Cost-Benefit Analysis

The study values EPIC against conventional irrigation on a life-cycle basis, counting capital, water, energy and maintenance over the full horizon rather than purchase price alone, and prices the comparison with the water tariffs currently published by utilities in the GCC.

Each analysis compares conventional surface-spray irrigation with EPIC on a full turnkey basis over a 20-year horizon, with turf as the reference planting. Returns are shown at two water prices, one for a site displacing potable water and one for a site already on recycled water. Pumping energy for spray systems is not credited to EPIC, and avoided drainage capital is treated as an additional benefit rather than built into the headline payback.

Part I explains why passive subsurface economics differ, the two levers of saving (using less water, and using cheaper water such as treated sewage effluent or on-site greywater) and the cost and benefit drivers in order of influence. Part II documents the model, the tariffs of four GCC markets, the system cost basis, and the energy, carbon and credit frameworks. Part III benchmarks EPIC technically and on life-cycle cost, and values the drainage function delivered in the same asset.

Part IV works through five scenarios: a sports field, a municipal landscape, a metropolitan park, a greywater community and a national afforestation programme. Part V draws the return together across the scenarios, sets out why the case applies in the GCC, lists risks with their mitigations, and closes with an appendix on green finance and rating frameworks. The study is prepared for engineers, consultants, developers and planners.