|-
|style="color:black; background-color:#C0C0C0;"|No service
|style="color:black; background-color:#C0C0C0;"|No separation between user and faeces, e.g. open deficationdefecation
|}
Source: Potter et al., 2011, page 21
The service levels and criteria for sanitation can be adapted for use at workplaces and in schools and colleges.
====Water====
A water service level characterises the benefits that users receive, measured by a combination of criteria (see table 2). The household service level is determined by the lowest level of service on any of four service criteria: ''quantity, quality, accessibility or reliability'' (Moriarty et.al, 2011). These criteria can vary across countries, with the basic level of service being the national norm. Typically, a higher level of service means more of every criterion. Each criterion is measured by one or more indicators. For example, the indicator for reliability is the number of days when water is available throughout the year.
'''Table 2. Water service levels'''
{|style="color: white; background-color:#4682B4;" class="wikitable"
|Service levels
|Quantity (litres per person per day)
|Quality
|Accessibility (minutes / capita / day)
|Reliability
|-
|style="color:black; background-color:#ADD8E6;"|'''High'''
|style="color:black; background-color:#ADD8E6;"| Greater than 60
|style="color:black; background-color:#ADD8E6;"|Good
|style="color:black; background-color:#ADD8E6;"|Less than 10
|style="color:black; background-color:#ADD8E6;"|Very reliable
|-
|style="color:black; background-color:#E0FFFF;"|'''Intermediate'''
|style="color:black; background-color:#E0FFFF;"|Greater than 40
|rowspan="2" style="color:black; background-color:#ffffff;"|Acceptable
|rowspan="2" style="color:black; background-color:#ffffff;"|Less than 30
|rowspan="2" style="color:black; background-color:#ffffff;"|Reliable / secure
|-
|style="color:black; background-color:#ffffff;"|'''Basic (normal level)'''
|style="color:black; background-color:#ffffff;"|Greater than 20
|-
|style="color:black; background-color:#D3D3D3;"|'''Substandard'''
|style="color:black; background-color:#D3D3D3;"|Greater than 5
|style="color:black; background-color:#D3D3D3;"|Problematic
|style="color:black; background-color:#D3D3D3;"|Less than 60
|style="color:black; background-color:#D3D3D3;"|Problematic
|-
|style="color:black; background-color:#C0C0C0;"|'''No service'''
|style="color:black; background-color:#C0C0C0;"|Less than 5
|style="color:black; background-color:#C0C0C0;"|Unacceptable
|style="color:black; background-color:#C0C0C0;"|Greater than 60
|style="color:black; background-color:#C0C0C0;"|Unreliable / insecure
|}
Source: Moriarty et al., 2011, page 12
<br>
The life cycle cost approach has been developed in the [http://www.washcost.info/ WASHCost project]. WASHCost was led by IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, running from 2008 to 2012, in rural and peri-urban areas of Burkina Faso, Ghana, India, and Mozambique.
==Key documents==
Fonseca, C. et al., 2011. [http://www.washcost.info/page/1557 Life-cycle costs approach: costing sustainable services]. (WASHCost Briefing Note 1a). The Hague, The Netherlands: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre.
Moriarty, P. et al., 2011. [http://www.washcost.info/page/753 Ladders for assessing and costing water service delivery]. (WASHCost Working Paper 2). 2nd ed. The Hague, The Netherlands: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre.
Potter, A. et al., 2011. [http://www.washcost.info/page/902 Assessing sanitation service levels]. (WASHCost Working Paper 3). 2nd ed.
The Hague, The Netherlands: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre.