal tariffs, the impact of proposed investments,
and to discuss policy implications.
4.3. Results achieved: a set of possibilities
The results achieved through the FSP are highlighted in Fig. 5
and Fig. 6 for scenario #1, as well as in Appendix C for the
remaining scenarios.2 In this interactive assessment (Ruiz et al.,
2008), the DM xed two weighting coefcients (l2, l3 0.05)
allowing to vary the remaining l. Since the focus group was mainly
interested in knowing which tariff structure was associated with
the assigned l, we built Fig. 5. The shaded area is only linked to the
tariff structure obtained in those points. In order to guide the focus
group through the Pareto front, the solutions achieved were always
compared to the others (in terms of objective function results). In
Fig. 6, the group was allowed to assess possible variations in price
for all l regarding all customers (shaded area with each customer
color). Charges that do not vary with consumption are framed on
2
Due to lack of information, specic tariff structures and adjustments were ruled
out by the model (at least the structures mentioned in Table 2 are possible to be
modeled).
 F.S. Pinto, R.C. Marques / Water Research 126 (2017) 216e231 223

Fig. 4. Probability density functions for (a) ination and (b) interest rates, as well as (c) projections developed.

Table 3
Model features used for the Boa Vista case study.

Parameters Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Scenario #3 Scenario #4

Ivestment base Boa Vista master plan Boa Vista master plan Collocation project Collocation project
CAPEX Remaining plus IP Remaining plus IP Remaining, part of IP and DEEP Remaining, part of IP and DEEP
Electricity price trend Reference case High oil prices case Reference case High oil prices case
Other O&M Utility data Utility data Utility data/DEEP Utility data/DEEP
Demand The demand was set based on coverage increases and identied consumption patterns.
MOO details
# %
Reference point z01 ; z02 ; z03 ; z04 ; z05 0; 0; 0; 0; 0
lnm Due to constraints, thirty six different sets m of weighting coefcients (n objective functions).
Disposable incomea Relative to HH living on minimum wages (threshold of 3%e5%).
EMQa,b A consumption of 40 L per person per day.
a
Based on PLENAS.
b
EMQ, Essential minimum quantity.

the right side y-axis. The requirements to select particular tariffs
(e.g., minimum to domestic customers) were widely discussed, and
highlighted the inherent tradeoffs.
For decision making purposes, as a result of DM interaction,
constraints were built in the form of which costs should be covered
by tariffs? or what should be subsidized and how?. Answers were
given by the focus group in the form of at least the O&M by tariffs,
exibility in the nancing of capital expenses, EMQ can be sub-
sidized by taxes or transfers or ensure an affordable universal
supply through distribution points.
Regarding the computed objective function values, each one of
them translates how such objective is being achieved or penalized.
Furthermore, by using achievement scalarizing functions, the
model can be solved at reasonable processing time even when
overcharged. A full run, 387468 variables and 258192 constraints,
with pre and post-processing routines may take 55 min; and a
partial run with a single set of ls lasts 9 s. Volume levels considered
possible demand variations (z15%), in fact, disaggregated data was
scarcely available (for customers demand, due to previous tariff
structures info - 3 domestic blocks outline 3 different types of
customers).
The impact of prices to both utility and customers is highly
uncertain, mainly in developing countries where customers may
share collective bills, and the information regarding income,
housing type, family size, and attitude towards water conservation,
is difcult to gather. In the Boa Vista case study, which is driven by
tourism related economic activities, HH size is signicantly
different across the island, and HH with low water consumption
224 F.S. Pinto, R.C. Marques / Water Research 126 (2017) 216e231
Fig. 5. Display of FSP results (scenario #1) regarding domestic tariff structure possibilities, highlighting the objective function results for l 0:18; 0:05; 0:05; 0:45; 0:27
Fig. 6. Display of FSP results (scenario #1), initial values for l 0:18; 0:05; 0:05; 0:45; 0:27 and possible variations (l and year).
may not be poorer than those with higher consumption. E.g., in
block tariffs poorer families that have a lower per capita con-
sumption end up consuming in higher blocks, due to higher HH size
or shared bills. The previous situation is intensied if customers do
not understand the tariff imposed or if previous cheaper brackish
sources are kept. Indeed, if water demand wavers, reducing water
sales, revenues may not be sufcient and unitary costs will rise
(being possibly heightened by having a plant working below pro-
jected capacity).
Furthermore, for the collocation project to be preferable, at least
blended funding (grants/loans) must be promoted, which is
reasonable under public (internal/external) or private (e.g., tourism
related partners) nancing. The tariff design can be modeled to
accommodate different project delivery specications, namely,
being indexed with automatic cost adjustment mechanisms, as,
among others, an energy cost variation driver and/or nancial
related factors (as a consumer price index).
4.4. Policy implications and research needs
A proper cost assessment represents at least a rst step towards
achieving a suitable water tariff, as well as a comparison between
alternative projects. To build comparisons under the same cost
analytical breakdown linked to the opportunity to select which cost
categories to follow (prioritize), possibly including opportunity
costs and the hardly monetized externalities through non-cost
parameters, is policy relevant.3
The mentioned exibility is signicant as different scenarios
may bring different costs related to the project's nature (e.g.,
seawater vs. brackish water, respectively scenarios #1 j #2 and #3 j
#4, or against reclaimed, surface or groundwater) or even with the
actual costs that need to be covered (short run vs. long run marginal
costs). Regarding the reliance on desalination technologies, there is
a likely trend that due to the fast growth rate experienced (lever-
aged by tourism) it will be higher than the one projected in PLENAS,
not disregarding possible pitfalls (Tal, 2017).
The assessment of the whole system allows to foresee how
every type of customer will respond, and avoids the unwanted
promotion of contrasting principles across them (domestic, com-
mercial and industrial customers). Such situation, which impacts
the competitiveness of an industry, may distort the fairness prin-
ciple, promoting a dubious cross-subsidization, and thus, induce
social unrest. Those tariff reforms that raise the overall price tend to
be politically explosive, mainly in developing countries (Nauges
et al., 2015). Therefore, the selection of a suitable combination of
revenues is critical, being a difcult situation of compromise.
Customer type characteristics are a further source of uncertainty
3
The assessment of possibilities should be developed in a more comprehensive
way, as in Eggimann et al. (2016) for wastewater infrastructure.
 F.S. Pinto, R.C. Marques / Water Research 126 (2017) 216e231
that lead, e.g., to changes in demand. This way, it would be inter-
esting to simulate such behavior instead of just assessing absolute
variations and discussing possibilities. Furthermore, the results
achieved outline the requirement to assess the consumption being
subsidized, as customers may be located solely on that block
rendering a possible decit to the utility (see the case study of
Tunisia, in Touzi et al., 2010). Specic attention has to be paid
regarding possible outliers on the dened customer types (e.g., HH
size), which may require tariffs to be structured/adjusted differ-
ently. For Boa Vista, the promotion of an IRT scheme, with a
comparatively lower HH size induced by tourism related foreign
workers, and the current coverage level, can be harmful. In fact, the
access to the system may be constrained to impoverished HH, that
usually have a greater HH size (INE, 2015). Indeed, that is why if the
DMs decide to rely on block tariffs, the variables included should be
carefully evaluated instead of based on ad-hoc considerations.
The set of weighting coefcients established must be assessed
by the DMs, as their selection depends on the chosen political
economic goals (Dalhuisen and Nijkamp, 2002). For ARE, the set of
tariff policies will leave the utilities with little exibility and, thus,
we highlight that all policies have to be adjusted/updated to the
current challenges and their dynamic nature (across time and ter-
ritory). In the Boa Vista case study, although the tariff is frequently
adjusted, its structure should also be assessed. Indeed, water reg-
ulatory agencies must take decisions when facing uncertainties
about the consequences of their actions (Nauges et al., 2015). For
utilities, the FSP provides an operational link between costs of
supply, unconstrained tariffs and customers, which are seldom
considered in practice, leading to inefcient tariffs (Zetland and
Gasson, 2013). Tools such as the FSP are useful to help think sys-
tematically about future possibilities covering tariff policies and
required accompanying measures (Pinto and Marques, 2015a).
5. Concluding remarks
The dire situation of water supply services requires innovative
solutions, which come with practical challenges, demanding the
link between prioritized objectives, technical solutions, and rate
structures, to be part of them. Thus, in this paper we propose the
FSP.
The FSP framework allows stakeholders to make sense of rele-
vant economic information regarding new projects (e.g., desalina-
tion related investments), by integrating multiple required
concepts and translating complex issues into objective information.
Indeed, the FSP allows the decision-making process to be based not
just on costs, but also on the inherent risk and the existing revenue
possibilities. Hence, by considering varying cost parameters at the
whole system level to model revenues, the problem is assessed
globally. In that context, tariff structures drawn from a set of Pareto
optimal solutions (non-dominated/efcient possibilities) will sup-
port utilities to reach their objectives in a swifter way.
Furthermore, we consider in the FSP that the tariff structure
selection process should be based on the availability of data, the
least amount you have, the simpler they should be, as complex
tariffs may become data intensive. Besides, implementing complex
tariffs with no information may promote dubious assumptions, as
highlighted in the case study.
The Boa Vista case study allows to draw key remarks. By
analyzing the commitment on desalination technologies, there is a
clear evolution on the municipality's objectives. In fact, previous
objectives relied on water conservation, due to scarce surface and
groundwater sources, nonetheless, that standpoint changed
completely once there were other alternatives (e.g., with desali-
nation projects). Those changes have an important impact on tariff
structures, perhaps highlighting that the current structure could be
225
updated. Additionally, the collocation scenarios suggest that the
lower treatment cost of brackish water in Lacaca ~o enables different
tariff structure possibilities. The case study gives important insights
into project feasibility, it reveals distinct issues in the nancing of
such projects, and highlights requirements to assess further project
impacts (regulatory, licensing and environmental).
Finally, to reach a requisite tariff system for water supply, the
weighting coefcients set must be assessed by the DMs, as tariff
selection should be built over clear political economic goals.
Moreover, a clear point is that water tariffs should never be a stand
alone framework, as there is a need for additional policies (as
accompanying measures) in order to achieve the desired objectives.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers and
managing editor for their insightful suggestions. A word of appre-
ciation also goes to all the participants of the 2nd International
Conference on Desalination and Environment (Doha, 23e26
January 2016), the 2nd seminar on European Water Utility Man-
agement (Oviedo, 28e29 June 2016), and the International
Workshop on Water Tariffs, Governance and IWRM for Sustain-
ability (Cebu City, 10e12 August 2016) for their contributions
throughout the initial stages of this research. The authors would
also like to thank all the stakeholders from Cabo Verde for their
valuable support, as well as Prof. Jose
! Rui Figueira, and all MCDA/M
2016 Summer School participants, for their valuable suggestions
regarding the model. The authors received no funding for this
research and have no further conicts of interest. Any errors and
omissions are the responsibility of the authors. The usual
disclaimer applies.
Appendix A. Model specications
In accordance with the workow dened in Fig. 2, as well as
with the information given in Section 3 and Section 4, the following
model was co-constructed through the interaction between ana-
lysts and the focus group.
Sets and indices
The sets and indices used are:
n o
I n1; ; i; ; io is the set of types of customers;
J 1; ; j; ; j is the set of unitary assignments to which a
price can be made (e.g., 1 m3);
K f1; ; k; ; ng is the set of achievements (objective
functions)
& to be reached;
'
L 1; ; [; ; [ is the time frame.
Model parameters
The model designed has some parameters that are single values,
others vary with the dened sets, as follows:
hi[ is the number of customers of type i in year [, for all i2I, and
[2L.
zi[ is the monthly water quantity per customer, m3/(custom-
er.month), demanded by customers i in year [, for all i2I, and
[2L.
a[ is an interest/discount rate in year [, for all [2L.
cc[ are the capital (CAPEX) and nancial costs (and possibly
other related layouts) incurred by the utility to provide water
supply services in year [, for all [2L.
226 F.S. Pinto, R.C. Marques / Water Research 126 (2017) 216e231

cm i[ are the (monthly) management/business unitary costs b) Total revenue

incurred by the utility to provide water supply services to
customer type i in year [ (e.g., billing, collection, metering and 0 1
related services), for all i2I, and [2L. X
co[ are the O&M costs (excluding cm r ti[ 12@xi[ yij[ vij[ Ahi[ ; i2I; j2J; [2L (A.2)
i[ ) incurred by the utility to
provide water supply services in year [, for all [2L. j2J

cui[ are the unitary O&M costs incurred by the utility in pro-
ducing and distributing water supply services to customer type i
in year [, for all i2I, and [2L.
cx[ are the unitary total average costs incurred by the utility in c) Cost-benet measurement (discounted cost, in general)
providing water supply services in year [, for all [2L.
d[ is the disposable income of a household with 2 minimum
X ca[
wages in year [, for all [2L. cd (A.3)
t is the threshold related to the burden with water supply [2L 1 a[ [
services on each household's disposable income (affordability
ratio).
q is the essential minimum quantity that each household re-
quires in order to attend its basic needs. d) Cost-benet measurement (discounted revenues, in general)

XX r ti[
Decision variables rd (A.4)
[2L i2I 1 a[ [
The decision variables considered were:

xij is the xed price paid by customer type i in year [, for all i2I
and [2L. e) Cost recovery
yij[ is the price paid by customer type i, for volume j, in year [,
for all i2I, j2J, and [2L. X
vij[ is a binary variable that highlights consumption by r ti[ " ca[ ; [2L (A.5)
customer type i, in volume j, year [, for all i2I, j2J, and [2L. i2I
b[i[ is a binary variable that detects the existence of a volu- Note #1: The cost recovery was considered annually due to the
metric component in customer type i, and year [, for all i2I, and provider's nature and to avoid inter year transitions/income tax
[2L. considerations.
bcij[ is a binary variable that identies a price change in
customer type i, volume j, year [, for all i2I, j2J, and [2L.
pm f) Volumetric component identier
ij[ identies how far from the marginal operating cost is the
marginal price paid by customer type i, volume j, in year [, for all
i2I, j2J, and [2L. X
puij[ identies how far from the average cost is the marginal yij[ ' n b[i[ ; i2I; [2L; n[0 (A.6)
j2J
price paid by customer type i, volume j, in year [, for all i2I, j2J,
and [2L.
r a[ identies how far from threshold t on a household's
disposable income is the price paid for the EMQ in year [, for all
[2L. g) Price change (i.e., block) identier
ca[ is the total cost incurred by the utility to provide water
supply services in year [, for all [2L.
yij[ syij0 [ bcij[ 1; i2I; j; j0 2J : j 1 j0 ; [2L (A.7)
r ti[ is the total revenue made through water supply tariffs by
customer type i, in year [, for all i2I, [2L.
cd is the total discounted cost incurred by the utility to provide
water supply services.
rd is the total discounted revenue made through water supply h) Average price control
tariffs.
X ! " X
xil yij0 [ vij0 [ 1 puij[ vij0 [ cx[ ; i2I; j2J; [2L
j0 2J:j0 'j j0 2J:j0 'j
Expressions and Constraints
(A.8)
There are several types of expressions and constraints:

a) Total cost
i) Marginal price control

X ! "
ca[ cc[ co[ 12 b[i[ cm
i[ hi[ ; [2L (A.1)
yij[ 1 pm u
ij[ ci[ ; i2I; j2J; [2L (A.9)
i2I
 F.S. Pinto, R.C. Marques / Water Research 126 (2017) 216e231 227

j) Affordability constraints (tax rate 15%) X$ $

min $r a $ (A.16)
[
0 1 [2L
X # %
1:15@xi[ yij[ vij[ A 1 r a[ t d[ ; Note #4: All functions are modeled into eq. (2) to solve the
j2J;j'q
(A.10) problem.
i fDomesticg2I; [2L

Appendix B. Data sources

k) Water consumption

(
1; j ' zil
vij[ ; i2I; j2J; [2L (A.11) Table B.1
0; j > zil
Parameters used and respective sources, last consulted in January 2017
Note #2: Additional constraints are required/possible, namely: Parameter Description Value Main sources
1) based on variable boundaries (e.g., min, max, inter year and inter
hil Number of customers of type i in year [, for e Utility data, IP
block variations); and, further consumption patterns. all i2I, and [2L. and Master
plans
zil Monthly water consumption per customer, e Utility data and
Objective functions m3/(customer.month), demanded by IP
customer type i in year [, for all i2I, and
There are ve objective functions: [2L.
al Interest/discount rate in year [, for all [2L. e World Banka
ccl Capital and nancial costs (and possibly e Utility data, IP,
Unitary price z1 - In this function, the objective is to mini- other related layouts) incurred by the and DEEP
mize all unitary prices, both xed and variable price utility to provide water supply services in
components. year [, for all [2L.
cm Management/business (monthly) unitary e Utility data
X X X! " il
costs incurred by the utility to provide
min xi[ yij[ (A.12) water supply services to customer type i in
i2I j2J [2L year [ (e.g., billing, collection, metering and
related services), for all i2I, and [2L.
Note #3: Weighting coefcients may be applied to differentiate, col O&M costs (excluding cm ) incurred by the e Utility data, IP,
il
e.g., cross-customer subsidization. Those coefcients are assigned utility to provide water supply services in and DEEP
through DM interaction, as highlighted in Section 4.3. year [, for all [2L.
cuil Unitary O&M costs incurred by the utility e Utility data, IP,
in producing and distributing water supply and DEEP
Simplicity z2 - In this function, the goal is to minimize price
services to customer type i in year [, for all
changes so that tariff structures can be understood in an easier i2I, and [2L.
way. The aim is to model the identication of volumetric com- cxl Unitary total average costs incurred by the e Utility data, IP,
ponents (eq. (A.6)) and block changes (eq. (A.7)). utility in providing water supply services in and DEEP
year [, for all [2L.
X X X! [ " dl Disposable income of a household with e INE (2015)
min bi[ bcij[ (A.13) 2 min wages in year [, for all [2L.
i2I j2J [2L T Threshold related to the burden with water e PLENAS
supply services on each household's
disposable income (affordability ratio).
Average price control z3 - In this function, the goal is to q EMQ that each household requires in order e PLENAS
to attend its basic needs.
follow economic principles where distortions between prices
Desalination plant model parametersb
and average costs are minimized. The aim is to model price/cost Characteristics of desalination plant
distortions (eq. (A.8)). #1 Desalination technology RO e
#2 Plant Capacity (m3d) 2240 e
X X X$$ $$ #3 Feed Salinity (ppm) 20000
$puij[ $
e
min (A.14)
#4 Average feed temperature (( C) 25 e
i2I j2J [2L Operation and performance data
#5 Water plant lead time (months) 12 e
#6 Lifetime of water plant (year) 20 e
Marginal price control z4 - In this function, the goal is to #7 Water plant operating availability (%) 90 e
follow economic principles where distortions between volu- #8 Water plant planned outage rate (%) 3.2 e
#9 Water plant unplanned outage rate (%) 6.0 e
metric based prices and operational costs are minimized. The
#10 Water plant owners cost factor (%) 5.0 e
aim is to model price/cost distortions (eq. (A.9)). #11 Water plant cost contingency factor (%) 15 e
X X X$$ $$ #12 Water plant O&M insurance cost (%) 0.5 e
min $pm
ij[ $ (A.15) Note: The FSP main routine (model in A) was compiled and solved using the IBM
i2I j2J [2L ILOG Cplex Optimization Studio v12.6, whereas most pre and post-processing
routines, as well as the GUI (Graphical User Interface), were developed in MAT-
LAB R2015b.
a
Affordability z5 - In this function, the goal is to follow social b
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/.
The data used considered the information in: https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPo
principles. The focus is to promote the access to a dened
wer/NEA_Desalination/index.html.
quantity of water at an affordable price to customers. The aim is
to model price/disposable income distortions (eq. (A.10)).
228 F.S. Pinto, R.C. Marques / Water Research 126 (2017) 216e231

Appendix C. Display of FSP results for the remaining

scenarios (#2, #3 and #4)

Note: The shaded areas in the domestic tariff structure possi-

bilities were left as obtained in Fig. 5, for scenario #1, in order to
have a comparable basis.

Fig. C.2 Display of FSP results (scenario #2), initial values for
l 0:18; 0:05; 0:05; 0:45; 0:27 and possible variations (l and year).

Fig. C.1 Display of FSP results (scenario #2) regarding domestic tariff structure possi-
bilities, highlighting the objective function results for l 0:18; 0:05; 0:05; 0:45; 0:27.
 F.S. Pinto, R.C. Marques / Water Research 126 (2017) 216e231 229

Fig. C.4 Display of FSP results (scenario #3), initial values for
l 0:18; 0:05; 0:05; 0:45; 0:27 and possible variations (l and year).

Fig. C.3 Display of FSP results (scenario #3) regarding domestic tariff structure possi-
bilities, highlighting the objective function results for l 0:18; 0:05; 0:05; 0:45; 0:27.
230 F.S. Pinto, R.C. Marques / Water Research 126 (2017) 216e231

Fig. C.6 Display of FSP results (scenario #4), initial values for
l 0:18; 0:05; 0:05; 0:45; 0:27 and possible variations (l and year).

References

AACE, 1997a. Cost Estimate Classication System. Recommended Practice 17-R-97.

AACE International, Morgantown.
AACE, 1997b. Cost Estimate Classication System - as Applied in Engineering,
Procurement, and Construction for the Process Industries. Recommended
Practice 18-R-97. AACE International, Morgantown.
ANAS, 2016. Plano Estrate !gico Nacional de Prevena ~o e Gest~
ao de Resduos -
PENGeR ((translated as: Waste Management and Prevention National Plan).
Startegic National Plan). Ministry of Environment, Housing, and Territorial
Planning, Praia.
Angel-Urdinola, D.F., Wodon, Q., 2012. Does increasing access to infrastructure
services improve the targeting performance of water subsidies? J. Int. Dev. 24,
88e101.
AWWA, 2012. Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges. AWWA Manual M1,
sixth ed. AWWA, Denver.
Aymerich, I., Rieger, L., Sobhani, R., Rosso, D., Corominas, L., 2015. The difference
between energy consumption and energy cost: modelling energy tariff struc-
tures for water resource recovery facilities. Water Res. 81, 113e123.
Banerjee, S., Foster, V., Ying, Y., Skilling, H., Wodon, Q., 2010. Cost Recovery, Equity,
and Efciency in Water Tariffs - Evidence from African Utilities. Policy Research
Working Paper 5384. The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Barak, A., 2012. Economic aspects of water desalination. In: Lior, N. (Ed.), Advances
in Water Desalination. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, pp. 197e308 (chapter 3).
Biller, B., Nelson, B.L., 2003. Modeling and generating multivariate time-series input
processes using a vector autoregressive technique. ACM Trans. Model. Comput.
Simul. (TOMACS) 13, 211e237.
Bricen~ o-Garmendia, C., Benitez, D., 2011. Cape Verde's Infrastructure: a Continental
Perspective. Policy Research Working Paper 5687. The World Bank, Washington,
DC.
Cabello, J., Ruiz, F., Pe !rez-Gladish, B., Me !ndez-Rodrguez, P., 2014. Synthetic in-
dicators of mutual funds environmental responsibility: an application of the
reference point method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 236, 313e325.
Fig. C.5 Display of FSP results (scenario #4) regarding domestic tariff structure possi-
Cardone, R., Fonseca, C., 2003. Financing and Cost Recovery. Thematic Overview
bilities, highlighting the objective function results for l 0:18; 0:05; 0:05; 0:45; 0:27.
Paper 7. International Water and Sanitation Centre (IRC), Netherlands.
Caron, D.A., Garneau, M.E., # Seubert, E., Howard, M.D., Darjany, L., Schnetzer, A.,
Cetini!c, I., Filteau, G., Lauri, P., Jones, B., et al., 2010. Harmful algae and their
potential impacts on desalination operations off southern California. Water Res.
44, 385e416.
Cooper, B., Burton, M., Crase, L., 2011. Urban water restrictions: attitudes and
avoidance. Water Resour. Res. 47, 1e13.
Dalhuisen, J., Nijkamp, P., 2002. Critical factors for achieving multiple goals with
water tariff systems: combining limited data sources and expert testimony.
Water Resour. Res. 38, 1e11.
Dujardin, Y., Vanderpooten, D., Boillot, F., 2015. A multi-objective interactive system
 F.S. Pinto, R.C. Marques / Water Research 126 (2017) 216e231
for adaptive trafc control. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 244, 601e610.
Dysert, L.R., 2007. Estimating. In: Amos, S.J. (Ed.), Skills & Knowledge of Cost En-
gineering, fth ed. AACE International (chapter 9).
EBES, DHV, 2012. Design of New WASH National Institutional Environment. Final
Report. Millennium Challenge Account Cabo Verde, Praia.
Eggimann, S., Truffer, B., Maurer, M., 2016. The cost of hybrid waste water systems: a
systematic framework for specifying minimum cost-connection rates. Water
Res. 103, 472e484.
EIA, 2017. Annual Energy Outlook 2017. U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Figueira, J.R., Liefooghe, A., Talbi, E.G., Wierzbicki, A.P., 2010. A parallel multiple
reference point approach for multi-objective optimization. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 205,
390e400.
Global Water Intelligence, 2014. Introduction and the americas. In: Global Water
Market 2014, vol. 1. Media Analytics Ltd., Oxford.
Grifn, R., 2001. Effective water pricing. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 37, 1335e1347.
Gude, V.G., 2016. Desalination and sustainability e an appraisal and current
perspective. Water Res. 89, 87e106.
Hanemann, W., 1993. Designing new water rates for Los Angeles. J. Contemp. Water
Res. Educ. 92, 11e21.
Hoque, S., Wichelns, D., 2013. State-of-the-art review: designing urban water tariffs
to recover costs and promote wise use. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 29, 472e491.
ICA, 2016. Infrastructure Financing Trends in Africa - 2015. Annual Report. The
Infrastructure Consortium for Africa, Abidjan.
IEA, 2016. World Energy Outlook 2016. International Energy Agency, Paris.
INE, 2015. Inque !rito Multi-objectivo Contnuo 2014 (translated as: Multi-objective
Continuous Survey 2014). Instituto Nacional de Estatstica, Praia.
Jenkins, G., 1978. Ination and Cost-benet Analysis. Development Discussion Pa-
pers. JDI Executive Programs.
Kavvadias, K., Khamis, I., 2014. Sensitivity analysis and probabilistic assessment of
seawater desalination costs fueled by nuclear and fossil fuel. Energy Policy 74,
S24eS30.
Lianyu, C., Tiong, R.L., 2005. Minimum feasible tariff model for BOT water supply
projects in Malaysia. Constr. Manag. Econ. 23, 255e263.
Lus, A., Lickorish, F., Pollard, S., 2016. Evolution of strategic risks under future
scenarios for improved utility master plans. Water Res. 88, 719e727.
Marlow, D.R., Moglia, M., Cook, S., Beale, D.J., 2013. Towards sustainable urban water
management: a critical reassessment. Water Res. 47, 7150e7161.
Massoud, M.A., Tarhini, A., Nasr, J.A., 2009. Decentralized approaches to wastewater
treatment and management: applicability in developing countries. J. Environ.
Manag. 90, 652e659.
Miettinen, K., Ma kela
, M.M., 2002. On scalarizing functions in multiobjective
optimization. OR Spectr. 24, 193e213.
Mun ~ oz, I., Fern!andez-Alba, A.R., 2008. Reducing the environmental impacts of
reverse osmosis desalination by using brackish groundwater resources. Water
Res. 42, 801e811.
Nauges, C., Whittington, D., 2017. Evaluating the performance of alternative
municipal water tariff designs: quantifying the tradeoffs between equity, eco-
nomic efciency, and cost recovery. World Dev. 91, 125e143.
Nauges, C., Whittington, D., El-Alfy, M., 2015. A simulation model for understanding
the consequences of alternative water and wastewater tariff structures: a case
study of Fayoum, Egypt. In: Grafton, Q., Daniell, K.A., Nauges, C., Rinaudo, J.D.,
Chan, N.W.W. (Eds.), Understanding and Managing Urban Water in Transition,
vol. 15. Springer, pp. 359e381.
OECD, 1999. Household Water Pricing in OECD Countries. OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD, 2009. Managing Water for All. OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD, 2010. Pricing Water Resources and Water and Sanitation Services. OECD
Publishing, Paris.
231
ORWA Department/SNFO, 2014. Cabo Verde. Country Strategy Paper 2014-2018.
African Development Bank, Dakar.
Park, C., Park, P.K., Mane, P.P., Hyung, H., Gandhi, V., Kim, S.H., Kim, J.H., 2010.
Stochastic cost estimation approach for full-scale reverse osmosis desalination
plants. J. Membr. Sci. 364, 52e64.
Peel, M.C., Finlayson, B.L., McMahon, T.A., 2007. Updated world map of the ko ppen-
geiger climate classication. Hydrol. earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 4, 439e473.
Pinto, F., Figueira, J., Marques, R., 2015. A multi-objective approach with soft con-
straints for water supply and wastewater coverage improvements. Eur. J. Oper.
Res. 246, 609e618.
Pinto, F.S., Marques, R.C., 2015a. Tariff recommendations: a panacea for the Portu-
guese water sector? Util. Policy 34, 36e44.
Pinto, F.S., Marques, R.C., 2015b. Tariff structures for water and sanitation urban
households: a primer. Water Policy 17, 1108e1126.
Pinto, F.S., Marques, R.C., 2016. Tariff suitability framework for water supply ser-
vices: establishing a regulatory tool linking multiple stakeholders' objectives.
Water Resour. Manag. 30, 2037e2053.
Pinto, F.S., Marques, R.C., 2017. Desalination projects economic feasibility: a stan-
dardization of cost determinants. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 78, 904e915.
Raftelis, G.A., 2014. Water and Wastewater Finance and Pricing: the Changing
Landscape. CRC Press.
Rigotti, L., Shannon, C., 2005. Uncertainty and risk in nancial markets. Econo-
metrica 203e243.
Rogers, P., Bhatia, R., Huber, A., 1998. Water as a Social and Economic Good: How to
Put the Principle into Practice. TAC Background Papers 2. Global Water Part-
nership/Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Stockholm,
Sweden.
Ruiz, F., Luque, M., Miguel, F., del Mar Mun ! oz, M., 2008. An additive achievement
scalarizing function for multiobjective programming problems. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
188, 683e694.
Scarpa, R., Willis, K.G., Acutt, M., 2007. Valuing externalities from water supply:
status quo, choice complexity and individual random effects in panel kernel
logit analysis of choice experiments. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 50, 449e466.
Tal, A., 2017. Will demography defeat river rehabilitation efforts? The case of the
River Jordan. Water Res. 111, 404e419.
Touzi, S., Barraque !, B., Treyer, S., 2010. Potable water supply in Tunisia. Rev. Tiers
Monde 61e80.
Voutchkov, N., 2011. Overview of seawater concentrate disposal alternatives.
Desalination 273, 205e219.
WHO, UNICEF, 2014. Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation, 2014 Update.
WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation,
New York and Geneva.
Wierzbicki, A., Makowski, M., Wessels, J. (Eds.), 2000. Model-based Decision Sup-
port Methodology with Environmental Applications. Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers, Dordrecht.
Wierzbicki, A.P., 1980. The Use of Reference Objectives in Multiobjective Optimi-
zation, in: Multiple Criteria Decision Making Theory and Application. Springer,
Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 468e486.
World Bank, 2016. PPP Conversion Factor, private consumption (LCU per interna-
tional $). International Comparison Program database. http://data.worldbank.o
rg/indicator/PA.NUS.PRVT.PP. (Accessed 1 February 2017).
WWF, Wetlands International, 2007. Proposta de Plano de Gest~ ao de Zonas HA-
midas Boavista/Cabo Verde (translated as: Proposal for a wetland management
plan). Technical Report. Ministe !rio do Ambiente e Agricultura (Ministry for the
Environment and Agriculture).
Zetland, D., Gasson, C., 2013. A global survey of urban water tariffs: are they sus-
tainable, efcient and fair? Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 29, 327e342.